The Internal and the External and the Eternal

Pop Culture... Why Is It Popular Again?

I keep wanting to ignore so-called "Popular Culture" and get back to having a life that revolves around thinking, rational humans who earn a living in ways that make sense, but pop culture keeps popping up on my TV, internet, radio, print media, etc., in ways that are virtually impossible to ignore.  So here goes, again:

Britney Spears:  I almost don't know what to say on this one.  The "performance" at the VMA's was actually painful to watch, unless you happen to like being first on scene at a train wreck.  That was supposed to be a comeback performance, and instead it might well have been the final nail in the coffin for her career.  Britney Spears is a professional entertainer, and I emphasize the word "professional", and she has been for many years.  A true professional gets the job done, no matter what else is going on.  The best way to silence the rumors and get the world back on her side would have been to go out there and kick ass.  She didn't.  So, shout out to Brit:  the world loves a comeback kid, and the only thing they'd love more than seeing you implode is seeing you rise and shine.  So find someone you can trust who doesn't take bullshit, listen to them even when you don't like it, and get your shit together.  This might be your last chance.  Hell (and I can't believe I'm saying this), take a lesson from Lindsay Lohan -- I'm pretty sure she hasn't appreciated all the attention and being shuttled to rehab and all that, but she's playing along, because she seems to realize her career depends on it.

OJ Simpson:  I guess my thought here is this... suppose you, the average person, has something stolen from you.  At some point later in time, you get credible word that the stolen property is in the same hotel you're staying in, and you have the name and room number of the person who's got it.  What would you do?  Would you call the police, tell them the situation, and retrieve your stolen goods?  Or would you round up some friends, barge into the room with a gun, and steal it?  Just for a twist, consider that you were a pivotal figure in one of the most controversial, most publicized trials in history, and ponder whether or not you want to make more headlines for criminal activity.  Just a thought.

Gay Bathroom Sex:  I admit it, I've never had clandestine gay sex in a bathroom.  I've actually never had gay sex of any kind, I'm hopelessly heterosexual.  I wouldn't know a "signal" if one hit me over the head, and if someone was tapping their toes next to me, I'd probably just think they had the fidgets.  But it does seem to me that sting operations ride a fine line with entrapment.  Since gay sex is not illegal in most states, I'm a little confused about why you'd set up a sting operation in the first place, but they seem quite popular.  Perhaps law enforcement enjoys publicizing the sexual orientation of those trying to hide it?  Is law enforcement the ultimate "out" to closet gays?

Florida taser boy:  If you struggle, fight, pummel, yell and otherwise resist arrest, you have to figure that sooner or later the police are going to take extreme measures to stop you.  Get off your soapbox, you totally set that one up.  Besides, anyone with half a brain can see you weren't there because you wanted to hear Kerry speak, and you sure as hell didn't want to hear his answer to your questions.  You wanted a soapbox in a public forum, and to be the center of controversy.  You should look up Ward Churchill and have a mutual self-love-in.  Yes, I'm a liberal, but I have lots of friends in law enforcement, and they put up with a staggering amount of abuse.  They too have the right to protect and defend themselves, and if you're beating the crap out of them and annoying everyone else around, they're going to stop you.  Did you by any chance notice the applause as you were hauled off?  People weren't there to hear you.  They don't care.  And now you're a joke.

Pop Culture Revisited

Blogs are great, you can be as opinionated as you like, and if you offend someone who cares?  It's my shot at being controversial and pretending I'm some sort of journalist who makes a living this way.  Celebrities are fair game anyhow, right?

That's a whole other sloppy mess.  If anyone is reading this, insert sarcasm and re-read that first paragraph after you've read the following.  Maybe you'll figure out how I really feel.  In the meantime...

TIMELY ADVICE, OPINIONS, CONFESSIONS ETC.:

Lindsey Lohan:  Hard to say what's true and what isn't behind all the Hollywood press agent hype, but this is one actress (don't call someone with that degree of experience and that many successful films behind her a "starlet", it's insulting to her widely acknowledged abilities) that really does seem, on one level, to be trying to get her act together.  Here's the thing, though:  there's a reason why they tell rehab patients that when they get out, they have to make a whole new life.  New friends, new pastimes, new haunts.  You can't just expect to go out and be exactly the same except for the alcohol and drugs.  It just doesn't work, any more than someone can go on a crash diet and exercise program for 3 months, lose a bunch of weight, then go back to eating 4000 calories a day and watching TV and expect to keep the weight off.  Get clean again then come out and try again, with a new set of friends and habits.

