Polit-idiots, Legion, & Rural Communication

So, normally Uncle Jeremy picks one thing that's pissing him off, or giving him warm fuzzies, and takes off on a tearing rant. Today, however, there's more than one. And since most of them are short enough to cover at speed, we'll take them back to back.

In no particular order:

4. You are what's between your legs, apparently.

State Rep. Peter Hansen, R-NH, apparently has absolutely no idea what Internet security is. There's really no other explanation for why a Republican politician would put the following in an email after all the other nasty little slips his party has had recently:

What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims. (Source)

Hansen was responding to a "stand your ground" bill, which basically says that if you can hand over your wallet, run away, drop your drawers, etc., you have to try that first before you can smack 'em in the temple or trachea.

Leaving all the horrible implications in that bill aside, seriously? Hansen claims he was using the word for shock value, but come on people. How many more times are we going to see some idiot politician degrade women or minorities?

Speaking of minorities:

3. Let the grandstanding commence!

Politicians have a tendency to turn anything into political capital that at times can seem Rumpelstiltskin-esque. Take State Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who's jumped on the Boston Marathon Bombings as a sign that we should be cautious about immigration reform.

No, seriously. Here you go:

Some of the speculation that has come out is that yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa. If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture. —Steve King (Source.)

King is most likely reacting to news that a comprehensive bipartisan bill to reform immigration laws, specifically those dealing with illegal immigrants, had been mostly hammered out after months of closed door sessions. While the bill needs some more detail work, it looks like a decent shake for just about everyone involved might actually come out of this. 

A round of applause then, for Representative King! You didn't even let a single day of that warm, creamy political goodness slip by you before slamming into gear to get that tragedy working for you! I swear, that's one of the fastest snatch 'n spins I've seen on a tragedy since...

They did what? Ok, get me a bottle of Visine and the football.
(Source)

2. Who Rules?

Yeah, no segue. Bite me. Anywho, the Phelps Home for the Criminally Insane is at it again, telling people that God hates us all, and communicates through bloodshed. In the past, this has been met with loud media shouting, and much furor. However, a few months back a higher (or lower, depending on your point of view) power has deigned to intervene. 

The hacktivist group Anonymous has declared holy war on the unholy church. Here's their declaration of intent.

Because that's not at all terrifying, right? The best part, however, is that Anonymous is following through. They've stood down Phelps' clan a couple times since then, hacked their Facebook, Twitter, and websites a couple of times, and now Anonymous has flat out stated that if the WBC tries to protest the funerals of the Boston Bombing victims, the WBC will have to deal with Anonymous.

(Source.)

So...woot for a terrifying, faceless organization with potentially unlimited, decentralized power...but apparently with more conscience than most governments? I can live with that, for now.

1. What.

Ladies and gentlemen (and those who prefer to be neither,) I give you:

 Drive-by groundhogging.

BROOKVILLE, Pennsylvania — Police in one western Pennsylvania town are investigating a case of bar kill: dead animals tossed into a tavern by unsatisfied customers.

A groundhog was tossed into Bill's Bar on Sunday in Brookville, about 70 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, before a man sped off in a pickup driven by another man, The (Dubois) Courier-Express reported Wednesday. Hours later, the men returned and tossed in the dead grouse for good measure.

(Source.)

Ya did what now. (Source)

I have nothing to say on this, especially. It just struck me funny. I leave you with the second to final line of the news story without further comment.

"We have a lot of it up here. A guy will get in an argument and put a dead squirrel on his girlfriend's doorknob, that kind of thing," Dworek said.

Meanwhile, In Boston

Apparently, there was a terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon today. Estimates put the wounded somewhere between 50 and 150, and there are two confirmed dead. And much as I would love to tell you there's some social issue here that needs addressing, tell you that I've got some ranty little opinion that will tease out a laugh...

I've got nothing. The only people at fault are terrorists, and it's not as though we're being stupid on the terrorism front. There's safeguards, there's limitations on freedom that may or may not be reasonable, there's intelligence networks scrambling to stay on top of things.

So...there's no one to yell at, particularly. Not even the terrorists, because we're still not sure who they are, or what they stand for. Hell, this could be a street gang in it for the kicks, however unlikely that might be.

What can I write here?

Well...I've seen a lot of posts today quoting notable people, saying comforting things. I've seen pretty pictures and ugly pictures, and pictures of smoke rising over crowds of panicked people running to and from the blast.

I've read half a dozen stories, seen footage, and read a couple of other blogs.

All I can really say here is that I offer my condolences to those who lost someone. I offer my sympathies and hopes for a speedy recovery to the injured and the families of the injured.

I offer thanks to the first responders in Boston, for doing the best they can in a horrible situation.

I urge you all to keep a level head, keep the prayers coming if you pray, donate blood or money through reputable organizations if you can.

And for the love of all that's holy don't vote hastily on anything that comes out of this. While I hope this will be handled with decency and efficiency, the last time there was a major terrorist attack, we became embroiled in an decade long war. So keep your eyes and ears open, ok?

I'll leave y'all with a rare invocation on my part, then:

Lords and ladies above and below, Deity in all facets and faces,
Grant strength and aid to those in suffering, and to those who aid them
And have mercy on our race, that we may outgrow our failings.

Ranting will resume Wednesday.

Writing About Writing

I was working on a political blog. And then I sat there, staring at it, and just couldn't work up any vitriol. What's the point? I've yelled about how heavily bastardized our political system is, how useless the lot of you are, how very stupid it is that we keep handing the power right back to the idiots we hate for not doing their jobs. And I'm yelled out on the front, to be frank.

But as I sat here watching the cursor blink, it occurred to me that I've never talked about the one thing it would seem obvious to talk about. Namely, that writing a blog is bloody hard. Hell, writing in general is bloody hard. You know what's funny, though?

