No introspection today... Maybe later.
PLEASE - If you get an email with the subject "URGENT NOTIFICATION FROM THE BILLING DEPARTMENT" Scan that sucker with your anti-virus. DO NOT OPEN IT. I got zapped by the Phisbank.BV trojan virus. Please, there are some sick people out there that didn't get enough love or attention during their formative years. They use their talents to mess up your compu and mine. While my heart goes out to their hurting humanity, my anger burns against their malice (Hey, I'm Mexican and Peruvian, with a bit of Irish thrown in the mix... How do you spell pugnacious? P - A - B - L - O).
Here is a link that the folks at Microsoft provided me to clean most viruses. The downside is that you need to be On-Line (my compu was not working well as her memory was all tied up with the virus) to access it. http://housecall.trendmicro.com/housecall Download the the program to clean your disk and run the program. Click on the options "AUTO DELETE" and indicate which drives you want to have scanned. The guy at Microsoft recommended that you click "My Computer."
You may want to go to your favorite antivirus program and update the definitions.
Here is a link regarding hoax emails and how to address them.
More introspection, kvetching, theology and general musings later. Thanks for reading.
- tDF
November 30, 2004
November 29, 2004
Into the Forge
There has been much on my mind in the last several days. I am finishing the term, one that has been complicated by circumstances that have reached an almost surreal level of complication. The results have been harsh on my academics. I am finishing the term, but doing so ignominiously. I have been waiting for financial aid since September (“It’s being processed… Two more weeks…") and have just learned that my paperwork was finally approved. I will be meeting with that office today to beg, plead to get a check cut ASAP as my rent is due; my landlord is under pressure from her bosses to collect or evict. I was only able to pay a partial payment so I have to come up with $1475.00, half of which will come from paychecks. I need the aid office to cut $1000.00 now. MM talked to me shortly after I got the call from my landlady. All I could say was, “life sucks.” She asked why, I told her I’d talk to her about it later.
I feel like I’ve become a fraction of the man that I am.
Meanwhile, the limbo of my license still is causing difficulties. I am not supposed to drive, but will have to take that risk on Thursday and possibly today and Tuesday (how to get gas and parking money?). More anxiety, more stress.
I hate to say that my life has careened off of its tracks and is spinning out of control. Looking at work that has to be done for school, I may have to cancel subbing gigs this week.
This feels like the anvil. I need to get past the pounding that will occur this week and hopefully I will find myself forged, annealed, and formed anew. But the hammer can shatter as well as form.
It will be a make-me or break-me week. No dramatics or histrionics here, just the truth.
Day by day… just go day by day.
Writing to MM later in the day I had news. It is not all that I wanted, but I will take what I can get. Help is help. I sent MM this email around 5:15 in the evening, following a meeting with the aid office and reviewing the info on the webpage at school:
-tDF
I feel like I’ve become a fraction of the man that I am.
Meanwhile, the limbo of my license still is causing difficulties. I am not supposed to drive, but will have to take that risk on Thursday and possibly today and Tuesday (how to get gas and parking money?). More anxiety, more stress.
I hate to say that my life has careened off of its tracks and is spinning out of control. Looking at work that has to be done for school, I may have to cancel subbing gigs this week.
This feels like the anvil. I need to get past the pounding that will occur this week and hopefully I will find myself forged, annealed, and formed anew. But the hammer can shatter as well as form.
It will be a make-me or break-me week. No dramatics or histrionics here, just the truth.
Day by day… just go day by day.
Writing to MM later in the day I had news. It is not all that I wanted, but I will take what I can get. Help is help. I sent MM this email around 5:15 in the evening, following a meeting with the aid office and reviewing the info on the webpage at school:
As they say, I have good news and bad news... The good news is that they have FINALLY approved my grants (loans are still in process). The bad news is that the loans are still being processed. The amount that they will release is substantially less than needed, but will address the current hemorrhage that I am experiencing. It is not a cure, it is more a tourniquet. Still, best be thankful for small miracles. On to stage two of the battle. Fun.I am fortunate. I have a woman that loves me. I have friends that care about me. I have my 'blogging community that sends words of support (Thanks to Stacey and to Jeni) and thoughts of light and peace. I think that when it is all said and done that I shall need to take a weekend retreat to sit by the ocean and consider what has happened and how life has been since it occured. Not out of the woods yet, but one helluva lot closer than I was earlier.
There is one thing that stands clear on my horizon, I am loved by a woman that I care deeply and passionately about. I am holding that thought and it is a non-toxic life preserver in this storm. Ah, to be loved by you...
That is the best of all news. And with that I am indeed a fortunate man.
- p
-tDF
November 27, 2004
Redux
I had posted a rather vitriolic entry regarding my birth family. I read it and realized that it was not what I wanted this blog to be about and deleted it. It is true; I do not really consider that my birth family is a family to me. I’ve read some blogs where horrors are recounted beyond anything that I experienced. I will say this about my birth family: we did not want for anything material. My father did well financially. We lived in a neighborhood that I will never be able to afford. While my father may have been a poor businessman, he made a wise choice in buying where and when he did.
It was what went on behind the perfect walls of our perfect home that still vexes me: I was regularly beaten down with words and often with fists. There is no need to rehearse the details of my private hell; I was hated in school, isolated and alone, that disaffected kid that everybody picked on but could snap in a moment. I was ridiculed at home for being stupid, for never meeting the expectations that my family had of me, for never being good enough.
After a while my father took to beating me. My mother still denies that this happened. I still have nightmares about the violence, having my face smashed into the side of the house because I could not do algebra and then the snide comments about quadratic equations that he would make all the way through graduate school. One day he looked at me and told me that I had no idea what he lived through, as if to explain or justify his actions. At the time I was not sympathetic. I still am not. I knew what I lived through. I know the scars and the emotional handicap that I still carry to this day.
This brings me to the reason why I deleted the entry: I was blaming them for what I am and how I live. The one thing that they could not break – though it was damaged, bent and twisted – was my will. Personal responsibility is big in my world. I make my own choices of what I do and what I do not do. I am responsible, not my past, for the success that I have and the failures that I endure.
I had something of an epiphany today: I do not communicate well with others. I know that it is easy for me to become turtle like when threatened in any way. I draw deeply within. This is a long-term conditioned response. I don't ask for help. I would separate myself from the beatings, from the ridicule to endure them. Sad to say, it has marked my way in the world. There are things that I should have said and things that I should have been more forthright about that I chose not to say for fear of … (fill in the blank). This is a behavior that does not help me. It harms me. I have to overcome it.
This has marked the past year. One of the great joys of keeping this journal is that I can go back and look at what was happening and ask what I have learned. This, more than anything, has been my downfall. I have to become more verbal, stand up and speak to the people that hold power over circumstances that are only worsened by my silence. I have defaulted into passivity. This must change.
For what it’s worth, I do not consider that I have a family. A family is bound together by love and concern for one another. Ridicule and scorn do not fall into the equation. This is their way of being in the world. I will have nothing to do with it. These are the people that damn near drove me to suicide when I was younger. I do not consider that they are healthy for me. I wish them well, my parents and my sister, but want as little contact with them as possible.
I don’t know how to overcome the fear that I feel within me. It is like a toxic life-preserver that I clung to not to drown. It kept me afloat to live through the crisis, but the residual chemicals still course through my veins. I doubt that I will ever completely overcome the fear and anxiety that vexes me, forty-seven and a half years are a long time to live with this thing, this self-loathing.
I was in therapy for a while. I was asked to imagine myself as a child. I saw a foul, dirty, mean child that was afraid. My therapist told me to go to him and embrace him. I didn’t want to, he was too horrible. In my mind’s eye there was this grotesque child that seemed like one of the street kids that live somewhere in a third-world country. He told me that he is afraid and needs love. I said that he needed to be put out of his misery. That was my mother’s voice that said that. She was worst than he was. I tried so hard to protect her from my father’s wrath, all the while she played us off against each other.
But there is still that child. What to do? How can I begin to hold him and let him know that the nightmare is over? Is it too late?
It was what went on behind the perfect walls of our perfect home that still vexes me: I was regularly beaten down with words and often with fists. There is no need to rehearse the details of my private hell; I was hated in school, isolated and alone, that disaffected kid that everybody picked on but could snap in a moment. I was ridiculed at home for being stupid, for never meeting the expectations that my family had of me, for never being good enough.
After a while my father took to beating me. My mother still denies that this happened. I still have nightmares about the violence, having my face smashed into the side of the house because I could not do algebra and then the snide comments about quadratic equations that he would make all the way through graduate school. One day he looked at me and told me that I had no idea what he lived through, as if to explain or justify his actions. At the time I was not sympathetic. I still am not. I knew what I lived through. I know the scars and the emotional handicap that I still carry to this day.
This brings me to the reason why I deleted the entry: I was blaming them for what I am and how I live. The one thing that they could not break – though it was damaged, bent and twisted – was my will. Personal responsibility is big in my world. I make my own choices of what I do and what I do not do. I am responsible, not my past, for the success that I have and the failures that I endure.
I had something of an epiphany today: I do not communicate well with others. I know that it is easy for me to become turtle like when threatened in any way. I draw deeply within. This is a long-term conditioned response. I don't ask for help. I would separate myself from the beatings, from the ridicule to endure them. Sad to say, it has marked my way in the world. There are things that I should have said and things that I should have been more forthright about that I chose not to say for fear of … (fill in the blank). This is a behavior that does not help me. It harms me. I have to overcome it.
This has marked the past year. One of the great joys of keeping this journal is that I can go back and look at what was happening and ask what I have learned. This, more than anything, has been my downfall. I have to become more verbal, stand up and speak to the people that hold power over circumstances that are only worsened by my silence. I have defaulted into passivity. This must change.
For what it’s worth, I do not consider that I have a family. A family is bound together by love and concern for one another. Ridicule and scorn do not fall into the equation. This is their way of being in the world. I will have nothing to do with it. These are the people that damn near drove me to suicide when I was younger. I do not consider that they are healthy for me. I wish them well, my parents and my sister, but want as little contact with them as possible.