Dustin Dimond:  It's called "Celebrity Fit Club", not "Celebrity Sit On Your Ass, Whine A Lot, Dis Your Co-Stars and Take Diet Pills Club".  Anybody can do that, why would they pay to watch you do it?  Obviously you went on the show to promote your stand-up act and get publicity.  Well, that's the reality of reality TV, now isn't it?  Everyone who does those shows has a personal agenda that they're just using the show to further.  But you signed up so play the game like a trooper, dumb-ass.  You just might surprise yourself and actually learn something.

Ward Churchill:  If you're going to plagiarize other people's work and falsify research, smart money says you fly below the radar and don't give people the excuse to investigate your academic record.  Alternatively, if your aspiration is to be a controversial public figure who draws attention and pisses a lot of people off with outrageous comments (the Eichmann comment in your paper could really have no other point), then make damn sure that your record can stand scrutiny.

Paris Hilton:  Wish I could get that gig -- born rich, famous for being yourself and showing up.  On the other hand she does strike me as probably being smarter than her public persona, simply because you can't pull off that degree of fame without being crazy like a fox.  Time will tell if she really means the things she was saying while in prison, but if she does, then more power to her.  I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, personally; about a million years ago I did a short jail stint for DUI (as in, a day) which scared the crap out of me and really did change me, why should I think it couldn't happen for her?

Tammy Faye Bakker Messner:  I thought she was a joke, a walking representative of everything that was corrupt in televangelism in general and born again Christianity in particular, one of the reasons I left the church and never went back.  I made fun of her make-up, her constant crying on TV, the over-the-top declarations of love for JUH-AYYYYY-zussssss!  I thought it was ironically, bitterly hilarious, proof of my contempt, when she was called out as a drug addict and her husband uncovered for cheating on her and then embezzling to pay off the other woman and try to maintain his public image.  Many years later I saw Tammy Faye in an interview, where she commented quietly on the fact that she was publicly cheated on and humiliated and instead of getting any sympathy, she was a national joke.  I was absolutely stricken.  I truly put myself in her shoes, not as a public persona, but simply as a woman, and imagined how scalding that humiliation must have been.  My hats off to her for surviving that and managing some dignity and gaining some respect in later years, and my thanks to her for helping me become a better person on some level, for calling me out on my cruelty.  May she be beyond pain now, and have gained what her true faith should have earned her.

Reflections on a Rape

The other day, a memory came to me from high school.  It came out of nowhere, unbidden, a situation I had completely forgotten.  It's a sad story, and I've done a lot of thinking in the past few days over the situation itself, the aftermath, and my reactions to the whole thing, then and now.

First, the story:

There was a girl at our school who earned herself the nickname "Tequila Sheila".  I don't remember her last name or much about her, she wasn't a particular friend of mine although we had mutual friends.  She seemed funny, a bit wild but nothing too extreme and anyway, I wasn't one to condemn a wild streak.  I do seem to recall I thought she got a little out of hand at times, and also that she wasn't particularly bright.  But these are dim recollections at best.  If it weren't for what happened, I probably wouldn't even remember she existed.

Tequila Sheila went to a party.  There were, from what I heard, about 12 - 15 other people there.  There was a lot of alcohol.  Everyone was getting pretty hammered.  At some point in the evening, Sheila passed out in one of the bedrooms.  At some point after that, one of the guys found her back there.  He took advantage of her condition.  And then he went out and told the other guys.  And they took turns, in some order, one or more at a time.  I wasn't there and don't know.  But I do know they pulled a train on her.  I heard there was bleeding by the end.  I also know that although a few women were present, no one intervened.  I heard all about it on Monday from some people who had been there, and from a mutual friend.  The first account was contemptuous and smart-ass, the second concerned and angry.  Sheila wasn't in school that day, or any of the days that followed.  Her family moved and we never saw or heard from her again.  No charges were ever pressed, no aftermath or retribution occurred.

And me?  I was curious to see Sheila, curious to see how she was dealing with it.  I was disgusted with some of the guys at the party, a couple of whom I generally thought of as fun to party with, and who I'd expected better from.  For Sheila herself, I felt a bit of objective pity, primarily since her reputation was shot.  But my main reaction was contempt, how stupid she'd been to pass out at a party like that with no one to take care of her.  Why did she drink so much?  Why didn't she have a friend who had her back and got her out of there, or at least stayed in the room with her and made damn sure no one else bothered her?  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  I didn't think she deserved it -- even in that callous state of youth, I didn't think people deserved that kind of treatment.  But I did think she'd been really stupid.

And now, I'm revisiting the situation as an adult, and sorting through not just what I feel about what happened, but about my reactions.

