In another post designed to stem the growing tide of xenophobia in America, a link to a great video about the Mosuo people of Tibet. A matriarchal, matrilineal society that practices an interesting system of "walking marriage". The full 20 minute video is very good. It is a little sad to see what is happening to the society now that the Chinese government has made them a tourist attraction. Enjoy!
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/introduction_to.html
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Happy Coming Out Day!
Today is national coming out day. I hoped that over the last decade we would have become more civilized and extended basic rights to more of our citizens. Unfortunately, the current Reich has decided that a better way to increase the fairness of our society is to take everyone's rights away. Some of us may forget that our gay friends still lack some of the most basic rights that our society affords when we are busy worrying about ALL of our civil rights being trashed in the name of "Bush-Fear", a rather malignant fever going around these days.
Many people speak out against homosexuality being against the teachings of Christ. It was so important to Christ...that he never said a word about it. There is condemnation in the old testament, so if your Jewish I understand your religious objection. It is also clear that Paul wasn't a fan of the gay lifestyle, but why should his opinion trump the big man in the religion? I think it is time to think critically about this. Unless you follow all 613 commandments in the OT, don't talk to me about the OT and unless you call yourself a Paulian and not a CHRISTian, don't tell me that Paul's hangups ought to be Christ's doctrines. Take a deep breath and accept that for all of recorded history the world seems to be created about 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual. Do you think that if this was an error, God might have picked up on it and changed his/her ways by now?
Have you ever thought critically about the way that we tend to overlay our prejudices onto life's events? If you are a woman and a man "hits on you", we call that a man doing what men do. No big deal. If you are a guy and a women "hits on you", how much more frequently do we apply some pejorative like "nympho", "slut", or at least "a bit forward." (Myself, I just say "Yes Ma'am!). If you aren't interested, however, don't we just say "No thank you?" But if you are a guy and a guy hits on you - can you just say "No thank you?" I've done it. It works! Many men seem to have a different reaction however. What do they do if someone offers them some unwanted food, like weinerschnitzel and they don't like weinerschnitzel?? Well, maybe that's the same question.
These are three exactly analagous situations and yet, many people's perceptions are very different.
If you listen to some of the religious leaders who yak against homosexuality, you will hear that a person making such an inquiry on a same sex basis is some type of recruiter for some supposed "alternative lifestyle." Why aren't men hitting on women considered to be heterosexual recruiters? Is sexuality like enlisting in the Army? They need recruiters? Why aren't there "Be As Gay As You Can Be" ads on TV? I don't know about you but I didn't need any recruiting to my sexual preference.
I read some conservative web sites that suggest that all homosexuals are promiscuous and this is the great sin of their "lifestyle." In fact, homosexual individuals run the same gamut as heterosexual individuals; Some are quite prolific sexually and some could take it or leave it. But it seems all the rage among conservative people these days to be "faithful" to their "beliefs" no matter how enormous the collection of facts that contradict them. Have I used enough quotation marks tonight?
In fact our closest primate relative (WARNING: Creationists should stop reading here and go pray for me!) the bonobo has a society where sex is a very important and frequently used tool. Conflict is often settled with sexual relations between the parties and the bonobo society is characterized by promiscuous females. Now scientifically, the term promiscuous doesn't carry the connotation that it carries in our everyday jargon. In this sense it merely means females who mate with multiple males. No value judgment added. I guess that in some ways our society is a reflection of just how much shame it takes to overcome our DNA. Now I should have put overcome in quotes because we don't really overcome it do we? We just move it to a lower level and let it operate under the table where it can cause a lot more trouble.
And finally on a National Coming Out day when Mark Foley probably isn't celebrating his recent outing, let's all remember that if we are going to make a connection between sexual preference and pedophilia that homosexuals are underrepresented among pedophiles. If we abhor any group for their greater proclivity for pedophilia, that could only be the heterosexuals. I vote for calling pedophiles pedophiles and leaving sexual preference out of the discussion.