I don’t know how to overcome the fear that I feel within me. It is like a toxic life-preserver that I clung to not to drown. It kept me afloat to live through the crisis, but the residual chemicals still course through my veins. I doubt that I will ever completely overcome the fear and anxiety that vexes me, forty-seven and a half years are a long time to live with this thing, this self-loathing.
I was in therapy for a while. I was asked to imagine myself as a child. I saw a foul, dirty, mean child that was afraid. My therapist told me to go to him and embrace him. I didn’t want to, he was too horrible. In my mind’s eye there was this grotesque child that seemed like one of the street kids that live somewhere in a third-world country. He told me that he is afraid and needs love. I said that he needed to be put out of his misery. That was my mother’s voice that said that. She was worst than he was. I tried so hard to protect her from my father’s wrath, all the while she played us off against each other.
But there is still that child. What to do? How can I begin to hold him and let him know that the nightmare is over? Is it too late?
November 25, 2004
Thanksgiving Day
I like the idea of taking time to consider what I am thankful for. Here is a short list. Feel free to make your additions, either in the comments or on the tag board. All ideas are welcomed.
I am thankful for (an incomplete list in no particular order):
- MM, my dear heart
- A and R, my beautiful daughters
- Every sunrise
- Being in this country
- Work
- My little home
- Music
- Laughter
- Good food
- Children, even the ones that I work with!
- Hope
- Joy
- Loving and being loved
- The courage to believe that tomorrow has possibilities that I have not yet dreamed of
- You
May your days be filled with love and laughter, for indeed this is the measure of the lives that we lead.
- tDF
November 23, 2004
Morality, God, and the Left
Morality is the art of living in community. I tend away from proscriptive morality, preferring principals that guide choices instead of determining action in all circumstances. I have never been warm to apodictic pronouncements that serve as dicta for the ages. Instead, I have to ask how I can affirm the beauty of life and the need to live it well. The individual stands in the context of the community; the community is comprised of individuals. Morality is that which makes life together possible. Ethics are the practical expression of moral choice.
I realize that there are those perceptive readers that will hear a tone of moral relativism in that comment. They will say, “Dancing Fool, if moral pronouncements to do not carry with them an expression of absolute good, then morality is not possible.” I respond, there is no absolute good; the idea of an absolute is paradoxical. Insofar as it is absolute it can only reference itself, its being supersedes all things. It may be the ground of all being, and the source of all life. All expressions of this good, however, are penultimate and not absolute. The only absolute is God. Morality need not be predicated upon divine guidance; it is a balance of perceived need or expressed desire and restraint. As much as I hate to say it, all morality is relative to context and can only exist as an expression of what the community has determined to be the greatest good.
What, then, is the greatest good? Far be it from be to claim the ethical warrant to make such a pronouncement. As part of a culture that values life, places importance on the uniqueness of the individual, sees beauty and practicality as complementary virtues, and is committed to the betterment of the whole, I would humbly submit that the good is defined thusly: “That which affirms life is good.”
This places no small amount of responsibility on the individual. By making that statement, “I” become the moral arbiter of choices made. I ask what I do and do not do. I ask how my choices affect life in general and what effect they have on those about me as well as upon me. It is not a question of affirming what I want or feel that I need, but what affirms life itself that is the good. I am involved in humankind. I am involved in the life of this small planet, our spaceship Earth.
It is my opinion that the we on the left has missed this point. We have allowed ourselves to become part of a debate that has been defined by the right. It is no wonder, then, using their terms and definitions that we cannot make progress in the dialog. We need to redefine the terms.
Consider family values: What constitutes a family if not bonds of love and affection? Nobody will argue that for to do so is to argue against adoption, foster-placement, the “right to life,” and so on. Why have we not seized this high ground and asked if this is what defines a family, then could not a family consist of a same-sex couple, committed to the welfare of a child adopted into their home? There is love and affection, a commitment to the wellbeing of the child, and – most importantly – no burden to the public welfare system. This affirms life and, to my eyes, appears to pass the litmus test of morality.
So much of the moral debate is left to the right to define that the left has lost the moral high ground in the debate. This in to say that we are not moral people, quite the contrary. It is to say that we value a morality of personal freedom and choice, while affirming the community’s needs in this and subsequent generations. We are moral insofar as we see that life extends beyond the limitations of our economic grasp and our avaricious wants. As a leftist I am very much in favor of a right to life: thus I am opposed to the death-penalty, to military interventionism in the name of corporate greed, to the destruction of the environment, and abortion as cheap birth control. As a leftist I am very much in favor of family values: as such I support gay marriage, provision of health-care and housing as a right, free and appropriate public education for all persons in this country.
That which affirms life is good. If I need to mythologize this, then I only need look as far as Genesis, the first book of the bible, chapters one and two. It shows God, like a child playing in the dirt. God then becomes a sculptor, forming a body – a נפש – from the dust of the ground. God embraces the body like a mother giving birth, inspiring the body with God’s own spirit, God’s ראח. All life shares that one spirit, that divine breath that made the dust of the ground live. All life is of God and an expression of the divine face of love and compassion. That which affirms life is not only good, it is holy.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
I realize that there are those perceptive readers that will hear a tone of moral relativism in that comment. They will say, “Dancing Fool, if moral pronouncements to do not carry with them an expression of absolute good, then morality is not possible.” I respond, there is no absolute good; the idea of an absolute is paradoxical. Insofar as it is absolute it can only reference itself, its being supersedes all things. It may be the ground of all being, and the source of all life. All expressions of this good, however, are penultimate and not absolute. The only absolute is God. Morality need not be predicated upon divine guidance; it is a balance of perceived need or expressed desire and restraint. As much as I hate to say it, all morality is relative to context and can only exist as an expression of what the community has determined to be the greatest good.
What, then, is the greatest good? Far be it from be to claim the ethical warrant to make such a pronouncement. As part of a culture that values life, places importance on the uniqueness of the individual, sees beauty and practicality as complementary virtues, and is committed to the betterment of the whole, I would humbly submit that the good is defined thusly: “That which affirms life is good.”
This places no small amount of responsibility on the individual. By making that statement, “I” become the moral arbiter of choices made. I ask what I do and do not do. I ask how my choices affect life in general and what effect they have on those about me as well as upon me. It is not a question of affirming what I want or feel that I need, but what affirms life itself that is the good. I am involved in humankind. I am involved in the life of this small planet, our spaceship Earth.
It is my opinion that the we on the left has missed this point. We have allowed ourselves to become part of a debate that has been defined by the right. It is no wonder, then, using their terms and definitions that we cannot make progress in the dialog. We need to redefine the terms.
Consider family values: What constitutes a family if not bonds of love and affection? Nobody will argue that for to do so is to argue against adoption, foster-placement, the “right to life,” and so on. Why have we not seized this high ground and asked if this is what defines a family, then could not a family consist of a same-sex couple, committed to the welfare of a child adopted into their home? There is love and affection, a commitment to the wellbeing of the child, and – most importantly – no burden to the public welfare system. This affirms life and, to my eyes, appears to pass the litmus test of morality.
So much of the moral debate is left to the right to define that the left has lost the moral high ground in the debate. This in to say that we are not moral people, quite the contrary. It is to say that we value a morality of personal freedom and choice, while affirming the community’s needs in this and subsequent generations. We are moral insofar as we see that life extends beyond the limitations of our economic grasp and our avaricious wants. As a leftist I am very much in favor of a right to life: thus I am opposed to the death-penalty, to military interventionism in the name of corporate greed, to the destruction of the environment, and abortion as cheap birth control. As a leftist I am very much in favor of family values: as such I support gay marriage, provision of health-care and housing as a right, free and appropriate public education for all persons in this country.
That which affirms life is good. If I need to mythologize this, then I only need look as far as Genesis, the first book of the bible, chapters one and two. It shows God, like a child playing in the dirt. God then becomes a sculptor, forming a body – a נפש – from the dust of the ground. God embraces the body like a mother giving birth, inspiring the body with God’s own spirit, God’s ראח. All life shares that one spirit, that divine breath that made the dust of the ground live. All life is of God and an expression of the divine face of love and compassion. That which affirms life is not only good, it is holy.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
November 21, 2004
Exhausted
I have let all together too damn much work go for the last minute. As a result I am exhausted, grouchy, and not doing my best at anything.
I will not be posting for a few days (daze?) as a result of my massively poor organizational skills. Please take the time to read some of the past postings. Maybe send a comment or two.
I will be back... with more fun and games from the Dancing Fool.
Live, Laugh, Love!
- tDF
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
You know, I've always wanted to yell that in a newsroom, see all of the presses come to a scretching halt as the front page is reformed to include my new article... (yeah, the red typeface may be a bit over the top, but what the hell? Have you read "Hot Abercrombie Chick's" neo-fascist rants? Cute and reactionary... But I digress)
No such luck. I do have some good news,though. I am being published on Garlic and Grass, a grassroots webpage for social activists. I reworked my tDF posting, "The Christian Right is Neither" and it was accepted for publication. Keep your eyes open for that article, or read the original...
Ok... turn the presses back on, I, er, ... sorry, nevermind
Here is the text of the email telling me about G & G's decision to publish. It's not Sojourners or another "name" publication, but it makes me happy that some of my thoughts will be read.
Maybe it's time to do some more work... shall return to posting a couple of days.
-tDF
I will not be posting for a few days (daze?) as a result of my massively poor organizational skills. Please take the time to read some of the past postings. Maybe send a comment or two.
I will be back... with more fun and games from the Dancing Fool.
Live, Laugh, Love!
- tDF
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!
