Individuality

The concept of individuality is a slippery topic. What does it mean to be a non-conformist individual? Apparently, nowadays, it means to have tattoos, body piercings, etc. or to dress in goth fashion or to listen to grunge music.

The whole concept of non-conformism has always struck me as odd because it is the very essence of what it claims to be against. "You're not worthy if you, by my standards, are conformist." Non-conformism is at its heart an attempt to impose the will of a group on that of an individual, forcing them to conform.

Each group of "non-conformists" that comes along has its own style, its own fashion, its own rules. "You're not one of us if you cut your hair a certain way... if you wear makeup the wrong way...if you wear a certain kind of jewelry." At heart, therefore, each wave of non-conformism is actually its own separately conformed group.

People who are always different from any group are also a strange subject. One might think that these are the true rebels, those who refuse to allow society to govern their actions, but one would be wrong. If you make a point of being different, you allow society to govern your decisions from the opposite. Whatever society does, you will do different, whether you like society's choices or not.

The real individual non-conformists are those who don't make a big deal about it because they just don't care. Each choice is weighed on its own merits. It's not a matter of going along with the group or not...it's a matter of "do I want to do this or wear this" or whatever. If that decision goes along with the group, so be it. In that case, the group is right. If not, who cares?

Marriage

I don't know what it is about Bill Maher that makes me come write a blog post every time I see him. Perhaps its his total hate for average Americans. The man is just incredibly hateful and disrespectful to middle class people, white people, people of faith...it's really disgusting. I have just been watching his show "I'm Swiss" ... ostensibly a standup comedy routine (at least Bill and the people were all laughing at everything that came out of his mouth, not that it was funny).

I didn't watch it because it was good or funny or truthful or anything...I occasionally like to watch political commentary I don't agree with in just a general questioning mode: Is what I believe really true? Do these guys have any good ideas?

More often than not I get so boiling mad angry at the complete idiocy and hypocrisy expressed in these programs that I want to throw my remote at the TV and shatter the the idiot's face. So far the fact that I can't afford a new TV has thwarted this desire, but I don't know for how long.

Anyway, part of Maher's program was about the ever-popular gay marriage topic. One of his themes throughout the program was that government shouldn't make laws legislating taste, and since sexual orientation is a matter of taste, we shouldn't make laws outlawing homosexual marriage.

That was one of the lines that almost sent the remote flying. Bill, homosexual marriage has ALWAYS been illegal. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals and their sympathizers are trying to force their opinions on everyone else by changing the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage activists and supporters don't understand the fact that changing the definition of marriage will have an effect on heterosexual married couples. When we entered into our marriage, we vowed to love and honor each other till death do us part. The implication is that our marriage is a lifelong commitment, a foundation to build our lives on together. I don't know about anyone else, but when that foundation changes, shifts, means something else than it did, it symbolically shakes our whole concept of marriage. We're married, but that doesn't mean the same thing it did when we got married. On some level, we are now linked with homosexuals through the institution of marriage, and we'd rather we could keep the meaning of marriage the way it was when we got married, thank you very much.

I believe the only way for the U.S. government to rectify the situation equitably is to simply get out of the marriage business. There should no longer be any such thing as marriage licenses. People who decide to marry should find themselves an authority figure willing to perform the ceremony for them. The secular law should take no notice of marriage whatsoever. Religious leaders, ship captains, DAs, judges, company presidents, parents, even the couple themselves would be able to perform the marriage ceremony, if willing, minus the words "by the power vested in me by the State of (whatever)." The ceremony would then have whatever significance it derives from those involved.

The advantage to this system is that I can belong to an organization (a church or whatever) that has its own definition of marriage and be able to trust (hopefully) that all marriages performed by that organization will mean the same thing as my marriage. I can choose in my own mind whether to accept other peoples' marriages without legally affecting them.

Legally, spouses could apply for a fiscal partnership, as if they were starting a business, or even incorporate their marriage. Everything money-related would be handled along the lines of those two legal frameworks.

Blood parents would be held equally legally responsible for children. Marriage would imply no legal intrinsic responsibility for or custody of children.

I would imagine that this system would be agreeable to everyone except extreme conservatives who might argue that marriage has traditionally been a government sanctioned institution and removing that sanction is changing marriage as much or more than allowing homosexuals to legally marry.

That may be true, actually, but the important thing about marriage to me is that it's a vow between me, my wife, and my God. It's not important to me whether the state sanctions it or not.

Left-wingers would, I imagine, approve of this idea because it further separates church and state - they are free to their entirely secular marriage or even a marriage of vows between individuals with no presiding authority, whatever they want to do and call a marriage.

The bottom line, I guess, is that government involvement "sanitizes" marriage into a tasteless pablum. Weddings and marriages follow a set format that is legislated. In my system, many of the limitations on marriage would be removed - people can find someone to perform almost any kind of ceremony. No longer would ceremonies be regulated, but acts would be regulated. The acts of pedophilia, incest, rape, bestiality, perhaps sodomy (depending on the state, I guess), etc. would be regulated, not the ceremony of marriage.