First of all, you need to understand the environment.  I grew up in a resort town with a small local population and hordes of transients of all types coming through winter and summer, tourists and drifters.  In our town, our school, most people partied on weekends.  Parties consisted of booze primarily, with some percentage of drug use going on around the fringes.  Some people got really wasted, some just caught a buzz.  The ability to "party like a rock star" was admired by many, saying that you could drink people under the table was a compliment. 

Your social status in that group was determined in large amount by how you handled your liquor and how you behaved.  People who got drunk, sick, stupid and belligerent were not admired; those who got drunk, funny and maybe a little crazy were.  People who passed out came in for any amount of abuse, that night and in the days that followed.  Everyone knew this and everyone expected it, and the victims of the abuse were expected to take it gracefully and admit they'd asked for it by getting out of control.  This abuse ranged anywhere from throwing water on them, stripping them down to their underwear and spraying shaving cream on them, taking markers and writing things on their forehead.

And on one occasion, as it turned out, something much, much worse.

I was a member of the party group.  I could hold my alcohol pretty darn well, thank you very much, and rarely got to a point where I wasn't in full control.  My parents waited up for me, so I had to make sure I was coherent when I got home, which ensured that I limited my intake to whatever I knew I could process out before then.  Still, I gained a certain respect for knowing my limits, pushing them but rarely if ever going beyond them.  I demanded the same from others.  I had contempt for people who got "shitfaced" and made asses of themselves, and no pity for them if something bad happened afterwards because they should have known better. 

Harsh?  Yes, probably in some ways.  But also realistic.  In the real world, many people are not nice.  Many people have no problem taking advantage of someone who is weak or in some way unable to protect themselves.  Therefore, smart money says you watch your own back and don't give them an opportunity to stick a knife in it.  There were a lot of backstabbers in my high school and they taught me well:  I have precious little sympathy even today for people who whine and complain over problems they created for themselves by being stupid.  Sorry you're in trouble, now shut up and deal with it and don't be that dumb again.

I was not at the party the night the incident in question occurred.  I really don't know why not.  It was a long time ago.  Therefore, anything I know is second-hand at best, or built on very vague memories.  I remember it took place at someone's trailer, and there weren't really that many people there.  My best guess is that there was another party going on that offered more fun for me:  more people I wanted to hang out with or whatever.  I was a bit selective and didn't hang out with some of the skeezier types who hung out on the fringes of the high school rowdy crowd.  I considered them losers.  What 25 year old wants to hang out with high school kids?  I could barely wait to get away from them!  And if the party was being held in someone's trailer, then it was hosted by one of those types.  And so, having a better option (almost anything would have been), I wasn't there.

As a potential parent, I shudder to think of my daughter putting herself into situations like I used to routinely.  I shudder to think of her drinking, smoking, trying drugs, having sex as a teenager, and hanging around skeezy types.  At the time, I considered myself quite old and wise for my age, too smart to get into too much trouble but wild enough to get a charge out of hanging around the edges of it.  In retrospect, I consider myself lucky.  Damn lucky.  True, I had certain self-imposed constraints, but I did a lot more than I should have done and pushed things a hell of a lot farther than I should have.

The adult in me considers the entire situation that night in the trailer deplorable.  Older guys providing unlimited alcohol to a group of minors, every single person there getting really drunk -- definitely not a situation I'd want my kid in (to my credit, I didn't want it even then).  That the guys, who as I've said for the large part I liked, could get so drunk and stupid and so caught up in guy mob mentality as to pull a train on someone, disgusts me.  These weren't horrible evil skeezy "destined for prison" types, they were just ordinary guys who got a bit drunk and a bit stupid at times.  That the women there did nothing to stop things or to help Sheila makes me sad beyond compare; even though I thought she was stupid, I probably would have tried to stop it.  And considering some of the guys, I probably could have.

But how do I feel about Sheila?  Sheila herself?  Unspeakably sorry for her, since such an experience is bound to leave scars on you, emotionally at the very least and possibly physically.  She must have gone through several kinds of hell, admitting to her parents what had happened and moving in mid-term and trying to put it all behind her.  Oh yes, I pity her.  As an adult, I am much more aware of the long-term consequences of such an experience than I was as a teenager.  As a teen, I thought she should admit she'd been dumb, be pissed at the people who took advantage of it and the ones who didn't help her, and make damn sure it didn't happen again and get on with her life.  At that age, I really thought you could do it that easily.