You know, I've always wanted to yell that in a newsroom, see all of the presses come to a scretching halt as the front page is reformed to include my new article... (yeah, the red typeface may be a bit over the top, but what the hell? Have you read "Hot Abercrombie Chick's" neo-fascist rants? Cute and reactionary... But I digress)
No such luck. I do have some good news,though. I am being published on Garlic and Grass, a grassroots webpage for social activists. I reworked my tDF posting, "The Christian Right is Neither" and it was accepted for publication. Keep your eyes open for that article, or read the original...
Ok... turn the presses back on, I, er, ... sorry, nevermind
Here is the text of the email telling me about G & G's decision to publish. It's not Sojourners or another "name" publication, but it makes me happy that some of my thoughts will be read.
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the submission! You write with both clarity and crispness, to say nothing of the excellent, compassionate, and (to me) necessary message you offer regarding the religious right and the political manipulation thereof. We will certainly both publish this piece at G&G and encourage you to write more for us in the future.
Hopefully we will get this piece in the next issue or two, although it may in fact be a while, as I have just arrived here in Peru and will be on the road for a bit (Yes, and everyone down here asks me how we could possibly reelect Bush (assuming we did, in fact, reelect Bush)).
In the meantime, if you haven't already, you are welcome to pursue publication of this piece elsewhere.And please feel free to send along more of your writing in the future.
In peace,
tony
================================================
Tony Brasunas
Publisher Garlic & Grass
A Grassroots Journal of America's Political Soul
tony@garlicandgrass.org
http://www.garlicandgrass.org
Maybe it's time to do some more work... shall return to posting a couple of days.
-tDF
November 15, 2004
I've Been Pretty Theological Lately
I've been reading other blogs. I am amazed at what we - the blogging community - write about. I've seen blogs dedicated to wedding plans, anticipated births, depression, arts, eclectic, right/left wing politics, sexuality and so on and so forth. I love this. This says that we have made our thoughts, our dreams, out nightmares the stuff of common dialog and therefore common experience. I have several blogs that I look at and have come to regard the bloggers behind the words as friends of sorts. I have added my voice to the blogging community. I started almost six year ago using different handles. My eldest daughter started me with a web diary that I kept. The idea of posting it for public reading was then foreign to me. I was leaving pastoral ministry and needed a place to vent. I wrote about agnosticism and Christianity as mutually compatible statements of faith. I noticed that I started to get comments - at that time in the form of email - some were really angry, some were very supportive. One person wrote that she wanted me to know that my struggles were not unheard and had been informative to her in hers. That comment touched me deeply.
I value blogging as a means of clarifying my own thoughts, keeping myself honest, and adding my voice to the dialog about what it means to be human in first few years of this new millennium. Still, there is much that disturbs me about the blogging community. Here is my mild-mannered rant:
I value blogging as a means of clarifying my own thoughts, keeping myself honest, and adding my voice to the dialog about what it means to be human in first few years of this new millennium. Still, there is much that disturbs me about the blogging community. Here is my mild-mannered rant:
- I hate it when we flame each other. Why do we do this? A real dialog presupposes respect. I do not share the opinions of many people whose blog I read. I do not read them to find people that are the same; I read them because they are different. They make me think and feel. I refuse to flame them because I chose to visit their sites.
- Personal bickering has no place in this forum. I do not edit comments. I refuse to delete anything that my readers post with the exception of advertisements (I deleted one comment about flat-screen televisions) and hate mail. I will delete anything that is openly hostile to any group (even those with which I disagree or have criticized), or uses inappropriate epithets (my call here). Yours is the right to call me an ass. I'll even give you the space to do it. I do ask that you be respectful in your critiques.
- I don't judge people. I question actions. I ask that we take responsibility for our decisions and not pretend that our pain, illness, the time of the month or Christ on a pony are at fault for what we write. I wrote the words in my blog. I am their author. I am responsible. Sometimes I overstate or do not edit well. I take full responsibility for that. Please do the same when commenting or when writing. I think that civility is becoming an endangered species. I run a civil blog, even if it can be somewhat opinionated.
- I admit that I am a leftist, love my country, love my lady and my daughters, have severe anxiety and depression, love to laugh till I cry and see others do the same. I don't understand the world, but am fascinated by it. Life is a great dance and I am a klutz, still I'm trying, very trying at times. I have a pet snake, love MM's St Bernies, listen to jazz, rock, and just about anything that moves me. I consider Blues to be what we will hear in heaven. I wonder what we did as a country for God to have judged us so harshly as to impose four more years of W as president. I'm an opinionated SOB that will fight to the death for your right to call me an idiot. I like hot sex, a good meal, beautiful music, passion of all sorts, walking, riding my bike, playing my music, and being with my beloved. If you can't get next to it, don't read my blog. I won't be hurt if you choose not to. I don't write it for you, I write it for me.
- But having said that... If you do read it I am deeply appreciative and hope that I will act in a way that validates your confidence. If I entertain you, good. If I help you to think about something, good. If I move you, good. If I become your friend, that is the best.
OK... Enough ranting. That did feel good, though.
Thanks for reading. I don't know why I have been so much thinking about God in the past several days. I am certain that it is not over. Just know that you, dear and gentle reader, are greatly appreciated by the Dancing Fool.
November 14, 2004
Divine Madness
In my last posting I supposed that it would be imperative for a God that is love to have created a beloved, understanding love as a need for the beloved. While some might consider this dependent behavior, certainly not consistent with the Aristotelian ideal of an unmoved mover, I would submit that it is consistent with the platonic ideal of the divine as absolute love that seeks to redeem all. Redemption makes no sense otherwise. If only a part is redeemed than the work of redemption is partial and there can be no ultimate perfection: absolute love cannot be content to allow part of the created order to remain outside of love's grasp. This sort of eschatology, called universalism, is problematic for the paradigm of ethics that presuppose retribution as the motivator for moral behavior. I wonder, is fear the best motivator? Is there no other motivator apart from self interest, enlightened or otherwise, that can create moral behavior in humans?
What is morality? That is the basic question. I would posit that morality is the ability to live in community by confirming for a commonly defined good that allows for both self and others to live; put simply, that which affirms life is good.
I tend away from definitions of morality that are apodictic, that is to say legalistic. The problem with absolute dicta is that they cannot conform to situations and circumstances. They stand as a lex talonis that militates against any deviant behavior from the imposed norm. A classic dilemma: Thou shalt not steal. Is it theft to take bread to feed my family when there are no other options and the person from which I steal hordes, indeed has a superabundance of bread? Does the hoarding of bread not constitute theft from the starving victims of that greed? The Bible thought so. The Holiness Code in Leviticus required landowners to leave part of their crop for the poor and non-resident aliens to glean.
What I find particularly vexing is when the microcosm becomes macrocosm: when my country uses nearly 80% of the world's resources, and we represent no more than 20% of the world's population, how can we justify our avarice, or better said the avarice of the 3% of our population that has hoarded 90% of the national wealth? While I find it difficult to say that property is theft, I am hard pressed to support a capitalist economy that has its core the premise that the acquisition of individual wealth is a good thing. I wonder what has happened to the obligation to the whole.
How is morality defined in a society that has embraced capitalism and elevated greed to the level of a virtue?
What is most troubling to me is that the Judeo-Christian ethic displays a marked preference for the poor that the Christian Right has elected to ignore in it s attempt to beatify and canonize wealth into a dogma of the church. The ramifications of Luther's doctrine of justification by grace through faith are wide: I am, as one of the baptized, free from all things, even the acquisition of wealth, to be for the other. This presents a fine ideal of faith but is deuce difficult in this penultimate order where we seek to horde and conserve against the fear of a dearth of the stuff of life. I suppose that would not be an issue if we had a culture of sharing and compassion, but we live in the world.
Thus is the world... or rather, thus have we made it.
But I am only a fool...
What is morality? That is the basic question. I would posit that morality is the ability to live in community by confirming for a commonly defined good that allows for both self and others to live; put simply, that which affirms life is good.
I tend away from definitions of morality that are apodictic, that is to say legalistic. The problem with absolute dicta is that they cannot conform to situations and circumstances. They stand as a lex talonis that militates against any deviant behavior from the imposed norm. A classic dilemma: Thou shalt not steal. Is it theft to take bread to feed my family when there are no other options and the person from which I steal hordes, indeed has a superabundance of bread? Does the hoarding of bread not constitute theft from the starving victims of that greed? The Bible thought so. The Holiness Code in Leviticus required landowners to leave part of their crop for the poor and non-resident aliens to glean.
What I find particularly vexing is when the microcosm becomes macrocosm: when my country uses nearly 80% of the world's resources, and we represent no more than 20% of the world's population, how can we justify our avarice, or better said the avarice of the 3% of our population that has hoarded 90% of the national wealth? While I find it difficult to say that property is theft, I am hard pressed to support a capitalist economy that has its core the premise that the acquisition of individual wealth is a good thing. I wonder what has happened to the obligation to the whole.
How is morality defined in a society that has embraced capitalism and elevated greed to the level of a virtue?
What is most troubling to me is that the Judeo-Christian ethic displays a marked preference for the poor that the Christian Right has elected to ignore in it s attempt to beatify and canonize wealth into a dogma of the church. The ramifications of Luther's doctrine of justification by grace through faith are wide: I am, as one of the baptized, free from all things, even the acquisition of wealth, to be for the other. This presents a fine ideal of faith but is deuce difficult in this penultimate order where we seek to horde and conserve against the fear of a dearth of the stuff of life. I suppose that would not be an issue if we had a culture of sharing and compassion, but we live in the world.
Thus is the world... or rather, thus have we made it.
But I am only a fool...
November 13, 2004
What Would God Have us Do?
"IF THERE WERE NO GOD, It would be necessary to invent him," is how Voltaire put it. I think I like the quote from Blaise Pascal, in his Pensées, better: "In each man there is a God-shaped hole." But Paschal was not naïve: indeed, he also observed that "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." It seems that religious fervor is the breeding grounds of extremism and hatred, as well as of extreme compassion and care. Luther would see this as original sin and original blessing standing in a dialectical relationship: simil iustus et peccator, simultaneously a saint and sinner.