Many people speak out against homosexuality being against the teachings of Christ. It was so important to Christ...that he never said a word about it. There is condemnation in the old testament, so if your Jewish I understand your religious objection. It is also clear that Paul wasn't a fan of the gay lifestyle, but why should his opinion trump the big man in the religion? I think it is time to think critically about this. Unless you follow all 613 commandments in the OT, don't talk to me about the OT and unless you call yourself a Paulian and not a CHRISTian, don't tell me that Paul's hangups ought to be Christ's doctrines. Take a deep breath and accept that for all of recorded history the world seems to be created about 90% heterosexual and 10% homosexual. Do you think that if this was an error, God might have picked up on it and changed his/her ways by now?
Have you ever thought critically about the way that we tend to overlay our prejudices onto life's events? If you are a woman and a man "hits on you", we call that a man doing what men do. No big deal. If you are a guy and a women "hits on you", how much more frequently do we apply some pejorative like "nympho", "slut", or at least "a bit forward." (Myself, I just say "Yes Ma'am!). If you aren't interested, however, don't we just say "No thank you?" But if you are a guy and a guy hits on you - can you just say "No thank you?" I've done it. It works! Many men seem to have a different reaction however. What do they do if someone offers them some unwanted food, like weinerschnitzel and they don't like weinerschnitzel?? Well, maybe that's the same question.
These are three exactly analagous situations and yet, many people's perceptions are very different.
If you listen to some of the religious leaders who yak against homosexuality, you will hear that a person making such an inquiry on a same sex basis is some type of recruiter for some supposed "alternative lifestyle." Why aren't men hitting on women considered to be heterosexual recruiters? Is sexuality like enlisting in the Army? They need recruiters? Why aren't there "Be As Gay As You Can Be" ads on TV? I don't know about you but I didn't need any recruiting to my sexual preference.
I read some conservative web sites that suggest that all homosexuals are promiscuous and this is the great sin of their "lifestyle." In fact, homosexual individuals run the same gamut as heterosexual individuals; Some are quite prolific sexually and some could take it or leave it. But it seems all the rage among conservative people these days to be "faithful" to their "beliefs" no matter how enormous the collection of facts that contradict them. Have I used enough quotation marks tonight?
In fact our closest primate relative (WARNING: Creationists should stop reading here and go pray for me!) the bonobo has a society where sex is a very important and frequently used tool. Conflict is often settled with sexual relations between the parties and the bonobo society is characterized by promiscuous females. Now scientifically, the term promiscuous doesn't carry the connotation that it carries in our everyday jargon. In this sense it merely means females who mate with multiple males. No value judgment added. I guess that in some ways our society is a reflection of just how much shame it takes to overcome our DNA. Now I should have put overcome in quotes because we don't really overcome it do we? We just move it to a lower level and let it operate under the table where it can cause a lot more trouble.
And finally on a National Coming Out day when Mark Foley probably isn't celebrating his recent outing, let's all remember that if we are going to make a connection between sexual preference and pedophilia that homosexuals are underrepresented among pedophiles. If we abhor any group for their greater proclivity for pedophilia, that could only be the heterosexuals. I vote for calling pedophiles pedophiles and leaving sexual preference out of the discussion.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Disciples From the Left: More From the "Values Voters Summit"
Disciples From the Left: More From the "Values Voters Summit"
Here is an interesting post on the plan to get the "values voters" out to vote for the right. The plan....lie!
I guess the religious right not only dismisses that namby-pamby Sermon on the Mount stuff but they're also not to keen on the Thou shalt not part of those liberal commandment thingys.
Thanks to Jim Johnson at Disciples From the Left.
Here is an interesting post on the plan to get the "values voters" out to vote for the right. The plan....lie!
I guess the religious right not only dismisses that namby-pamby Sermon on the Mount stuff but they're also not to keen on the Thou shalt not part of those liberal commandment thingys.
Thanks to Jim Johnson at Disciples From the Left.
Who's got a Boehner?
Awful news about Representative Foley these past few days. At least the man passed legislation against himself? I guess that makes him better than Bush, who passed legislation to decriminalize his past criminal behavior! It is a funny ethical scale the have over there on the right.