Writing is a low barrier-to-entry field in the minds of most, and those who do think it's difficult somehow have this strange idea that the publication alone is what makes it hard. And then there's even more who seem to believe that because so much material finds it's way onto the interwebz, that no part of writing is difficult.

Let's take these in reverse order, hmm?

The idea that "because so much gets published by various means, it must not be hard to do"? I can kinda see where that comes from. I mean look at this:

That's over one hundred thousand books and manuscripts published or put up for sale on Amazon in the last month. Surely, with that kind of flow, writing can't be that hard, huh? Yes, it can. Publishing has simply grown more diverse and less choosy. We all know this.

We all know that any schmuck with an axe to grind can kick up a blog, website, or (for the discerning ranters) self-publish an actual physical document that can be purchased in hard copy or e-book. Anyone. And there are no editors, no agents, no fact-checkers, no proofreaders, no publication assistant...no one to stand in your way and grind you down. No-one to tell you you suck.

But there's also no-one to catch your mistakes. I work without a proofreader or editor on this blog, and it shows, no? There're little grammar errors sprinkled throughout, little redundant words here and there, moments where my thinking and reasoning gets mixed into my prose and makes a mess instead of a point. There's rampant comma abuse. There's the occasional typo that makes it through spell check and three proof readings. But by and large, I work hard to make sure that such things, though accidents do happen, are rare. 

Now imagine if my blog looked like this:

OHHAIDER! LOLOLOLOLOL, HERPDERP!

Or this:

And then he said take me baby and she said ok and they did it hard and it was gud.

Wanna feel scared? That's the sort of thing that can get published, actually, honest to gods published, on Amazon. The barrier to entry is set so low that anyone with a manuscript can convert to eBook and publish. Is it always that bad? Nope. But is a lot of it unreadable uncleaned dreck? Yep.

The idea that it's the cutthroat world of publishing that makes writing difficult is actually fairly easy to address, as it's a transition point. Short story short? If you want to publish traditionally, yes. Publication is a nasty little headache waiting to happen. Self publishing or electronic publishing, as noted above, have trashed the idea of the publisher as a barrier. 

So that leaves the little darlings I want to throttle, the ones who think writing isn't actually difficult at all. 

Shown: My head. (Source.)

What leads to this belief? Why, the fact that everyone and their dog can sit down with the writing implements of their choice and express themselves through the written word. No, seriously. The same culture that spawned SMS language is the culture that believes access to a keyboard makes writing easier. 

"Ahhh," says your friendly neighborhood Strawman. "But what about those kids that can't write for crap in their highschool/college classes?"

They don't believe writing is hard. They believe they can't do it. Some of those kids may realize that they're having problems because it's six kinds of b*tch to write anything coherent. But some will believe the teacher has no clue what he/she's talking about. Though in all fairness, if a teacher goes by "coach," and the class isn't outdoors or in a gym, that assumption may be right.

But right or wrong, what it will lead to is those kids who write fan-fiction and think it's the god's own gift to earth (some is), or think they can slap the next Great American Novel in a month by targeting a word count and calling it good. There are whole books written in the "and then, and then, and then" style of a 12 -year old. Whole published books. Don't believe me?

Go have a look. No, I won't look for you. I don't feel like being reminded of it.

And then there are those who do have a functioning command of the English language, and automatically believe that qualifies them to write professionally. I'll admit, that's pretty much the best entry qualification. But it's hardly the only one.

Take me for example. I've been writing for years. I actually sat down and took the time to get a degree in it, which is by no means the route I recommend. Taking classes on the side would have worked just fine, thanks, and I might have a degree I could use. But I digress.

This year alone, I've written easily better than 11,000 words on this blog alone. That's not counting the 96 daily haikus, the cartoons, the homework, the short stories, the resume's, the cover letters, the emails, or the writing I do for myself. That's just the non-fiction prose I write.

What makes me think that I'm a writer? The fact that I practice. I write often. I read endlessly, voraciously. I sit and think about ways to turn a phrase for hours at a time. Can anyone sit down and be good? Sure! Can you do it consistently? Well, that depends.

Are you willing to actually exercise your ability, your vocabulary, your grammar and composition skills at least once or twice a week? Can you make yourself hold to a schedule and crank out work on that schedule? (It's one of my failings!) And can you accept criticism?

If any of the above = no, then you may write, yes. But you're not writing, not in the sense of the profession.

So is there a point down here?

Yups.

My point is that I'm more than a little pissed that my profession, the work I strive to do to the best of my ability, is considered the easiest form of artistic self-expression these days because anyone can slap words on a screen and hit publish. I'm pissed that I can't make a living with my degree because the business of telling people what's going on has been eaten by the business of making money telling idiots what they want to hear.

I'm pissed that my generation, the two or three generation before it, and all of those after it so far, have vomited so much crap out into the world that it has to have a kitten or death attached to it for anyone to pay attention these days.

Actually, I'm just plain pissed that writing isn't a profession anymore, as such.

Oh well. Not feeling the kittens right now, so have a bulldog instead.

It's adorable, and it can kill you. Ha! (Source.)

At least that way a few people will have a look, right?

Of Children and Blogs

I need to write a happy blog at some point. This is not that blog, unfortunately. Also, I should probably find a topic other than gender rights, LGBT rights, and politics. Those are fairly done to death around this corner of the web. But the next one is political, and this one's about gay stuff. So eh. I write what I have. 

Also, it would appear we're kicking on a M/W update schedule, but seriously, don't hold me to that. Official updates are still just Mondays.

Getting into the topic for this blog a bit sideways: if you want a good view into a reasonable Catholic mind, go read BadCatholic. He's a good writer, bit wordier than even I am on occasion, and he actually has a very similar style to mine. He uses expository thinking, strawman arguments (lampshaded, of course) and intersperses humor and humorous pictures when called for. He also makes logical faults, but so do I on occasion. Oh, and I don't endorse his views. But I like his style.