Human beings seek meaning. The absurd to us seems to be untenable. We are willing to believe because the logic of belief is absurd, pace Tertullian, in order to give meaning to our lives. We conceived of some transcendental truth long before we began to peer into the cosmos and began to realize that there was life outside of our lonely spaceship earth. It may be a question of context in the cosmos; it may be a need to believe that we are part of a greater reality that is not nearly as ephemeral as 80 years of lifespan.
I believe in God. What is more, I believe that God believes in us.
Despite my struggles with Christianity, I hold a central truth that is articulated by Luther to be central to my creed: being justified, we are free to be. This means that being put right by God, we are free from the need to prove ourselves, save ourselves, or find religion. We are free to be for one another and to live lives of compassion and grace. So much Christian expression places eschatology before ethics, diminishing ethics in the process. I have always seen a balance between what is to come and what is done as a proclamation of hope as the aim of Christian life. What concerns me is when this becomes a question of the individual in isolation from the body: Christianity demands community. Indeed, this is generally true for any religious expression. It is passed from one person to another, its rituals are agreed upon by the consensus of the faithful, its language and conventions are all derived from a community of faith.
I am very concerned about the idea that the central core of Christianity is individual salvation. This make ethics a personal choice. Is it any wonder that the most personal choices - those that involve our bodies - become the battle ground for a vision of the faith that devalues greater community in the name of the apotheosis of the individual? Put in theological parlance is God "pro nos" or "pro me"? The roots of the priority of the individual are found in Luther. Calvin talked about the elect, those predestined to salvation, as a community of faith. In that he was closer to the Roman Catholic position of a holy community. Luther spoke about the "pro me" as a corrective to the fatalism that had arisen in medieval Christianity. The pro me assumed the community of faith and responsibility to both the earthly and heavenly orders, eschatology and ethics. Again, Luther's idea was that we are free from "sin, death and the devil" to be free for life and to be the Christ for all by doing works of compassion, love, and hope for all. Somewhere that was lost. Bonhoeffer put it well: "There is nothing quite so terrible as evil masquerading as virtue."
I see the Christian Right as an example of what Bonhoeffer and Paschal warned against: religious fervor is all too easily transformed into hatred when prejudices are baptized and presented as dogma. I am struck by 1 John 4:7-8. This is the famous quote in the Bible that says God is love. If God is love, God cannot be content to be alone. Augustine wrote, in De Trinitatis, "thou beholdest the Trinity when thou belodest love: for the lover, the beloved and the love are three." Love demands a beloved. It cannot exist in the abstract as a sterile Aristotelian ideal: it seeks a beloved with which to be intimately involved as lovers are. Thus, it can be said that Voltaire got it wrong: If God is love, then it was necessary for God to create humanity as the object of divine love and care.
As such, does it not behoove us to learn to love and extend compassion to all?
For God's sake, I would submit so.
But I am only a fool...
Human beings seek meaning. The absurd to us seems to be untenable. We are willing to believe because the logic of belief is absurd, pace Tertullian, in order to give meaning to our lives. We conceived of some transcendental truth long before we began to peer into the cosmos and began to realize that there was life outside of our lonely spaceship earth. It may be a question of context in the cosmos; it may be a need to believe that we are part of a greater reality that is not nearly as ephemeral as 80 years of lifespan.
I believe in God. What is more, I believe that God believes in us.
Despite my struggles with Christianity, I hold a central truth that is articulated by Luther to be central to my creed: being justified, we are free to be. This means that being put right by God, we are free from the need to prove ourselves, save ourselves, or find religion. We are free to be for one another and to live lives of compassion and grace. So much Christian expression places eschatology before ethics, diminishing ethics in the process. I have always seen a balance between what is to come and what is done as a proclamation of hope as the aim of Christian life. What concerns me is when this becomes a question of the individual in isolation from the body: Christianity demands community. Indeed, this is generally true for any religious expression. It is passed from one person to another, its rituals are agreed upon by the consensus of the faithful, its language and conventions are all derived from a community of faith.
I am very concerned about the idea that the central core of Christianity is individual salvation. This make ethics a personal choice. Is it any wonder that the most personal choices - those that involve our bodies - become the battle ground for a vision of the faith that devalues greater community in the name of the apotheosis of the individual? Put in theological parlance is God "pro nos" or "pro me"? The roots of the priority of the individual are found in Luther. Calvin talked about the elect, those predestined to salvation, as a community of faith. In that he was closer to the Roman Catholic position of a holy community. Luther spoke about the "pro me" as a corrective to the fatalism that had arisen in medieval Christianity. The pro me assumed the community of faith and responsibility to both the earthly and heavenly orders, eschatology and ethics. Again, Luther's idea was that we are free from "sin, death and the devil" to be free for life and to be the Christ for all by doing works of compassion, love, and hope for all. Somewhere that was lost. Bonhoeffer put it well: "There is nothing quite so terrible as evil masquerading as virtue."
I see the Christian Right as an example of what Bonhoeffer and Paschal warned against: religious fervor is all too easily transformed into hatred when prejudices are baptized and presented as dogma. I am struck by 1 John 4:7-8. This is the famous quote in the Bible that says God is love. If God is love, God cannot be content to be alone. Augustine wrote, in De Trinitatis, "thou beholdest the Trinity when thou belodest love: for the lover, the beloved and the love are three." Love demands a beloved. It cannot exist in the abstract as a sterile Aristotelian ideal: it seeks a beloved with which to be intimately involved as lovers are. Thus, it can be said that Voltaire got it wrong: If God is love, then it was necessary for God to create humanity as the object of divine love and care.
As such, does it not behoove us to learn to love and extend compassion to all?
For God's sake, I would submit so.
But I am only a fool...
November 11, 2004
Q and A...
I visited Cleolov’s blog… Worth reading, I recommend it. I had come across the ‘blog on Blogexplosion while browsing there a couple of nights ago. This is a person that I doubt I would ever have met except for the internet. Why do I mention this? Because we have contact with more people than ever before. It expands the circle of friends that can be had and forces us to redefine friendship and community in terms of communication rather than proximity and physical contact. It seems to me to open the possibility for relationships of the mind and spirit rather in a qualitatively different manner than before. Apparently this is an interesting person: I came across a link for www.creativegenius.org, a site that she maintains. I do not lay claim to being either creative or a genius. I did find her list of questions compelling and decided to accept them as a challenge. Here are the questions and my responses, fool that I am…
Do you struggle with understanding why everyone else just doesn't "get it?" Oh God yes! There are times that I feel that I am the one with a challenge. I see though my intuition and don’t understand why the rest of the world seems to miss what is perfectly obvious.
Are you an emotionally intense person? One could say that…
Are you an artist, a geek, or an intellectual? One could say that as well. I tend to shy away from the term “intellectual” though. I tend to see myself as a person who lives a rich life of thought and imagination. Does that qualify me as an intellectual? I really don’t know. To lay claim to that title seems to be presumptuous.
Do you live in another world than most people on the planet? I live in a world of the mind and spirit, I visit the material world frequently but do not consider that I am more than a resident alien.
Does your thinking take huge leaps and bounds that no one else can keep up with? I can be all over the map at times. Doesn’t everybody think in three or four languages and have a constantly developing interface of poetry, philosophy, music, and art running through their minds? That is normal, isn’t it?
Do you have unique abilities? Like leaping tall buildings in a single bound… no. I have friends that say that I can see through walls despite my severe myopia.
Have you been diagnosed with clinical depression, manic depression, ADHD, or some other mental illness and traditional treatments do not seem to address the problems? DUH! Yeah, AH/HD, anxiety (as anybody who has read by blog knows).
Have you tested extremely high (98 percentile or above) on standardized IQ and/or EQ tests? I don’t believe in standardized tests… the are capable of measuring so little and make such a great deal out of nothing that is important. I did once get an IQ test that was at least two and one half standard deviations off the norm. You can guess in which direction, it really does not matter to me. What is really important is whether I can see beauty and imagine hope in the world. The rest is really not that important.
Do you feel like no one understands you? No one is quite exclusive. I tend toward people with strong intuition and an ability to understand what is not readily seen by those whose lives are defined by that is seen, felt, tasted, heard, and grasped.
Does your life seem to be ruled by the creativity and emotion that is so prevalent within you? YES.
Do you have a rich and exciting inner life that you have found difficult to share with others? I share with those I think will understand. For those that have eyes to see the world is a wonderful place full of color and ruled by the muses. For those that don’t I can chat about matters of consequence (extra points if you nail the reference) that they can easily understand. I know that sounded patronizing. It was not meant to. Try to take my words in the spirit in which they are offered.
Do you have an insatiable 'need to know' that no one understands? Knowing and understanding are two different things…
I don't know that I qualify as a creative genius. I have been told that I qualify as a pain in the ass. That should count for something... free thinkers seem always to rub against the grain.
But I am just a fool...
The Christian Right Is Neither
Years ago, I had a bumper sticker on my little red Mazda that read, “The Christian Right is Neither.” I had just left the ministry and enjoyed the irony of the message. I’ve always had a liking for sly humor, especially humor that drives home a point: these were the early 1990s and the Christian Coalition under the leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to name two recognizable figures, had emerged as a powerful base for the right-wing of the Republican Party to exploit for their own Machiavellian aims. The Christian Right has become something of a powerbase for the kinder and gentler face of fascism in this country. I think that it is necessary for those of us who incline to the left to draw a distinction, however, between the political entity that the Christian Right has become and fundamentalist Christians that seek to live according to God’s will, as they understand it.
In order to be honest, and so my prejudices are identified before proceeding, I need to make a few of disclaimers here:
- I have no love for the Christian Right;
- I am not a fundamentalist Christian;
- I do not see the Bible as literally inspired and absolute truth; and
- While I believe that there is a God, I remain agnostic with regards to religious expression.