The media seems obsessed with asking whether his Boehner was aware of what was going on. I don't understand this and I notice that they spell Boner different over there on the right. Well, Boner or Boehner, I think if he's asking young boys to undress I'm thinking his Boehner's quite aware of the situation...Oh wait, I guess they have some other guy named Boehner over there on the right, sorry about that. I'm thinking they better check his email if the man is walking around calling himself Boehner!
At least all of us who were confused about the Lewinsky thing now see what was so objectionable to the Republicans about that situation. She was over 18 and legally she could consent to sex. Apparently if Clinton had molested a child the Republican leadership would have happily kept it under wraps. Just another stupid Clinton mistake! I hope they pick that up on Faux News! This demands some coverage!
The media seems obsessed with asking whether his Boehner was aware of what was going on. I don't understand this and I notice that they spell Boner different over there on the right. Well, Boner or Boehner, I think if he's asking young boys to undress I'm thinking his Boehner's quite aware of the situation...Oh wait, I guess they have some other guy named Boehner over there on the right, sorry about that. I'm thinking they better check his email if the man is walking around calling himself Boehner!
At least all of us who were confused about the Lewinsky thing now see what was so objectionable to the Republicans about that situation. She was over 18 and legally she could consent to sex. Apparently if Clinton had molested a child the Republican leadership would have happily kept it under wraps. Just another stupid Clinton mistake! I hope they pick that up on Faux News! This demands some coverage!
Friday, September 29, 2006
I Blame Superman
I blame Superman for the current state of affairs. We heard it first from him, over and over. Every time the show came on!
Faster than a speeding bullet!
More powerful than a locomotive!
Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, its Superman!
Strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man. Superman! Who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a quaint metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for
Truth!
Justice!
And the American Way!
More powerful than a locomotive!
Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound!
Look! Up in the sky!
It's a bird! It's a plane!
No, its Superman!
Strange visitor from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man. Superman! Who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for a quaint metropolitan newspaper, fights a never ending battle for
Truth!
Justice!
And the American Way!
There it is right there, drummed into our heads week after week...truth...justice...and the American Way. At one time truth and justice were a part of the American Way but now Superman's evil plan has come to fruition and the subliminal message has taken hold of America. Under his evil power the government of the US was able to give up truth and justice and yet still can convince themselves that they preserve the American Way because as Superman taught us there is truth and there is justice and then there is something else called the American Way.
I say that, despite his super powers, we can defeat Superman's diabolical scheme and make truth and justice a fully integrated part of the American Way once again. It takes courage to stand up to a superhero, but we can do it merely by voting out every member of congress who voted to remove truth and justice from the American Way and then removing the party that currently controls the executive branch as soon as we possibly can.
I blame Superman for this mess and I'm not voting for him either!
By the way, I hope to post a lot of serious stuff about critical thinking here at critical thinking but I can't be serious all the time! Hopefully, some days there will be fun. If you come back and it sounds like I've lost my mind, think satire, sarcasm or then again, I may have lost my mind!
I say that, despite his super powers, we can defeat Superman's diabolical scheme and make truth and justice a fully integrated part of the American Way once again. It takes courage to stand up to a superhero, but we can do it merely by voting out every member of congress who voted to remove truth and justice from the American Way and then removing the party that currently controls the executive branch as soon as we possibly can.
I blame Superman for this mess and I'm not voting for him either!
By the way, I hope to post a lot of serious stuff about critical thinking here at critical thinking but I can't be serious all the time! Hopefully, some days there will be fun. If you come back and it sounds like I've lost my mind, think satire, sarcasm or then again, I may have lost my mind!
Mourn America
Mourn America
I know I'm piggybacking on Jesus' General two days in a row but stop by and pay your respects to a once great nation. But be careful what you say because the Unitary Executive now has the power to lock any of us up, any time, for anything (or for nothing). Remember the good old days when we used to complain about how awful it was that the USSR did this stuff and we used to look down on Pravda for being a "news" agency that just mouthed the words of the ruling party. I know many of the same patriots who deplored Pravda and the USSR, who now love Faux News and Bush. It really is amazing what a full circle we've traversed in my lifetime on this.