A word to the wise, though: where I use ridiculous amounts of links to secondary sources, he uses said links and goes scuba diving into the depths of the Catholic faith. So this ain't no 101 class, kiddos. His theology is sound but, like all good metaphysics, it takes a couple cups of coffee and a few passes to get the various levels and subtexts that allow theology to form a decent understandable whole.

For anyone that's annoyed that I'm linking a Catholic blog on a ranty alt-social blog? I have the blessing of Ceiling Cat. And he's watching you. All the time.

All the time. (Source)

Anywho. That's housecleaning, and a nice lead-in to my current post. Pull up a chair, Herr Doktor Internets. We're going into my head today. 

My introduction to BadCatholic came courtesy of a friend on the Facebooks. I swear, I think I'll abandon Facebook some days, just to get a breather. But then I'd have no juicy fodder for this blog, and all my readers would complain to me. (No, really. Every time I stop, I get at least three people I had no idea read my stuff come up and ask me why I'm not writing.)

What was I saying? Of, yes. So, this post on BadCatholic. If you're going to get upset at the guy, you have to read the whole thing first. I did, and I noticed a few things. 

First, he and I actually agree pretty evenly. He's still against, I'm still for, but the reasons and arguments are fairly similar. "Civil marriage is a crock anyway" being the outstanding example, but annoyance at ridiculous generalization is another. And yes, there's a lot of Catholicism to wade through in all of that, but I've had the training to read that stuff, and once it kicked in, I figured out that he was largely supporting his arguments that civil marriage is a crock and has nothing to do with the sacrament of marriage. 

I'm paraphrasing, to be clear. There's no way I'm going to try and take him point by point, because it would boil down to "ok, look, he's using a different paradigm, but we're really saying a lot of the same things, and this is where the translation points come in."

I'm going somewhere with this, I swear. Bear with me.

Like me, he builds to a final point, using his previous arguments and musings to create a foundation and structure his final point can stand on. At the risk of losing a few of you, here it is:

"Do children have the right to a mother and father? If the answer is yes, then I oppose the redefinition of marriage on the grounds that such a redefinition would restrict a child’s basic, human right." —BadCatholic

Everyone take a step back and hold your fire. Though I don't agree with him, that's a highly valid point, for two reasons. I have some issues with his support of it, but that does not invalidate his argument.

For the first reason, I'd like to note that the studies he cites take a great deal of time to go through, but they come down to concerns over claims of "no appreciable difference" that are not statistically supportable based on the size of the studied samples. And they're correct. Meaningful data cannot be drawn from the sample sizes used in the studies addressed.

That does not automatically prove the opposite. All it means, in the end, that we still don't really have anything more than anecdotal evidence to go on as to whether GLBT families have better, worse, or the same quality of child-rearing capability as heterosexual families.

Reason number two is that he phrases it quite clearly as a conditional opinion, "if-then." So if you don't hold with the initial assumption, the conclusion does not apply to you. And I like that phrasing a lot. It gives a writer room to run without first having to declare that this, and only this, can be true.

Where am I going with this? Well, as stated, I don't agree that it's harmful to children to raise them in alternate family structures.

But I live in terror that I'm wrong, and he's right. That kids get screwed up without a Mom/Dad structure. After all, we just don't have the data to back it up one way or the other. Ah yes, and now my dear readers can understand why this is a "Herr Doktor Internets" blog.

See, I know, intellectually speaking, that kid raising is a crapshoot. Horrible parents can raise good kids, good parents can raise horrible kids, every flavor of family can have mixed results, and the only way to get any idea of what works requires a vast sampling. And the only thing we can get meaningful samples of is heterosexual family structures, and the options there generally point to stable, longterm partners delivering the best quality of child-raising.

And I know, too, that while family structure is important, at the end of the day it's case by case to the individual. Some gay and lesbian couples might have no business raising kids, but at the same time, there's plenty of straight couples who equally have no business trying to grow micro-people.

But...

But there's a fear, held by anyone that wants kids, that they're going to screw up horribly. And in my case, it's coupled with a vast amount of people informing me that I'm absolutely correct, I'll be a rotten parent as a ground state simply by ruining the kid's life by virtue of imposing my non-hetero family structure on him or her.

I mean, I don't know any kids who were raised by gay parents. Maybe they do get screwed up, and I just don't know about it.

On top of societal problems is that fact that I really want to adopt. I think that rather than creating micro-people of my own for the sole purpose of handing off DNA that, if we're being honest, carries relatively high probability of intelligence as one of its few redeeming qualities, I could give a home to a kid who might not have one otherwise. Short version of that last line: my genes sorta suck, and there's kids who need a home.

But that means inviting the government into my life, which is a fairly Lovecraftian prospect. At that point, I not only have to raise a kid, I have to do it to the standards of strangers, using methods acceptable to those strangers, under the eye of a bureaucracy that gives no fucks about real life and its complications if I'm not crossing every t and dotting every i.

I have to try and raise a kid who may wonder why his or her friend's parents won't let them come over for fear of me and my husband. I may have to explain to the little tyke that teachers treat him or her differently because they think his or her parents are wrong for giving him or her a home. I might have to fight, more than once, to keep my kid when even good people decide there's a genuine concern where none exists and the state jumps down my throat on the word of strangers.

I may have to teach my children how to recognize and deal with logic and rhetoric so he or she can defend him- or her-self against the soul-crushing pain of being told they're tainted by their parent's very existence.

In short, I could start three chips down and lose the whole pot without ever being given a chance to try. And whether I fail on my own, or with judicious interference by strangers, friends, and the US government, it will be taken as validation that gay parents can't raise kids. And if I succeed it will be taken as a statistical blip. "So that one managed it. It's still bad for kids, anyhow."