I do not dislike fundamentalist Christians. I feel that their good intentions and commitment to live lives of faith are being manipulated to establish a plutocracy in place of a representative republic in our country. I have the advantage of a rather complete theological education. While I am loathe to play the role of the pedagogue, I find that the stratagem employed by the Bush administration to play off of the faith of theologically unsophisticated persons is reprehensible to both faith and democracy.
I have known many fundamentalist Christians. The greater majority are good and moral people that do not hate others, but instead are driven by a conviction that God wishes the salvation of all through a particular experience of acceptance of Christ as a “personal savior” (a phrase that never occurs in the bible). I disdain the caricature of the lubricious deacon or elder that prays on Sunday and commits all matter of ill toward his or her fellows for the next six days. For most fundamentalists this is simply not the case. Most struggle to keep faith, to do good for others, to be decent people. As members of the left we cannot disdain their faith commitments or their choices. Indeed, we must affirm their right to worship as they see fit and to bring their voices to the dialog. I am also aware that not all fundamentalists are members of the right wing. Several have taken the biblical texts to heart that call for compassionate action on behalf of the disenfranchised and marginalized, inclusive of gay and lesbian people, undocumented people, care for the environment, and so on. The fundamentalist community is more diverse than we in the left may find comfortable; indeed while we talked about inclusivity and diversity they were doing it.
It is the coalescence of the right-wing’s political agenda with faith that I find frustrating. Neiburh was correct when he asserted that moral people as individuals are capable of gross immorality as groups. I do not believe that most Germans were immoral or cruel during the 1930s and 1940s. I am painfully aware that most said nothing as the machinery of evil became a killing machine and instigated a program of genocide that targeted Jews, Gypsies, and Gays. I cannot help but wonder if this is not possible in our country.
The Christian Right has proposed a moral agenda that includes homophobic legislation which seeks to limit the rights of citizens of our nation. The Christian Right has equated the people of God with the United States and sees no contradiction between a coalescence of God with Country. The Christian Right has stood against the rights of the undocumented and has embraced capitalism as a divine right.
The curious thing is that the Christian Right ignores the history of the church which tends toward socialism rather than capitalism. Read the Book of Acts (in the New Testament, following the four gospels). St. Luke speaks about how the church gave up all of its possessions and lived with all things in common. Each received according to need, all contributed to the good of the whole. Charity was common (dare I say welfare?) as widows and orphans were cared for by the community. The early church fathers were also of one voice in regards to material wealth through the time of Constantine when Christianity became a religio licito as the emperor embraced the faith and subsidized what had formerly been persecuted. Consider the words attributed to Jesus in St. Matthew 25:
25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’
25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not receive me as a guest, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not give you whatever you needed?’ Then he will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me.’ And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
There is no mention of belief in a particular creed or experience of a prescribed event: Jesus of Nazareth calls for compassion and care, the deeds of faith for those in need.
Having referenced the bible, I must say that the bible is not of one voice. It is a richly diverse document that welcomes dialog with itself as its authors attempt to parse out truth that goes beyond the literal meaning of the text. Consider how the NT authors use the OT. Even a cursory reading reveals that they were not taking the text literally. But I digress.
As a leftist I must submit that we do the nation a disservice by disenfranchising people of faith. The neo-fascists have discovered their goodwill and converted it into political capital. I think it is time for us to begin a meaningful dialog with our friends of all religious persuasion and ask what it means to be a child of God in this political reality. We need to listen and to speak. We need to learn their language so they can hear our thoughts. We need to see past the caricatures to look into the hearts of our neighbors and ask about God’s love of the poor, the broken, the disenfranchised.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
November 10, 2004
The Shooting Ended in 1865...
THE CIVIL WAR ENDED AT APPOMATTOX Courthouse when General Lee surrendered to General Grant; while the Confederacy unraveled and occasional skirmishes took place, the war was, for all intents and purposes, dead. But the appetites that caused that great conflict were far from satiated. Consider the Ku Klux Klan and other such groups. Consider that lynchings continued in the south and segregation was the rule through the late 1960s. While racism was more subtle in the north, it was just as damning. Perhaps it was more insidious as it was disguised under a mask of civility and hypocrisy. It took four generations to accomplish what was begun by the Lincoln administration. Brown v. the Board of Education began a wave of integration that broke through the American apartheid and left a more diverse society in its wake. But this was four generations after the Civil War had come to an end.
Why do I recite this history? Because the struggles for human rights are not accomplished in one generation. Indeed, they take several. It is the process of inculcating a new value to the next generation and allowing them to infuse the society with its influence. As a social liberal I am aware that it is my daughters that will carry on the battle. They are the ones for whom the war is fought. They must make the peace. While I am disappointed that President Bush will lead this country for the next four years, I am aware that it will be a process of generations to bring this county to a place where we will embody the words that were uttered at our nation’s birth: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We stand at a cross-road in the process. Christian conservatives claim that they have influenced the outcome of the elections and, as God’s latter day prophets, they seek to repristinate this wayward nation and return it to the values that they perceive to be at its roots: a fundamentalist interpretation of what they consider to be biblical truth. President Bush has noted that he will press for a constitutional ban on Gay marriages. One has to wonder why this is an issue to be taken up on a constitutional basis. Is this merely a façade that conceals the agenda for which Mr. Bush has been elected? Is this pandering to the lowest common denominator? Is this not a blatant attempt to limit the rights of a particular group on the basis of sexual preference?
Mr. Bush has stood by his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocols that even Vladimir Putin signed. He has chosen to ignore a recent report noting that the permafrost is melting and that the artic is deleteriously effected by the increase of green-house gasses. The Republicans have denied the existence of global warming since the Reagan administration. In the name of individual rights they have sold out the individual to corporate profits, seeking instead to pander to the needs of corporate greed.
Rights have to be balanced by responsibility. No rights are absolute. They are limited by the rights of others. I may have a right to freely express my opinions; I do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is none. It is immoral to the degree that to do so would cause harm to others. What about lying about global warming or the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Are these not the analogy to crying fire where there is none? These are immoral acts that exceed the fair limitations of the rights of nations.
When the Confederacy was unraveling Jefferson Davis was quoted as saying that it had “died of an idea.” The idea, of course, was that each state was free to do as it wished and was not subject to a greater good. The rights of the majority in a given state or jurisdiction could impose a tyranny upon its marginalized members. Still, it took another 100 years to win the peace. We should not lose hope in the United States, despite this surge to the right and flirtation with a kinder, gentler fascism. It is time to raise our voices and lead our representatives in the direction of hope in freedom and equality for all.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
Why do I recite this history? Because the struggles for human rights are not accomplished in one generation. Indeed, they take several. It is the process of inculcating a new value to the next generation and allowing them to infuse the society with its influence. As a social liberal I am aware that it is my daughters that will carry on the battle. They are the ones for whom the war is fought. They must make the peace. While I am disappointed that President Bush will lead this country for the next four years, I am aware that it will be a process of generations to bring this county to a place where we will embody the words that were uttered at our nation’s birth: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
We stand at a cross-road in the process. Christian conservatives claim that they have influenced the outcome of the elections and, as God’s latter day prophets, they seek to repristinate this wayward nation and return it to the values that they perceive to be at its roots: a fundamentalist interpretation of what they consider to be biblical truth. President Bush has noted that he will press for a constitutional ban on Gay marriages. One has to wonder why this is an issue to be taken up on a constitutional basis. Is this merely a façade that conceals the agenda for which Mr. Bush has been elected? Is this pandering to the lowest common denominator? Is this not a blatant attempt to limit the rights of a particular group on the basis of sexual preference?
Mr. Bush has stood by his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocols that even Vladimir Putin signed. He has chosen to ignore a recent report noting that the permafrost is melting and that the artic is deleteriously effected by the increase of green-house gasses. The Republicans have denied the existence of global warming since the Reagan administration. In the name of individual rights they have sold out the individual to corporate profits, seeking instead to pander to the needs of corporate greed.
Rights have to be balanced by responsibility. No rights are absolute. They are limited by the rights of others. I may have a right to freely express my opinions; I do not have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is none. It is immoral to the degree that to do so would cause harm to others. What about lying about global warming or the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Are these not the analogy to crying fire where there is none? These are immoral acts that exceed the fair limitations of the rights of nations.
When the Confederacy was unraveling Jefferson Davis was quoted as saying that it had “died of an idea.” The idea, of course, was that each state was free to do as it wished and was not subject to a greater good. The rights of the majority in a given state or jurisdiction could impose a tyranny upon its marginalized members. Still, it took another 100 years to win the peace. We should not lose hope in the United States, despite this surge to the right and flirtation with a kinder, gentler fascism. It is time to raise our voices and lead our representatives in the direction of hope in freedom and equality for all.
Ah, but I am only a fool…
November 09, 2004
Life Comes Down to a Series of Moments
"Life comes down to a series of moments..." That came from the film Wall Street. It was put on the lips of Bud Fox before his first meeting with Gordon Gekko. The irony is that it reflects from the idea of a stream of karma, moment by moment drifting by and becoming the history of our lives. Life does come down to a series of interlocked moments that we experience and become the stuff of memory and source of hope. They can be moments of supreme joy or moments of terror and fear. There are many in my life that are defined by anxiety. I am facing one today.
I go to court this morning to put to rest the ticket that I received in September. I am very nervous and - though I am reasonably certain that this will come out well - want to be on the other side of the process. I have observed years ago that the anxiety is usually worse than the experience. The idea of having to wait for something becomes antithetical to hope - also future oriented - and find myself becoming tense, feeling all of the symptoms that appertain to my anxiety. The idea of hope is an optimism about the future, looking forward and trusting that it will be better than the past. I hope. I hope.
I was speaking to MM about the situation that this issue as set into motion. I have become more dependent than I have been since being a child. I have to look to friends for rides, use public transit until this is put to rest. The whole thing began as a result of a severe misunderstanding that I had that mushroomed into this situation. When I look back, I realize that I should have kept better records, should have been better organized, should have... It's the "shoulds" that are my moralistic voice of condemnation. Between the dependency and my internal parental voice of censure, I find that I feel much like I did as an adolescent. MM commented that she will be glad when this is over. I told her I would be more so.