Do I think I should have done more, or less, or should have reacted differently?  No.  Not even today.  I heard about it two or three days after it happened, so there was certainly nothing I could have done to prevent it or protect her.  Go to the police?  Well, I could have tried I suppose, but it never occurred to me.  It had nothing to do with me.  I wasn't there, didn't know who all was there, didn't really know what had happened, didn't know who had participated.  I'm really not sure, even now, what I could have done, but I doubt there's much of anything. 

As for my reactions, they were what they were.  Getting through high school is a hardening process, and it's every man for himself a lot of the time.  You learn how to deal with other people, good and bad.  You learn how to cope with any number of social situations.  You also learn a lot about assessing a situation accurately and avoiding the bad ones.  Fighting through such struggles myself, I had little time or ability to help someone else find their way.  I had been smart enough not to go to that party and if I had, wouldn't have had much to drink, because I didn't particularly like or trust a lot of the people there.  By my code at the time, it followed that anyone who did go, and was dumb enough to make themselves vulnerable, was asking for trouble.  I didn't think she deserved it, I didn't think it was right or okay or anything like that.  But I did think she contributed to making it happen... and although some people will crucify me for this, I still think so.  You really can't depend on other people to take care of you and make smart decisions for you, that is your responsibility and yours alone.

But I do wonder how Sheila is, how she dealt with it all, and if she ever managed to come to terms with it and put it behind her and live a happy life.

And I wonder how many more Sheilas there are out there, and how many more there will be.  And I'm deeply grateful that despite doing any number of stupid things myself, I am not one of them.

The Once-In-A-Rarely Pop Culture Commentary

One thing about being pregnant and working from home, I have a lot of chances to catch up on so-called "popular culture".  In the process, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that we are a bunch of accident-gawkers, the spectator traffic that blocks up the freeway on the other side for absolutely no reason except morbid curiosity.

That being said, I'll join the rest of the pundits and give my tuppence on some of the latest celebrity goings-on:

The Anna Nicole Smith hearings:  As big a circus as her life, and just about as pathetic.  I have such pity for that woman at this point, alive or dead.  A bunch of sycophantic leeches hanging off her, profiting from her every messed-up move.  Now that she's dead, even more worms come out of the woodwork.  Trying to grab 15 minutes of fame guys?  Seriously, get the poor woman buried, next to her damn son, and be done with it. 

Virgie Arthur:  You were estranged from your kid.  That sucks for you, and you probably even cared about her, but it's too late.  You can't fix this, you can't repair that relationship, because your daughter is dead.  Forcing her to be buried near you will not change that fact.  It would take a mental midget not to realize what the former Vicky Lynn's wishes were when it came to being buried, and you are doing everything in your power to deny them.  Either you really are an idiot, or you do not give a good god damn about what your daughter wanted.  Either way, we all now understand why you were estranged.  This is your last chance to do right by her.  Do it and prove you're not worthless.

Britney Spears:  As the survivor of several not-so-smooth and not-so-smart periods in my own past, I have frequently said that I'm deeply grateful to be anonymous so that I could behave badly with no witnesses.  The only thing worse than going through personal trauma and going off the rails would be having dozens of people following you everywhere you went, desperate to document your most desperate and pathetic moments.  Absolutely guaranteed to push any borderline personality right over the edge.  Too bad you didn't just retreat to Louisiana or something and hide until you got this out of your system.  A stint in a good rehab facility is a good second choice.  Stay there, talk this out with some good people, and get your head together.  It pains us all to have to respect your ex, KFed, as the sane and stable one.

Jennifer Lopez:  What's with that gown you wore to the Oscars?  Empire waists are not flattering to anyone larger than a swizzle stick, especially if you have a visible butt.  This is not an issue with most women in Hollywood today, aka "Eating Disorders 'R Us".  However, JLo actually is fairly healthy.  And in that gown, she looks 7 months pregnant.

Starlets and trends:  Two major trends mark young Hollywood women today, and neither one is healthy.  First they shrink to the approximate size and weight of a 12 year old boy.  Then they are seen out partying all night, every night.  This is usually followed by a stint in rehab.  One has to wonder at this point if these trends are related.  They bear a striking resemblance to the 70's and 80's, when cocaine was king.  Has crack made a comeback on the red carpet?  Or is there some other designer drug masquerading as a "healthy way to lose weight" which in reality is chemically related to speed or cocaine (most of them are), being passed around celebrity circles today?  Let's see... lose weight fast, apparently never sleep, get increasingly belligerent and obnoxious... yep, I'm smelling drugs here.