And if I go with my husband's preference and we surrogate? Well, that kid may still go through everything I listed above, and can still be subject to summary removal from our care on the grounds that we're gay, and so of course we shouldn't be raising a kid.

Bottom line here, then.

Do I believe a nuclear family structure is the optimal way to raise kids? Not really. I believe it's in the range of optimal, but only because it has the highest rate of occurrence and therefore has the best statistical success rate. If you put enough numbers in a box, eventually you get two extremes that are unlikely, and a wide middle ground. The smaller the sample, the narrower the middle ground, and the more plausible the extremes look.

But am I still worried that my kids, if I'm ever allowed to adopt any or keep any we surrogate, will be horrible people solely because of my orientation and the backlash that will come with it?

Yup. Because while enough people saying something doesn't make it true...it does make it niggle at the back of your mind, and keep your eyes open at 3 a.m. wondering—

"What if they're right?"

It Sounds A Bit Bazaar...

...but things the way they are...

Yeah, this has a humorous theme song. If you're not blood related to me, you might not get it. On the other hand, you might. What is it that inspires the strange pun in the title and a musical video about peons thanking a usurer for dying without selling their debts?

This, of course. Now, my husband took the time to repost this on FB, noting with indignation that "instead of giving us equal rights because it's the right thing to do, they might do it just so they stop losing and it might make them money!?" And, from a purely ideal standpoint, he's right. There are, of course, some concerns to address. 

The first thing to take into consideration is that my husband is expressing a valid point of view based on the information available to him, and the information presented is correct in both its conveyance of fact and its particulars. The thought that a political party would change it's point of view on an issue they've obfuscated for close to two decades as a way to "earn back the vote" and increase their revenue is heinous. Especially when one considers that the issue in question could already be settled had this party not only voted against it, but actively introduced and passed legislation to outlaw the rights this issue represents. 

However. 

You remember how I've mentioned before that viewer bias is one of the strongest factors in not only what news gets reported, but how it's reported, and the spin offered? You know, advocacy/citizen journalism? This is a fabulous example!

Here's the end source my husband got his story from initially. Article linked is safe, but the blog overall can be NSFW. So you might want to hit that one from mobile or home, ok? 

Here's where it gets fun. The blog article is 136 words. The article it redirects to is 206 words. Both hinge on the following quote:

"Republicans’ intolerance to marriage equality has been detrimental to winning...[b]ig donors understand that they don’t want to invest in campaigns focused on a losing issue," McLear said. "I think certainly the fiscal issues for Republicans are much more marketable."

The problem here? Both stories clearly say that the above quote was given, not to them, but to a different news source, one called Politico. So I looked up the actual piece for which McLear was interviewed. That article is 984 words long. That's nearly five times as much information as the larger of those two articles, and it contains links to other articles that provide the backing information for key points. Further, both of the smaller articles fall into the "soundbite" category. 

Both of the mini-articles were presented by gay news outlets, so the news presented is the news most likely to appeal to gay readers. Again, it's factual news, but it's not the whole news. Each article takes a single juicy tidbit and hands it out to readers who read those sources specifically for the angle they present. In niche opinion outlets, and in many targeted online sources, spin is inherent and context is irrelevant, as the idea is to maintain readership through getting information out in the most palatable and entertaining means possible, rather than the most factual.

Why does any of this matter in the face of "horrendous evulz?" Because of this quote, page two, paragraph four of the original story:

“The Republican Party need not be the keeper of individual values as this is not the role of a political party in the USA,” said Herro, a partner at Harris Associates, a Chicago-based investment company. 

“Politicians should stick to what they are truly able to legislate: taxes, spending, infrastructure, national security, because to some degree these are all public goods, whereas one valueset is quite personal and individual.” (Source.)

That's the other side of the story. The other side is that the people handing out the money, who want various flavors of governmental conservatism, are getting sick of seeing their money spent on politicians blustering over social conservatism and losing because of it. The men and women holding the purse strings want the exact same thing I want in broad strokes: they want the politidiots to stop pushing their personal beliefs as social agendas, and get on with the job they're supposed to be doing (running the country.)

So, on the issue of context and getting the whole story: while money as a motivator for social change and equal rights is really awful (idealistically speaking,) the fact that they're also getting bashed by their sponsors, who are threatening to take their money and go play somewhere else, is a plus. Seeking money for social change, and needing to be threatened economically, is a black mark against the GOP. Making those threats, and making them loud enough that they might stick, is a really refreshing sign of common sense from our nation's various McDuck wannabes. 

Concern the second: do we really care why they butt out of social normativity crusading and go back to running the country? Anyone? Show of hands?

First, let's be clear here: we're a horrible species. We have the Bystander Effect, we've got the highest body count of any species in the history of our planet, and we're the only species that consistently kills our own kind without a direct need for resources or instinctual bias. Hell, we're still trying to agree to dismantle weapons that can wipe out every living thing on this planet in under an hour, and the argument has boiled down to:

"You put yours down first."
"No, you go first."
"Well, I'm not going first."
"Well, neither am I."

So when we say that personal gain as a motivator for social change is a bad thing? Please remember that, historically speaking, it's one of the few things that works.

But the problem here is not that we're having to pay them off to get them to change their minds; the problem is that they believe this is something that needs to be legislated in the first place. There's a mental image of both conservatives and liberals that's been built up by these social issue wars over the last few decades. 

On the one side, we have the cartoonish buffoons working to keep our country in the dark ages; on the other we have the slick talking progressives working to undermine morality in the name of pure secularism. What we've forgotten is that not only are these caricatures largely expressions of the outer fringe of lunacy, they're also nothing to do with government.

Conservatism and Liberalism (in the American context, at any rate) are political umbrella terms that are so broad as to be meaningless. In many cases, the two overlap so tightly that there's no discernible difference. What strongly divides the two in the average American mind is their stands on societal issues and the fact that they're associated with two enormous parties that have platforms to push.