MM has been nothing but supportive. Thank God for her.
The damnedest thing is happening between MM and I: without knowing or speaking, we are beginning to dress in the same colors, suffer the same pains (headache, ill stomach and so on) simultaneously. It seems that we are having sympathy pains for each other, but without knowing. She will develop a headache; I will begin to feel it. I will dress in one color, to find her dressed in the same, and visa versa. I've joked with her that I wish that she'd get over her headache so I can feel better. I am concerned about our anxiety. I opted, last night, just to chat with MM on the phone and stay home. In retrospect, I probably would have been OK with her, but was worried that I was so tense that she might be affected. MM told me that she and M had a good day. Maybe it was good for them to have Mom and Son time without me there.
I am listening to Morning Edition on-line. I do like the streaming. I can listen to my favorite programs on NPR "on-demand." I wonder about the rest of my life: I need to get into a place that I can access information, access funds, access whatever I need "on demand." I am not certain how to do that. MM is very organized. I have thought to ask for her help. I am a bit ashamed of my messes though.
The time is coming. I need to go to the bus-stop and catch the 11 to the Ventura Court House to put this silly thing to rest. I am bringing my book, which will be a "fidget tool" more than a serious read until after the session is done. I am dressed in "business casual" today, opting away from my suit, partly because I didn't hang it (though I could have worn the grey one) and partly because I am more comfortable in these clothes. I hope that my comfort translate into calm.
This is just a moment in the karmic stream. It, too, will pass. I need to remain calm and trust in my serenity while daring to hope.
It is now about twenty minutes after one. I am home. Things went well, as I expected them to. The funny thing is that the anxiety makes panic over nothing an almost palpable phantasm (as contradictory as that sounds) that threatens by its imperceptible presence, which can only be imagined. Either way, I am glad that this chapter has come to a close. I have to light a fire under the people at the University. I am told that my financial aid is "still in progress." I've explained that this has created something of a crisis for me. Ultimately, I am responsible. I need to act and do so decisively.
I have looked at my hit-counter and compared it to my tracking system. One claims 1,820 hits (the counter) while the tracker claims 1,910 hits. I don't know which to trust. I just tried to reset the counter, but would need to recreate it. It really is nothing. If you read my stuff that is satisfaction enough. The numbers are pure vanity, I suppose. And I have so little vanity in my life... It is nice to be concerned about something as trivial as the counter. I am relaxing a bit. A good feeling, that.
I go to court this morning to put to rest the ticket that I received in September. I am very nervous and - though I am reasonably certain that this will come out well - want to be on the other side of the process. I have observed years ago that the anxiety is usually worse than the experience. The idea of having to wait for something becomes antithetical to hope - also future oriented - and find myself becoming tense, feeling all of the symptoms that appertain to my anxiety. The idea of hope is an optimism about the future, looking forward and trusting that it will be better than the past. I hope. I hope.
I was speaking to MM about the situation that this issue as set into motion. I have become more dependent than I have been since being a child. I have to look to friends for rides, use public transit until this is put to rest. The whole thing began as a result of a severe misunderstanding that I had that mushroomed into this situation. When I look back, I realize that I should have kept better records, should have been better organized, should have... It's the "shoulds" that are my moralistic voice of condemnation. Between the dependency and my internal parental voice of censure, I find that I feel much like I did as an adolescent. MM commented that she will be glad when this is over. I told her I would be more so.
MM has been nothing but supportive. Thank God for her.
The damnedest thing is happening between MM and I: without knowing or speaking, we are beginning to dress in the same colors, suffer the same pains (headache, ill stomach and so on) simultaneously. It seems that we are having sympathy pains for each other, but without knowing. She will develop a headache; I will begin to feel it. I will dress in one color, to find her dressed in the same, and visa versa. I've joked with her that I wish that she'd get over her headache so I can feel better. I am concerned about our anxiety. I opted, last night, just to chat with MM on the phone and stay home. In retrospect, I probably would have been OK with her, but was worried that I was so tense that she might be affected. MM told me that she and M had a good day. Maybe it was good for them to have Mom and Son time without me there.
I am listening to Morning Edition on-line. I do like the streaming. I can listen to my favorite programs on NPR "on-demand." I wonder about the rest of my life: I need to get into a place that I can access information, access funds, access whatever I need "on demand." I am not certain how to do that. MM is very organized. I have thought to ask for her help. I am a bit ashamed of my messes though.
The time is coming. I need to go to the bus-stop and catch the 11 to the Ventura Court House to put this silly thing to rest. I am bringing my book, which will be a "fidget tool" more than a serious read until after the session is done. I am dressed in "business casual" today, opting away from my suit, partly because I didn't hang it (though I could have worn the grey one) and partly because I am more comfortable in these clothes. I hope that my comfort translate into calm.
This is just a moment in the karmic stream. It, too, will pass. I need to remain calm and trust in my serenity while daring to hope.
It is now about twenty minutes after one. I am home. Things went well, as I expected them to. The funny thing is that the anxiety makes panic over nothing an almost palpable phantasm (as contradictory as that sounds) that threatens by its imperceptible presence, which can only be imagined. Either way, I am glad that this chapter has come to a close. I have to light a fire under the people at the University. I am told that my financial aid is "still in progress." I've explained that this has created something of a crisis for me. Ultimately, I am responsible. I need to act and do so decisively.
I have looked at my hit-counter and compared it to my tracking system. One claims 1,820 hits (the counter) while the tracker claims 1,910 hits. I don't know which to trust. I just tried to reset the counter, but would need to recreate it. It really is nothing. If you read my stuff that is satisfaction enough. The numbers are pure vanity, I suppose. And I have so little vanity in my life... It is nice to be concerned about something as trivial as the counter. I am relaxing a bit. A good feeling, that.
November 08, 2004
Keep putting one foot in front of the other...
TODAY HAS BEEN FRUSTRATING. I have been attempting to deal with issues that have caused me no small amount of consternation. It sometimes feels as it they will prevail. I have been dealing with an extended period of fiscal strain. While that is soon to end, it will not be soon enough to suite me. Today was the battle of the rent. My landlord has been very understanding. She allowed me to make a partial payment. The bank would not release funds. I have a splitting head-ache and feel generally sick. I am certain that this is anxiety.
When I was in the bank I looked at the people there attempting to help me. I kept realizing that I was on the edge of melting down. I tried something new. I closed my eyes and, in my mind’s voice chanted “I wish you happiness and joy…” rather than becoming upset with people that are trying to help me and do their jobs. I imagined light and joy rising like a gentle tide around the bank. My problem remained unsolved, but a solution was found, at least for the short run.
I spoke with the office of financial aid at school. My application has been approved – after too long a hiatus – but there is no word when the check will be cut. It seems that the cosmos are conspiring to make me either more frugal or less materialistic. The phone just rang; it was the system that assigns work. I had to decline a job. I hate to do that. It is probable that I could have gotten there on-time, given the schedule on Tuesday, but not definite. That is money lost. What are the cosmos telling me? I also got a call asking me to work on Wednesday. I am already booked.
I am frustrated today.
When I left the bank, I stopped at the Circle-K and got my drug of choice these days: a bottle of Dr. Pepper and a Hershey Bar. I gave up on other drugs. I have used cannabis in the past (actually with a good result for my anxiety) but have opted not to as I have no connection for “clean” stuff. I also assured MM that I no longer do any drugs. To use it would be to renege on my word; I won’t do that. In the past I have used physical intimacy and won’t go down that road either. I know that I could become a food-addict easily. I think that I am best to look for something healthy if I have to be compulsive, as oxymoronic as that sounds. I refuse to drink when I am feeling anxious. I’ve learned that that only exacerbates my anxiety and depression.
My head is throbbing and I fear that I am beginning to have symptoms of another anxiety attack. I don’t want to call MM. She has had a rough go of it with her anxiety and I don’t want to be a burden to her tonight. I think that I’ll have to tough it out. I would like to get together with MA and see how he is doing. If I were at the marina I would go for a walk by the ocean. I am in a somewhat isolated corner of Ventura. There is really nowhere to walk and we are by major thoroughfares. It is not safe to walk after dark here.
I just need to tough this one out. I’ll get some food and keep my head above water. I cannot let it get the best of me. I refuse to do that. I just need to keep moving forward.
When I was in the bank I looked at the people there attempting to help me. I kept realizing that I was on the edge of melting down. I tried something new. I closed my eyes and, in my mind’s voice chanted “I wish you happiness and joy…” rather than becoming upset with people that are trying to help me and do their jobs. I imagined light and joy rising like a gentle tide around the bank. My problem remained unsolved, but a solution was found, at least for the short run.
I spoke with the office of financial aid at school. My application has been approved – after too long a hiatus – but there is no word when the check will be cut. It seems that the cosmos are conspiring to make me either more frugal or less materialistic. The phone just rang; it was the system that assigns work. I had to decline a job. I hate to do that. It is probable that I could have gotten there on-time, given the schedule on Tuesday, but not definite. That is money lost. What are the cosmos telling me? I also got a call asking me to work on Wednesday. I am already booked.
I am frustrated today.
When I left the bank, I stopped at the Circle-K and got my drug of choice these days: a bottle of Dr. Pepper and a Hershey Bar. I gave up on other drugs. I have used cannabis in the past (actually with a good result for my anxiety) but have opted not to as I have no connection for “clean” stuff. I also assured MM that I no longer do any drugs. To use it would be to renege on my word; I won’t do that. In the past I have used physical intimacy and won’t go down that road either. I know that I could become a food-addict easily. I think that I am best to look for something healthy if I have to be compulsive, as oxymoronic as that sounds. I refuse to drink when I am feeling anxious. I’ve learned that that only exacerbates my anxiety and depression.