I, like many others, believed that we learned something from Viet Nam and from the authoritarian excesses of the Nixon administration and it is so sad to see that we learned absolutely nothing.
Can anyone think of a greater victory for Bin Laden than to watch us remake ourselves into the Soviet Union of the 50's/60's because we're so afraid of him that we can no longer think critically?
I know I'm piggybacking on Jesus' General two days in a row but stop by and pay your respects to a once great nation. But be careful what you say because the Unitary Executive now has the power to lock any of us up, any time, for anything (or for nothing). Remember the good old days when we used to complain about how awful it was that the USSR did this stuff and we used to look down on Pravda for being a "news" agency that just mouthed the words of the ruling party. I know many of the same patriots who deplored Pravda and the USSR, who now love Faux News and Bush. It really is amazing what a full circle we've traversed in my lifetime on this.
I, like many others, believed that we learned something from Viet Nam and from the authoritarian excesses of the Nixon administration and it is so sad to see that we learned absolutely nothing.
Can anyone think of a greater victory for Bin Laden than to watch us remake ourselves into the Soviet Union of the 50's/60's because we're so afraid of him that we can no longer think critically?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Jesus' General
Jesus' General
has a good rundown of the torture bill and a little further down the page a good quote from some guy named Thomas Jefferson on suspending habeus corpus.
has a good rundown of the torture bill and a little further down the page a good quote from some guy named Thomas Jefferson on suspending habeus corpus.
What's our Policy on Democracy
This is a brief post to kick off the blog...hope you all enjoy and offer some insightful comments.
Watching the Bush administration one has to wonder what their policy on democracy is exactly. It seems that nations who currently have a Unitary Executive (The Artists formerly known as Dictators) are felt to need democracy and the nations currently suffering under the weight of democracy, like the good ol' US of A, need to have a Unitary Executive. It would seem that this administration is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish both aims. Obviously, they feel that violence is appropriate in accomplishing both goals and they have done violence to bodies, violence to minds, violence to careers and reputations, violence to science, violence to logic, and violence to the constitution. Obviously they feel that the Unitary Executive of the US should have all the characteristics of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq, such as secret prisons and torture.
The thought to ponder is: What happens after we establish democracy in Iraq and a Unitary Executive in the US? You know the one who is in the process of granting himself the right to torture and absolving himself and his cronies from responsibility for abuses already commited so that his egomania might rival that of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq? Wouldn't the theory seem to require that the democratic government of Iraq would be required at that point to attack the US to overthrow the Unitary Executive and re-establish democracy here and put the neo-unitary exec on trial for war crimes? At that point does Haliburtons Iraq division get all the contracts to bring democracy back here?
Is this the perpetual motion war machine that represents the business plan for institutions like Haliburton for the next century?
Or maybe we all need to do a little more critical thinking about the people we've put in power in this country?
Watching the Bush administration one has to wonder what their policy on democracy is exactly. It seems that nations who currently have a Unitary Executive (The Artists formerly known as Dictators) are felt to need democracy and the nations currently suffering under the weight of democracy, like the good ol' US of A, need to have a Unitary Executive. It would seem that this administration is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish both aims. Obviously, they feel that violence is appropriate in accomplishing both goals and they have done violence to bodies, violence to minds, violence to careers and reputations, violence to science, violence to logic, and violence to the constitution. Obviously they feel that the Unitary Executive of the US should have all the characteristics of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq, such as secret prisons and torture.
The thought to ponder is: What happens after we establish democracy in Iraq and a Unitary Executive in the US? You know the one who is in the process of granting himself the right to torture and absolving himself and his cronies from responsibility for abuses already commited so that his egomania might rival that of the former Unitary Executive of Iraq? Wouldn't the theory seem to require that the democratic government of Iraq would be required at that point to attack the US to overthrow the Unitary Executive and re-establish democracy here and put the neo-unitary exec on trial for war crimes? At that point does Haliburtons Iraq division get all the contracts to bring democracy back here?
Is this the perpetual motion war machine that represents the business plan for institutions like Haliburton for the next century?
Or maybe we all need to do a little more critical thinking about the people we've put in power in this country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)