Would we like less debt? Sounds good. Would we like to strike a balance between social services the government extends and strong foreign and military policy? Sure! Better education systems, and a drive back towards becoming an intellectual superpower? Sweet!

As a rule? The how is under debate, but the goal itself is not. Both parties like those goals up there. And by and large, that's a fairly good list of things both conservatives and liberals want. So is "how shall we get what we both want anyway" the hot button topic of our times?

Nope. Those would be abortion, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, immigration, and finding someone to blame for the economy tanking while hoping it fixes itself.

In short: social issues take precedence over the actual running of the country. Even when the direction the country should be moving in is generally agreed upon. And if a plan comes up that might work, the other party has shown a tendency to torpedo it if they don't agree with parts of it, while the party that comes up with the plan will stand on every point without any give.

Why? Because solving problems instead of talking about them is serious political capital. And both sides are worried that if the other side gains momentum and ground, they'll push through social reforms. So on the fear that one side will force social issues to take on their preferred form, both sides are stonewalling on running of the country.

So if it takes economic sanction to force the GOP to shut up and sit down on this, I really don't care. At the very least, it's one less talking point politicians can use to avoid admitting they suck at the job they're supposed to be doing.

I wonder, though: how much money would we have to threaten both parties with to get them to sit down and work on actual legislative problems rather than bickering over who has better social values? What dollar amount do we have to wave to get politicians that have an interest in running the government, as opposed to dictating the sociocultural mores of our country?

Bottom line here, people. We elected them to operate the vast bureaucracy that our country depends on, and they've decided they'd rather be a pair of churches, trying to make our spiritual, moral, and ethical decisions for us. That's not their job, and if threatening their pocketbooks is what it takes to get them to sit down and do their jobs, I'm all for it.

Now: will someone get control of the other party? 

3 Responses To Mrs. Miller

Good morning, sports fans! Morning, by the by, is here defined as "when I wake up." So bite me. Now then, I'm going to be running a Monday update schedule from here on, until such time as I am able to update more than once a week.  There may, however, come such wondrous times that I am unable to control my vitriol and must spew forth my rage for all to see before Monday rolls round once more. 

This is one of those times. 

Today, as I was writing my haiku, this blog post ran by my feed. It was posted supportively by one friend, then shared in opposition by my sister. Do go read it, it's a lot shorter than I normally am, and will take you all of five minutes, tops.

I'll wait here. With this kitten.

Source. Seen above: World Ending Cuteness

Got all that? Excellent. Onwards then!

Miller makes three points in her piece, which are as follows:

1. Countless Americans have switched sides due to peer pressure, bullying, and a fear of being seen as “mean”.

2. Those pushing for gay “marriage” have failed to define “marriage”.

3. Those who decry the slippery slope argument often confirm the slippery slope.

Millers first point is simple enough, and in fact correct. There are a great many people who have come forward in support of gay marriage not because they actually like it, but because they don't want to be seen as discriminatory. However, it presents this factoid in such a way as to imply that those who change sides to avoid being seen in a negative light are somehow weak. 

There are differences between religious convictions, personal values, and legal discrimination. Choosing to vote your religious convictions is fine, right up until those self-same convictions infringe on another's rights. At the point that you knowingly deprive a person of their legal rights, you are being legally discriminatory, not morally superior.

At the end of the day neither I, nor any gay person I personally know, give two bits and change about the Catholic position on homosexual rights. But we'd very much like to have access to legal institutions that have not a damn thing to do with religion. 

So is it a bad thing that people back gay marriage for fear that they will be seen as discriminatory? Nope. Because regardless of your personal and religious views, legally defined discrimination is not acceptable behavior in the United States. 

So when we say, "get out of the way of the law moving forwards," it really has nothing to do with your morals and beliefs, and everything to do with the fact that as a nation which supports freedom of religion, I have the right to not live by your religious codes and you do not have the right to deny me access to federal and state institutions based on your religion.

Point the second: Those pushing for gay “marriage” have failed to define “marriage”.

Here you go.

For those that can't or won't follow that link, my good friend Merriam-Webster defines marriage as: 

(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

No, really. That's it. Nothing in there about God. If you do click over and follow the whole thing down, there's still nothing about the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, the Principia Discordia, or the Writ of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Anywhere. 

As in the definition, and therefore literally definitively, marriage is a relationship between two individuals that is: 

• Consensual
• Contractual
• Legal

We've got two of the three down. The only reason it isn't legal is because of people that want to conflate the theological idea of marriage with the legal right of marriage.

Essentially? When we say we want marriage, we want access to the same legal benefits conferred on straight couples by the US government when those couple obtain and enact a marriage license. 

Finally, this gem: those who decry the slippery slope argument often confirm the slippery slope.

You know, I'm going to absolutely confirm this one. There is a slippery slope here, but again, this is assumed to be a bad thing because it can only lead to negative outcomes. 

First off, lets take a moment to remember that we're dealing with the legal definition and institution of marriage here. That is, the set of rules and benefits administered by the US government for the purpose of binding two consenting individuals into a unit in the eyes of the various arms and branches of said government. 

Now, then: polygamy. I'd like to take a second out here to remind everyone that polygamy is Biblically acceptable. Since we're responding to a Catholic, however, that's neither here nor there as Catholicism has a massive collection of other stuff known as canon law which they fall back on. 

Head on back up to that definition for a moment. Do ya see anything there that precludes polygamy? Nope. The main reason polygamy is against the law? Because most major religions and by extension, most institutions, teach that it is wrong. Yet again, I challenge anyone to find me unbiased proof that it causes any harm, or is anyone's business but those involved.

Incest? Demonstrated to lead to genetic concerns over a number of generations with problems occurring as early as the first generation. This is a valid health concern under which a government may deny access to an institution to its citizens. 