My head is throbbing and I fear that I am beginning to have symptoms of another anxiety attack. I don’t want to call MM. She has had a rough go of it with her anxiety and I don’t want to be a burden to her tonight. I think that I’ll have to tough it out. I would like to get together with MA and see how he is doing. If I were at the marina I would go for a walk by the ocean. I am in a somewhat isolated corner of Ventura. There is really nowhere to walk and we are by major thoroughfares. It is not safe to walk after dark here.
I just need to tough this one out. I’ll get some food and keep my head above water. I cannot let it get the best of me. I refuse to do that. I just need to keep moving forward.
November 07, 2004
A Quiet Weekend
SOMETIMES IT IS BEST just to retreat and focus on what is good in life. I spent this weekend with MM. We didn’t do much. I cooked for her. We played with the dogs. We watched a movie. We made love. We enjoyed our time together. I helped with her housework. It was wonderful.
I read a disturbing article blaming gays and lesbians for Kerry’s defeat in Ohio. The author claimed that if gay and lesbian people had not pushed for the language of marriage, setting instead for identical rights under a different label – the language of civil union – that Kerry would have won. Shades of Brown v. Board… separate is inherently unequal.
I am of two minds on civil union and marriage. If the question is merely semantic might civil union be a step toward societal acceptance of marriage for all persons regardless of gender? But then I recall that transgendered people that have undergone sexual reassignment are legally regarded as members of their reassigned gender for purposes of marriage. Language is important. It is how we perceive reality. This is the difficulty I have with calling gay-marriage civil union. If it is a marriage, let us call it by those words.
I do not think that Mr. Kerry has been consigned to the same political limbo in which Mr. Gore finds himself. He has “juice” with the Democrats and is still a sitting senator. I foresee him as a leader of the loyal opposition. What I do find very heartening about this last election is that more Americans voted than have since 1968. I am still unhappy with the outcome, but I am getting over it.
I will support the president, as I have always done. I will be critical, as is my wont, but loyal to this country even when I am ashamed of her choices. Maybe the quote from Carl Shurz needs to be heard again:
Amen.
I came across this link... cut and paste to share with friends. I am against the war, as anybody who has read my blog knows, but am passionate about supporting our soldiers. I want them safe and to come home alive. Here is an inexpensive way to help regardless of your/my/our politics: http://booksforsoldiers.com -tdf
I read a disturbing article blaming gays and lesbians for Kerry’s defeat in Ohio. The author claimed that if gay and lesbian people had not pushed for the language of marriage, setting instead for identical rights under a different label – the language of civil union – that Kerry would have won. Shades of Brown v. Board… separate is inherently unequal.
I am of two minds on civil union and marriage. If the question is merely semantic might civil union be a step toward societal acceptance of marriage for all persons regardless of gender? But then I recall that transgendered people that have undergone sexual reassignment are legally regarded as members of their reassigned gender for purposes of marriage. Language is important. It is how we perceive reality. This is the difficulty I have with calling gay-marriage civil union. If it is a marriage, let us call it by those words.
I do not think that Mr. Kerry has been consigned to the same political limbo in which Mr. Gore finds himself. He has “juice” with the Democrats and is still a sitting senator. I foresee him as a leader of the loyal opposition. What I do find very heartening about this last election is that more Americans voted than have since 1968. I am still unhappy with the outcome, but I am getting over it.
I will support the president, as I have always done. I will be critical, as is my wont, but loyal to this country even when I am ashamed of her choices. Maybe the quote from Carl Shurz needs to be heard again:
“The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, ‘My country, right or wrong.’ In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” [Emphasis mine]
Amen.
I came across this link... cut and paste to share with friends. I am against the war, as anybody who has read my blog knows, but am passionate about supporting our soldiers. I want them safe and to come home alive. Here is an inexpensive way to help regardless of your/my/our politics: http://booksforsoldiers.com -tdf
November 05, 2004
A Few Days after the Election
A COUPLE OF DAYS HAVE Passed since the elections. I have calmed down. My indignation at the Republican strategy of splintering a vote in a key state by "chumming" the waters with an initiative sure to raise the ire and motivate their base has shifted from anger to begrudged admiration. When I look at move made in Ohio I must concede that it was brilliant (in a similar vein the idea of a low tech attack on the US using airliners was as brilliant as it was evil). I hate to see brain-power used to deceive and -in this fool's opinion- to harm the electorate. Limitation on the rights of any group is a diminution of my rights. Ohio has lost over 250,000 jobs in the last four years... but that is nothing when placed against the rights of gay persons to marry. There is a stark cynicism in that equation, one that a true amoral pragmatist steeped in the Machiavellian verba, would employ to his or her own ends. Brilliant? Absolutely. Moral? No. But the pure pragmatist will argue morality only to the degree that his or her purposes are served by the moral indignation of the manipulated electorate.
One hears echoes of Nietzsche: there is neither good nor evil,there is only power...
That begs the question of morality. An anonymous friend of the fool made some harsh comments on my last posting (both are there for your kind review: the Dancing Fool does not censor comments that are critical, indeed they are part of our dialog). Since I take all comments seriously I try to respond to all commentators. Sadly, the individual that made his or her comment did not feel that sharing an email addy was necessary. So my response is posted herein. My anonymous friend wrote:
I've edited the comment for space; the whole text is available on the previous posting. While my sexual experience was noted, it was not intended to be the centerpiece of the commentary. I was trying to draw a comparison between personal moral issues (sex being only one of several such issues) and a legislative agenda that is amoral and driven by a thirst for power. I know that I should write a draft before publishing and generally wait a bit before publishing. I value the written word and feel that clear prose is necessary. I overstated my example in that draft. I need to say what I mean in order to mean what I say. But I digress.
I must make a gentle corrective to my anonymous friend's posting. He or she has accused me of "blatant use of women" as objects of my personal satisfaction. I take exception to that characterization. I have noted in previous postings that I went through a period of sexual excess. I used sex as a drug. There are things that I did not do: I never misrepresented myself and never involved myself knowingly with an individual that was in a relationship (a concession to a deeply seeded moral streak). Any and all events of sexual intimacy were completely consensual and were in no way coerced. To be honest, I was not always the instigator. I came to know many women that craved a human touch but not a relationship. Others were content to be "friends with benefits."
The language of "use" implies a power-based paradigm wherein the woman is clearly just an object. That is the language of the victim who finds herself powerless to do otherwise. Clearly, it is inappropriate to this conversation. I wonder: Could men be objects or have we reduced the dyad to power-hungry men usurping the humanity of powerless women? Can a woman be the one controlling and asserting power over the man? I would submit that narrow parochialism is more damning than free expression of one's libido with consenting adults.
I will also defend your right to call me an ass to my grave as it is as much a right as is mine to sleep with whomever I wish.
The difficulty is that we have limited morality to sexuality and have forgotten that the true measure of a moral nation is the care that provides to its marginalized members. This stands at the heart of Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, the IDEA, and other legislative landmarks that defend the right of the marginalized. Should sexuality not also be afforded these protections?
Our nation was conceived of puritan roots. Sadly, this sort of puritanism is more easily offended by healthy sexuality than it is by the diminution of personal liberties. A truism is that my rights extend only to the point that they limit the rights of others. Nobody has an absolute right to anything. But certainly, an act that is comforting to both parties, done in the privacy of one's home, with the fully informed consent of both should not become the stuff of indignation, righteous or otherwise, especially when juxtiposed to the systematic dismantelling of civil liberties that the current administration has begun - and will continue - under the guise of protecting us from an unknown and unseen enemy.
Put bluntly, open your goddamed eyes. Who fucks whom is not the issue. The issues are the environment, freedom of speech, provision of healthcare to the poor, full employment, green energy, a just economic order, freedom to practice whatever religion my conscience dictates without fear of reprisals from my fellow citizens, provision of the right to marry to all person, provision of affordable housing to all, provision of the arts to all, and the list goes on and on and on...
I am ashamed of my country at this moment. We have have forgotten the core values that should shape us as a people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing...
Ah, but I am only a fool...
One hears echoes of Nietzsche: there is neither good nor evil,there is only power...
That begs the question of morality. An anonymous friend of the fool made some harsh comments on my last posting (both are there for your kind review: the Dancing Fool does not censor comments that are critical, indeed they are part of our dialog). Since I take all comments seriously I try to respond to all commentators. Sadly, the individual that made his or her comment did not feel that sharing an email addy was necessary. So my response is posted herein. My anonymous friend wrote:
"yor [sic] blatant use of women for your own gratification ... is frankly disgusting and a symptom of some of things that embarass [sic] me about America: the lack of respect for others and oneself; the instant gratification (how else would you have had sex with unknown women) and the belief that you have a god-given right to do just whatever the hell you want, regardless of the impact on society and others..."
I've edited the comment for space; the whole text is available on the previous posting. While my sexual experience was noted, it was not intended to be the centerpiece of the commentary. I was trying to draw a comparison between personal moral issues (sex being only one of several such issues) and a legislative agenda that is amoral and driven by a thirst for power. I know that I should write a draft before publishing and generally wait a bit before publishing. I value the written word and feel that clear prose is necessary. I overstated my example in that draft. I need to say what I mean in order to mean what I say. But I digress.
I must make a gentle corrective to my anonymous friend's posting. He or she has accused me of "blatant use of women" as objects of my personal satisfaction. I take exception to that characterization. I have noted in previous postings that I went through a period of sexual excess. I used sex as a drug. There are things that I did not do: I never misrepresented myself and never involved myself knowingly with an individual that was in a relationship (a concession to a deeply seeded moral streak). Any and all events of sexual intimacy were completely consensual and were in no way coerced. To be honest, I was not always the instigator. I came to know many women that craved a human touch but not a relationship. Others were content to be "friends with benefits."
The language of "use" implies a power-based paradigm wherein the woman is clearly just an object. That is the language of the victim who finds herself powerless to do otherwise. Clearly, it is inappropriate to this conversation. I wonder: Could men be objects or have we reduced the dyad to power-hungry men usurping the humanity of powerless women? Can a woman be the one controlling and asserting power over the man? I would submit that narrow parochialism is more damning than free expression of one's libido with consenting adults.