Bush

One thing I can't understand is why George W. Bush is hated by so many Americans. Luckily, these jerks aren't in the majority, or at least, weren't in the majority at the last election. I mean, what has he done or not done that is so horrible?

One criticism I hear is that Bush "lied" to the American people to get the country into a war with Iraq. This is absurd, and yet it has become gospel among a certain segment of the American populace. The president didn't lie about WMDs. For one thing, American soldiers have discovered warehouses with bombs in them. Bombs are WMDs. Granted, these aren't the nuclear, biological or chemical weapons intelligence indicated were stockpiled in Iraq, but they are WMDs nonetheless.

But Bush didn't even lie about the big WMDs. Everybody thought there were WMDs in Iraq, based partly on international intelligence and partly on American intelligence collected during the Clinton presidency. It appears now that this intelligence was wrong, but the fact that Bush made a decision based upon faulty intelligence doesn't constitute a lie.

People say that Bush has flip-flopped by changing his story on the reasons for the Iraq war. The line goes that originally, the attack on Iraq was to find and neutralize Iraq's WMDs, then to further the war on terrorism, then to help end the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. This is untrue as well. All three of these reasons for the war were given from the get go. Based on what we knew before the invasion, all three seemed valid, justifiable reasons for the attack. Now it seems that one of those reasons, the WMDs, is faulty. That does not change the fact that Iraq is a sanctuary for terrorists, nor does it change the fact that Iraq suffered under a brutal, murderous dictator. There has been no flip-flop. At the most, the administration has highlighted the latter two reasons for the war since the WMD intelligence has been discredited.

I think the thing that has most people riled up about Bush is the simple fact that he's not polished or well-spoken. True, Bush doesn't have the public speaking skills that Clinton or Reagan had. People are worried that Bush is not suave enough to represent the American people on the world stage. They worry that foreigners will look at Bush and get the idea that all Americans are hicks and rednecks. These are the same people that preach tolerance and understanding of world cultures. Where's the tolerance for the southern white man? Despite what some people may want to believe, Bush is no idiot. He's quite intelligent, in fact. The intelligence doesn't come packaged in a hip, academic wrapper, is all.

These same people are the ones that have a problem with John Bolton as UN ambassador. What they're really scared of is the fact that Bush and Bolton have more in common with ordinary Americans than Clinton ever did.

I heard Bill Maher ranting about Bush the other day, and one of his criticisms was that, when Bush was told about the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, he continued reading to a group of schoolchildren rather than immediately jump up and do something. My question: What was he supposed to do? Bush read to those children for seven minutes (according to Maher) after he was told of the attacks. Flat out, there is nothing Bush could have done in those seven minutes that would have made one whit of difference about the attacks. He did the only thing he could have during those minutes that made any difference at all: He stayed calm, kept one group of children calm, trusted in his delegated authority, and, when appropriate, went to handle the situation. After the attacks, people made much of continuing with daily routines to "not let the terrorists win." The only way to defeat terrorists is to refuse to give in to terror. That's the spirit behind those seven minutes.

A rant?

Yes, it was bound to happen sooner or later, loyal readers (heh). I have the urge to unleash a rant. Sorry this is my first post in a while.

So what has me so hot under the collar? Just watched E! True Hollywood Story about The Dukes of Hazzard and of course they did the obligatory segment about how the Confederate flag atop the General Lee is so offensive to viewers. It's a "symbol of hate" and all that crap.

Bullshit.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the Confederate States of America, which turned out to be a rebellion and not a sovreign nation because it lost a war. The flag is therefore a symbol of rebellion against authority, not hatred, racism, or any of that. The show's theme of rebellion against a corrupt and inept government certainly bears up that reading of the Confederate flag, and certainly no racism or hatred is ever displayed by any of the Duke clan in the show (it might be argued that the show itself was racist for its lack of minority characters, but that was a common problem in the time period when The Dukes aired, and not a particular failing of this specific show). A certain segment of society is attempting to label the Confederate flag as a symbol of racist hate because it makes them uncomfortable. These people, the ones who have pretty successfully banned the Stars and Bars from public display and viewing, are the ones responsible for its racist overtones. They're primarily upset, I believe, because The Dukes showed a good, down-to-earth, southern white American family who were not simply ignorant bumpkins.

The thing that has me so steamed is the way certain vocal segments of society can outright change the meaning of our symbols, just by raising a stink. Another example that comes to mind is the gay marriage debacle. Marriage is historically a religious institution and it should be strictly up to individual organizations of religion to decide who they marry and to whom they refuse marriage. The United States government and state governments should take a hands off approach, and refuse to sanction marriage at all. The government has no business mucking around with religion at all. If couples (of whatever gender) want to hold money jointly, they should form a fiscal partnership in addition to any religious ceremony in which they choose to indulge. Custody of and responsibility for children should be held jointly by the blood father and blood mother unless both parties agree differently or a court decides differently. There is NO reason for the government to have a stake in the marriage game at all.

This would also allow for natural evolution of the symbol "marriage" without necessitating legal definitions and artificial political gerrymandering.

More later.