Pedophilia? Bestiality? Ahh, but look and see: marriage must be consensual by definition. A human cannot legally consent until anywhere between 15-18, depending on your jurisdiction. An animal cannot legally consent at all. 

The funny thing about Miller's argument here is that she brings out these things, and then doesn't bother to explain why she believes they are viable outcomes to the "slippery slope" talking point. She actually hand-waves consent laws to explain why the two horrible bogeys (pedophilia and bestiality) are magically viable outcomes. 

News flash: unless we change the definition of informed consent to "inability to say no," there's never going to be legal protection for pedophilia or bestiality. End of freaking story. No ifs, no buts, it's simply not going to happen. Although, if you're really concerned about the poor kids, check this out. Specifically New Hampshire. Basically, it's perfectly legal for adolescent individuals to be married with their parents consent as young as 13 for a girl and 14 for a boy. 

So let's not be throwing slippery slope stones, here. You straight folks beat us to the kid marrying thing. 

Polygamy and incest get passing mentions, though only the first one is truly a viable outcome. And it's a viable outcome because the same beliefs that are currently denying the validity of legal same-sex marriage are also the only true barriers to legal polygamy.

Incest, as stated, is a health concern and non-viable. Even if it were to come up as a question, there's solid medical evidence against it as a practice (said evidence is, naturally, lacking in the case of same-sex marriage.) I haven't seen any evidence against polygamy, but if it does come up, hey? Guess what? Unbiased evidence of harm will make polygamy legally non-viable. If you're really worried that it's a bad thing, go find some proof and hand it to the rest of us. 

In summation? On the first point, everyone should be concerned about being seen negatively for impeding legal progress. You are entitled to your religious freedom, but you are not entitled to project your religion onto me and force me to live by your mores and values.

Second point: definition delivered. I want access to the legal benefits of marriage provided by the United States government for myself and my partner. That's it, nothing more. 

And third and finally, there are a number of reasons why the majority of the horrors held up as examples of the slippery slope will not come to pass. In two cases, informed consent isn't possible, and in the third, there is a health concern that make denial of access by the government both viable and responsible. In the fourth case, you're absolutely correct. Legal polygamy is absolutely possible (to my knowledge) under the precedent of homosexual unions. If you wish for that not to happen, go find proof that it's physically or psychologically harmful to participants. 

But until you do, remember please that I don't care one way or another what your personal values are, as long as I'm free to practice my own. And that you do not, legally speaking, have the right to deny me  access to government services because your values say that my access to those services is sinful.

Dancing with Judgement

THIS IS A LONG ONE!

Settle in, 

kick back, 

and enjoy the show.

Well, I was going to bring you a blog on the subject of people whining about things they don't know about. In a blast of humor on the part of the gods, I realized that I don't know enough about the subject in question to adequately scream at the idiots in question. So Uncle J shelved it, and in the process found another blog he'd been working on, which had been shelved in turn.

Now, I meant to get this post up just ahead of the end of last year, but life kept kicking me in the nards, and is still doing so.

"Oh, so now you're just grabbing material out of the shelved section? You lazy a-hole!"

Shown above: The box in which
I keep the fucks I give.

So, what are we talking about today, kiddies? The adult entertainment industry!

A young lady of my acquaintance posted the following on Facebook forever ago and while my ire has cooled, there's points that need addressing here. This is verbatim, by the by, and uncleaned. She's talking about "stripping" and "strippers" if you can't guess.

I think it is a disgrace to see these young females, come from beauty and wisdom to slutty and provocative females. I mean why on earth would you want to dance on a metal pole all day and have pigs stare at you? Pay you high dollar to have sex with them, seriously?? Why disrespect your body like that, i mean come one.. You can be a nurse, or a welder, or hell even a therapist... But instead you choose to waste your time throwing your body out there for men to gaze at and i believe you are a whore when you do that. It isn't sexy, and it not fun. It is gross and so disrespectful. Obviously, their parents fail at raising them, and showing them that being a whore for a living isn't always going to pay the bills.

I only want one person to see my body, and that would be my love. Because i am with him, and i have known him for a long time. So, why on earth would i flaunt it to other men? I am certain he would not like it, and would probably leave me if i did such a foul thing. What is this generation becoming..???

These are the voyages of the Starship WhatTheFuck, boldly going where sanity and reason dare not tread. While I'm not going to dredge up the drama the young lady in question raised with this post, the mindset it speaks to does need addressing overall. 

Okay. Let's take this from the top, then. Grab a snack and buckle up, kids.

We can skip the opening line. It's a thesis, an opinion, and frankly one that's somewhat common. I don't hold it, nor do I believe it, but it's an opinion and people have those sometimes.

The next two lines, though, make a nasty little statement that does wonders for arguments against parochial teaching and moralistic decision making in public curriculums.

I mean why on earth would you want to dance on a metal pole all day and have pigs stare at you? Pay you high dollar to have sex with them, seriously??

Line the first makes two assumptions: that it's abnormal for a person to enjoy being attractive to others for the sole purpose of being attractive to others or to use their physical attractiveness to make money; and that any male that goes to a club that engages the services of women as adult performers is a mysoginist at best.

Abnormality of enjoying looking attractive can be addressed fairly easily: There's really no good reason to go to a beach in a speedo or a bikini. UV rays are bad for you in large doses, a more "modest" swimsuit serves more functionally than a bikini for women, and guys don't need speedos unless they're in a competition. But it happens all the time. Why? Cause we, as a race, generally like showing off what we have.

Abnormality of using physical beauty to make money? Well, there's models, actors and actresses, singers, stage performers, professional non-adult dancers in some cases...hell, in most of show business "how good are they" is secondary to "how good would they look on a billboard/album cover/magazine/stage." It is now, and always has been, true that using physical edges like attractiveness or strength is an accepted practice. It may not necessarily be a well-liked practice, but it is accepted.