I will also defend your right to call me an ass to my grave as it is as much a right as is mine to sleep with whomever I wish.
The difficulty is that we have limited morality to sexuality and have forgotten that the true measure of a moral nation is the care that provides to its marginalized members. This stands at the heart of Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board, the IDEA, and other legislative landmarks that defend the right of the marginalized. Should sexuality not also be afforded these protections?
Our nation was conceived of puritan roots. Sadly, this sort of puritanism is more easily offended by healthy sexuality than it is by the diminution of personal liberties. A truism is that my rights extend only to the point that they limit the rights of others. Nobody has an absolute right to anything. But certainly, an act that is comforting to both parties, done in the privacy of one's home, with the fully informed consent of both should not become the stuff of indignation, righteous or otherwise, especially when juxtiposed to the systematic dismantelling of civil liberties that the current administration has begun - and will continue - under the guise of protecting us from an unknown and unseen enemy.
Put bluntly, open your goddamed eyes. Who fucks whom is not the issue. The issues are the environment, freedom of speech, provision of healthcare to the poor, full employment, green energy, a just economic order, freedom to practice whatever religion my conscience dictates without fear of reprisals from my fellow citizens, provision of the right to marry to all person, provision of affordable housing to all, provision of the arts to all, and the list goes on and on and on...
I am ashamed of my country at this moment. We have have forgotten the core values that should shape us as a people: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing...
Ah, but I am only a fool...
November 03, 2004
Ohio in the Balance
Give the devil his due: it was brilliant to appeal to the social issues that a president cannot legislate to steer the voters away from real issues. Ohio seems to be a case in point in this legerdemain that requires a suspension of disbelief or a willingness to be distracted from more substantial moral issues. The definition of marriage as a legally binding covenant between a man and a woman is the case in point. Like all contracts, the issues that define them have to do with the dissolution rather than consummation of the compact. Divorce law, especially issues of child custody, are impacted. Certainly no fairminded person would deny a couple - regardless of sexual orientation - the rights of inheritance, power of attorney, and others that are associated with marriage. Finally I don't believe that this is the point: Social conservatives tend to equate morality with their genitals rather than with the intrinsic value of human life.
We are involved in an immoral war in Iraq. Why has that not incensed the social conservatives. Is it because they are powerless and the war is distant (at least until their sons and daughters arrive home in body bags) and homosexuality is a closer "enemy" that threatens their perceptions of the world? I have to wonder about the value of human life. How many Iraqis have been killed for no good reason. Is that not an immoral abuse of power? Why was this war prosecuted? How about more pressing issues like the economy? Gas is nearly $3.00 per gallon. Who is making the profit on the oil purchased with Iraqi and American blood?
Sex is something that we all enjoy. I have had partners in the triple digits (hard to believe, but true). I experimented with same-sex eroticism and confirmed that I am as straight as they come (no pun intended). There are several women that, in retrospect, I wish I had not had relations with. There are some that I barely remember. Others are very dear to me. What does it matter where I put my penis? My lover and I are the only ones that are concerned about that. She knows that it is for her alone and that I am happy being faithful to the woman I love. But I digress. That I've had some sexual experience does not make me a bad person. There are a couple of events that I truly regret.
I have come to see sexual expression as something that is undervalued and trivialize, much like human life. Here is where I agree with social conservatives: how this is lived is where we part company. I have no wish to see legislation to define who may sleep with whom and how. Is anal intercourse immoral? How about fellatio? How about threesomes? The funny thing is that in any threesome there is one person of one gender and two of the other: is there not a sense of homoeroticism here? I don't care who sleeps with whom so long as they are consenting adults. There are practices that I find difficult, some even offensive to my sensibilities. There are none that should be legislated. This is personal freedom.
Marriage and divorce fall into that category. The irony is that social conservatives tend to support marriage. To limit a gay couple (of either gender) to a committed and stable relationship is to limit the sexual immorality that is perceived to appertain to homosexual lifestyles. It would follow that social conservatives would support gay marriage. But in the sleight of hand that is conservative politics it is just not so.
It seems that the devil had demanded his due: the soul of the country and we are all the poorer for having confused sexuality for morality that values the human life above all actions or choices.
Sad to say, the "defense" of marriage became the point that may have cost Mr. Kerry the election. Who would have thought that where men put their penises would be more compelling than the state of the economy, the unwarranted and dastardly lies told to the American people to justify a war that has shed blood for no other reason than to line the pockets of the Saudi royal family, the Bush family, and others involved in blood for oil.
Today I am ashamed to be American.
We are involved in an immoral war in Iraq. Why has that not incensed the social conservatives. Is it because they are powerless and the war is distant (at least until their sons and daughters arrive home in body bags) and homosexuality is a closer "enemy" that threatens their perceptions of the world? I have to wonder about the value of human life. How many Iraqis have been killed for no good reason. Is that not an immoral abuse of power? Why was this war prosecuted? How about more pressing issues like the economy? Gas is nearly $3.00 per gallon. Who is making the profit on the oil purchased with Iraqi and American blood?
Sex is something that we all enjoy. I have had partners in the triple digits (hard to believe, but true). I experimented with same-sex eroticism and confirmed that I am as straight as they come (no pun intended). There are several women that, in retrospect, I wish I had not had relations with. There are some that I barely remember. Others are very dear to me. What does it matter where I put my penis? My lover and I are the only ones that are concerned about that. She knows that it is for her alone and that I am happy being faithful to the woman I love. But I digress. That I've had some sexual experience does not make me a bad person. There are a couple of events that I truly regret.
I have come to see sexual expression as something that is undervalued and trivialize, much like human life. Here is where I agree with social conservatives: how this is lived is where we part company. I have no wish to see legislation to define who may sleep with whom and how. Is anal intercourse immoral? How about fellatio? How about threesomes? The funny thing is that in any threesome there is one person of one gender and two of the other: is there not a sense of homoeroticism here? I don't care who sleeps with whom so long as they are consenting adults. There are practices that I find difficult, some even offensive to my sensibilities. There are none that should be legislated. This is personal freedom.
Marriage and divorce fall into that category. The irony is that social conservatives tend to support marriage. To limit a gay couple (of either gender) to a committed and stable relationship is to limit the sexual immorality that is perceived to appertain to homosexual lifestyles. It would follow that social conservatives would support gay marriage. But in the sleight of hand that is conservative politics it is just not so.
It seems that the devil had demanded his due: the soul of the country and we are all the poorer for having confused sexuality for morality that values the human life above all actions or choices.
Sad to say, the "defense" of marriage became the point that may have cost Mr. Kerry the election. Who would have thought that where men put their penises would be more compelling than the state of the economy, the unwarranted and dastardly lies told to the American people to justify a war that has shed blood for no other reason than to line the pockets of the Saudi royal family, the Bush family, and others involved in blood for oil.
Today I am ashamed to be American.
November 02, 2004
Election Day...
Now I can take down all of the political banners from my 'blog... I expect to be dropping in throughout the day and making comments as the day progresses. I live in California. We have a whole slew of propositions to vote on, as always. Here is tDF's Voting Guide and some of my rationale:
Candidates for Office:
Propositions:
So there it is... tDF's Voting Guide. Shall see how they fair. More later.
Candidates for Office:
President - John Kerry: Bush is a liar, a cheat, lost the last election, and is responsible for the needless deaths of over 1000 American soldiers, has no interest in moving away from petroleum based fuels. Kerry is much too conservative for my taste, but has to be better than "W."
US Senator - Barbara Boxer: Bill Jones is downright scary. Boxer, the more liberal of our two senators, is my preference. Again, I am not supporting Boxer as much as attempting to keep the senate out of Republican hands.
State Senator and Member of Assembly: Graber and Nava, respectively. Nava presents with environmental credentials that I like, is pro-education, and appears to be the better person for the position.
Propositions:
Props 1A and 65: NO. I believe that it is theresponsibility of the state to fairly distribute funds to the areas where they are most needed. Both of these propositions keep funds local and harm poorer areas.
Prop 59: YES. I dislike secrecy. Best to have open government.
Props 60 and 62: NO. I believe in the integrity of membership organizations. I dislike the "open primary" and feel that a party's candidate should be selected by its membership. Once placed in nomination the only poll that really matters occurs. Frankly, the idea of Democrats choosing the Republican Candidate or vice versa is repugnant to a representative system.
Prop 60A: NO. I dislike the ambiguity of this bill. What state property will be sold off? Drilling rights in the Santa Barbara Channel? Public lands that are habitats for endangered species. This is akin to selling one's birthright for a bowl of weak porridge...
Props 61, 63, 67, 71 and 72: YES. All serve to enhance health care in California. Mental health is in a state of crisis. This is a constituency that cannot well represent itself. Funds need to be allocated to offer help and assistance. Think of it as caring for those who, if left untreated, can become harmful to the rest. This is economics not compassion (for my conservative friends). If I am in need of an ER and cannot find one nearby that can be life or death. Our hospital system is in shambles. We are losing services. Think... Illness knows no demography. A germ does not care about your politics. The infamous prop 187 was an epidemiological nightmare. Why compound the issue?
Prop 66: YES. Three strikes was a tragic error. This bill does not strike down that draconian law, but limits it.
Props 70 and 68: NO. I dislike gaming, but that is personal. I cannot support rights reserved for one sector of the society while denying the same to others. If there is to be gaming in California it should not be limited to tribal casinos.
Prop 69: NO. In East Germany the police had scent files on their citizenry. They were used to control the population and to enable the dogs to find anybody at anytime. This is the moral equivalent. The Republicans are acting like the Communists. While I like the irony (I've always considered that the Republican party has more openly embraced fascism under W), I dislike the bill.
Prop 71: YES. Stem cell research is beneficial to all. Think of this as an economic bill that creates new industries in California.
So there it is... tDF's Voting Guide. Shall see how they fair. More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)