So why on earth is being an adult entertainer so deeply degraded by so many? Well, that would be because it's a job, it can pay fairly well, and at the end of the day it's the logical end point of using physical beauty to make money. No really. It's that fact that adult entertainers show skin for money as opposed to just showing skin because skin.

After all, how dare anyone capitalize on their physical attributes so blatantly to earn income? I mean, there are individuals whose sole qualifications are being able to stand in incredibly high heels for hours at a time wearing a bikini in a chilled environment talking to people they'd really rather not associate with as a general rule.

What? That sounds like an actual job? Well, perhaps that's because it is. And within the adult dancing world, those are the individuals who can't actually dance. Those ladies who can dance do anything from move in ways that seem physically impossible, to performing life threatening tricks that would be perfectly at home in a Cirque Du Soleil show.

Have we talked yet about the fact that as a rule they're contract workers who make no set wage, and live entirely on tips? And that if they want to keep making money, they have to tip percentages to the bar, the DJ, and sometimes the house?

Or how about the fact that adult entertainers are often denied, or self-deny from fear of stigmatization, health and legal services comparable to the very basic services accorded everyone else?

(Yes that's Wikipedia. You can follow their sources just as well as I can. And frankly, most of you would have stopped at the wiki article anyway.)

The second part of this line "and have pigs stare at you" is a backlash against (in this case) the men who enjoy the talents or appearances of these ladies. After all, any man that looks at a woman like that must be a depraved and sickening misogynist.

Just like every woman that wants to jump Johnny Depp or George Clooney, or has a stripper gram at a bachelorette party, or goes to a girls club for the half naked boys must be a depraved and sickening misandrist, right? Nooooo, of course not! That's just girls night out! Those ladies are just out to have fun and...and...enjoy the show...

Oh, no, there's a double standard there, huh?

Seriously, people. I will never cease to feel sickened by the things we make values judgements about based on the gender of the person doing them. Man hits a woman? Evil. Woman hits a man? He had it coming. Man goes to a strip show? Sickening. Woman goes to a strip show? A night of naughty, girly fun!

Even if she goes to a female strip show. Yes, that's correct. A bi or gay woman can go watch female dancers, get in free, and be considered a sexy, desirable, and strong woman. If a man watches adult entertainment from either gender, he's a pervert.

It's a show. There's audience participation, alcohol flowing, frequently beautiful and often intelligent ladies wearing about what they'd wear to the beach, and they'll dance if you tip them. No sex. Customers can't touch the dancers. It can be yucky at times, and there are perverts, obviously. But for the love of heaven, if a guy goes to a strip club he's more than likely going in order to see beautiful women move in entertaining ways, just like a woman does. End of freaking story.


Onwards to the second part of this nasty little couplet:

I mean why on earth would you want to dance on a metal pole all day and have pigs stare at you? Pay you high dollar to have sex with them, seriously??


The second line in this pair takes a left turn at "what are you smoking" and goes deep into moral high ground territory. See, an adult entertainment professional is one thing. Prostitution is something else entirely. These two lines together make the assumption that not only is a woman that chooses to work as an adult entertainer somehow fundamentally wrong for making a living at it, but it automatically also makes her a prostitute. For the record, prostitution is still widely illegal and while some dancers might take a guy home, it's not always for money, and the vast majority of them are just dancers.

Full stop. No ifs. No qualifiers, no buts. Dancing in a state of undress is not prostitution, and does not make one a whore in any sense of the word.

Why disrespect your body like that, i mean come one.. You can be a nurse, or a welder, or hell even a therapist... But instead you choose to waste your time throwing your body out there for men to gaze at and i believe you are a whore when you do that.

Ok, and now we're into the thick of it. With all the jobs available there must be something you could be doing instead of this, right? I mean, anyone who chooses to do this must just be a whore.

Definition of whore = this is also a no.

Now, stop a second. There are plenty of women who are paying for the training to get those exact jobs with the money they make in this line of work. One former adult entertainment worker I know very well is in training to be a therapist. Several nurses I know used to dance. I have yet to meet a welder, but that may just be because I haven't met any new dancers in a couple of years.

Any why, precisely, is this career bad? Aside from the lack of anything resembling stability (which is largely a function of the legal system being designed to enhance and further the stigmatization of the profession) it can be good money. And we, as a race, like looking and being attractive. Being attractive for money is kind of the dream job of everyone I've ever met.

If a girl goes to a club and dances in booty shorts, three inch heels, and a crop top, there's a good chance she'll get lots of guys/girls looking to get to know her. The moment she steps on a stage and starts collecting tips, we go from "racy night at the club" to "whore"? (Again: no.)

So you wanna be paid to be pretty... Well, modeling is a bitch to break into, acting requires moderate to high levels of skill as a function of its existence (though occasionally not)...if you really just want to look pretty for money, learn six or seven basic dance moves, invest a hundred bucks or so in underwear and shoes, and take off your clothes. Do all adult entertainers leave it at that? Nope. Met more than a few that do, though. And they do just fine by all accounts.

There's no guarantee you'll make it there either, but at the end of the day, unless you've lucked out and found one of the clubs that requires you to actually dance, the sum of your job will be "look pretty and move your assets in a vaguely sexual manner."

But that, apparently, is the exact line where it goes from "I wish someone would pay me to be pretty" to "I would never get up on stage and take money for looking pretty! That's wrong!"


Once again:

Moving right along. "Why disrespect your body like that?"

Let's step back for a minute and define a few things. A body is what you get around in, nothing more. We dress them up, put tasty things in them instead of just choking down basic nutrition, define ourselves by them; but at the end of the day, it's an ambulatory bottle and maintenance system for a ~3 lb. hunk of tissue that holds the vast majority of what makes us "us" (unless you ascribe to the soul, in which case, it's the seat of the wetware that lets the software function properly.)

So the only way you're going to "disrespect" it is by interfering with its ability to do its job, i.e, drugs, excessive alcohol, etc. Disrespecting your body by showing it off? Well, you'll have to trade in your swimwear, as previously noted. Also, eject any bra that does more than support your breasts, since we can't be showing those off. Men, please remove from your wardrobes all muscle shirts, short sleeve shirts, shorts, and any pants that shape the bits (front or back!)

On that subject, we'll have to get rid of jewelry. It's only purpose is to show off and call attention to one's anatomy, especially if it goes somewhere other than you ears. Makeup is out as well, since its purpose is to make the form more appealing. Tattoos? So much no. I mean, if showing off what you have is disrespectful, what do you call putting actual artwork on it?

Hell, if showing off your body is disrespectful to said body, we're going to have to change everything about clothes in the entire western world. Because that's what clothing does. It shows off the form it encases to best advantage for the purpose of looking sexy, whether you're attracting a new partner, a new playmate, or keeping it looking good for the one(s) you have.

Once again. This doesn't mean whore. Never. In any sense of the word.

Let's take the next couple of points staccato, ok?

It isn't sexy, and it not fun. 

If it isn't sexy or fun, why do we as a culture pay millions of dollars a year to go to clubs, restaurants, and theaters on dates for the end goal of getting someone to remove their clothing (which can take longer or shorter depending on your win conditions)? Why do we buy clothing that has no purpose other than to look good on our bodies and show them off? We do we spend hours looking at beautiful people (no matter what your preferred form of beauty is) and wishing we looked like/knew them?

Adult entertainers cut out the middleman and sell the fantasy directly. They sell all those bits and pieces of beauty we snatch up from our daily lives and hoard within our memories, but they sell it as a whole package. It may not always be sexy or fun, but if it consistently wasn't either, no one would do it because you couldn't make any money at it.

It is gross and so disrespectful. 

Gross? Yeah, it often is. It's gross to see adult entertainers who are obviously sick to death of dealing with idiots that have been raised on the "adult entertainer = whore" mentality. They're being paid to look pretty, to sell a fantasy, not to deal with some idiot that thinks they can be bought and sold.

It's gross that stigma and legal harassment often make the adult entertainment work place into a badly lit, badly maintained, OSHA nightmare.

And it's gross that a women (or man) can get up on a stage, reveal the miracle of the human form, and be disrespected for it. You think it's an "easy way out" or "the bottom of the barrel"? Then you get up there and do it for a day. You'll most likely be quite pleased to get back to whatever job you were doing before. Or not, in which case: congrats on finding a job you like!

ON the subject of entertainers being "disrespectful:" who is being disrespected by these men and women, anyway? No one owns them. They're not disrespecting themselves. By the Webster's definition, they're actually respecting the hell out of themselves, by:

2

: an act of giving particular attention : consideration

3 :  a : high or special regard : esteem

      b : the quality or state of being esteemed

Number one, by the way, is "in regard to," for those who think I'm cherry picking.

Obviously, their parents fail at raising them, and showing them that being a whore for a living isn't always going to pay the bills.

RE: repeated use of the word "whore:"

It. Doesn't. Mean. What. You. Think.

As to parents raising them wrong? Are we really going to try and pin this one on the parents? At the end of the day, those ladies are up there because it does pay the bills. And in most American instances, at least, they're up there of their own free will, no one holding a gun to their heads.

For some, it's a viable and necessary job. For some, they've tried everything else and have turned to this because it's a way to make money using assets at hand. And for those who enter the industry against their better moral/ethical judgement, they're still in it whether they were taught that it was wrong or not. No parents involved anywhere in there. About the only instances I've heard of of dancers that involve parental teachings in some way causing the behavior, we're talking about rebellion. As in, they've been taught one thing and they're doing the opposite?

By the by, in cases where coercion is involved, that's another story entirely. For that, we want this post.

Wrapping up this little tome, we have the righteous denial:

I only want one person to see my body, and that would be my love. Because i am with him, and i have known him for a long time. So, why on earth would i flaunt it to other men? I am certain he would not like it, and would probably leave me if i did such a foul thing. 

Good! This is a combination of personal reasoning and values judgements that indicates a series of excellent reasons for this particular individual not to get into the adult entertainment industry. But that's it. At no point in any of that do any combination of those points apply to anyone other than the author.

And that's about the size of most of the stigma. Including those who declare God as a reason to justify whatever squicks and foibles they have, everyone is projecting their own personal values and morals onto a profession. Just like always. And as in most situations where values judgements are made sight unseen, those who are being judged suffer for no reason beyond "we don't like that you do that."

If we cleaned up the laws, provided decent healthcare, and removed the stigma? It could be a viable, decent profession. In short, the people who view adult entertainment as a "disgusting, disrespectful, gross" profession, are the very people creating that environment within the profession through stigmatization and ignorance.

What is this generation becoming..???

With any luck, more open-minded and accepting of others, regardless of their own personal beliefs. Because at the end of the day, personal beliefs are just that. Personal.

Oh, and one more thing: someone, somewhere, is going to jump right on my repeated use of this Merriam-Webster definition. They're going to say, "ah-hah! But that also says 'promiscuous or immoral'!"

Yes. Yes, it does. Now, please explain to me:

If you have a single partner, or a string of relationships, are you promiscuous? (Hint: no.)

Then you can't declare someone a whore on the grounds that others look at them. And since their personal life doesn't enter in here, promiscuous has nothing to do with stripping.

If someone has different morals than you, does that mean that they have no morals? (Hint: also no.)

Nowhere in that definition of morals does it say that there's a definitive set of morals all humans have. So you can't declare someone else's morals to be immoral, and then force them to change. Nope, end of story. That's just the way it is.

So really. It's not applicable here.