Athletes and death wishes:  To be a pro athlete, you need a high pain tolerance and some degree of addiction to adrenaline rushes.  I am not unfamiliar with either one of these conditions.  That's how I know that when you are not getting them from physical, natural means, you will tend to seek them out elsewhere.  You take stupid risks and push limits, because you are young and strong and think you are invincible.  You drink too much, do too many drugs, hang out on the fringes of gang culture, whatever your personal combination of death cocktail.  All that talent and energy wasted on such stupid behavior. 

What Price Safety?

It's been a hell of a week, kids and kittens.  A school principal shot to death in Wisconsin.  A schoolgirl shot to death in a small town in Colorado.  Five schoolgirls shot to death in an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania.  Reports coming in of arrests in various locations throughout the country, as disgruntled teenagers are turned in by classmates and friends who fear they might act out their threats.  Once again, our comfort zone is shattered.

After the first incident, the usual cries for greater security in our schools were heard.  Lock all the doors, all day long.  Armed security guards.  Metal detectors.  Cameras.  Every school in every town in every state needs these precautions.  Frightened voices demanding safety for our children.

The one thing that the incident in Amish country should have proved was the futility of that reaction to fear.  Does anyone seriously suggest we should put guards and metal detectors up in a one-room Amish schoolhouse?

This country has lived in a climate of fear for about a decade now it seems, jumping at shadows as one incident follows another and shakes our sense of security, giving us the victim mentality.  We have gone from "It can't happen here" to "We aren't safe anymore".  The politicians are much to blame for this, shamelessly exploiting every incident and using it as an excuse to further their personal agenda.  They are as much to blame for the climate of fear and suspicion we've lived in as are the troubled individuals who perpetrated the violence.

Were we ever really "safe"?  Define "safety", in this context.  The thousands of victims of random violent crime each year can tell you that you aren't safe in your day-to-day life:  people break into your homes or businesses and assault you, steal from you, maybe kill you; they steal your car; they kidnap you from a parking lot, a jogging path, even your own bedroom; you can get hit by bullets meant for somebody else; you can get attacked because you look like someone's ex-girlfriend, teacher, or just because they don't like your skin color or the color of your shirt.  If it hasn't happened to you, you can continue to live comfortably and go about your day-to-day business secure in the belief that it won't happen to you -- this is the essence of our usual sense of security, that baseless but comforting belief that we are somehow immune to the tragedies that befall others, less fortunate.  The victims will either do their best to shake it off and live normal lives again, or go through their days locking doors, staring suspiciously at strangers, not going out at night, and even subscribing their movements in ever-decreasing circles of the "safe" and familiar.

The world mourned with us when the World Trade Center was attacked.  Included in this mourning was our loss of innocence; terrorist attacks are nothing new in many European countries, but the United States has been protected by large oceans on each side and friendly bordering nations without too many religious or political extremists bent on our destruction.  Suddenly, many Americans learned what it meant to be random targets. We were terrified and shell-shocked, and they pitied us.

We took action, prompt and vigorous action.  We sought out the masterminds and their organization, and have done our best to squash them.  An understandable, justified reaction.  One might even say a productive reaction, at least in the sense of trying to neutralize a known threat from a source that went beyond propaganda and into action.

We took other actions, actions designed to make our country safer as a whole.  We tightened up access by air, land and sea.  We looked into credentials more carefully, we started keeping better track of people who enter on student visas or work visas or with organized groups.  We instituted airport security measures similar to those in place for many years in many major European cities.

We also passed legislation called the Patriot Act which effectively negated several parts of the Bill of Rights upon which our Constitution and our country were founded.  This was not a rational action, this was a fear-based reaction.  We didn't wait for the shock to wear off and examine the facts, we just reacted.  We rounded up hundreds of people with suspected terrorist ties or sympathies and impounded them (which is not illegal, for the record), where they sit to this day, still not charged with any offense, still without the right to a fair trial (refer again to the Bill of Rights, right to a speedy trial).  We have been performing search and seizures without warrants, we have been listening in on conversations without proving probable cause, we have been tracking purchases in bookstores and withdrawals from libraries.  We became suspicious of anyone who was not a white, middle-class, mainstream Christian, despite freedom of religion being another one of our founding principles, along with that "all men created equal" thing from the Declaration of Independence.  Worst of all, there came to be a climate of intimidation, where anyone who disagreed with these actions was deemed unpatriotic, certainly un-American, perhaps even a threat, and people of calm common sense became afraid to speak up in defense of our Constitutional rights.  McCarthy era ring a bell to anyone?

A few months ago, a man in Colorado attended an event that Vice President Cheney was attending.  At an autograph session afterwards, this man, along with his 7-year-old son, approached the Vice President, told him that he disagreed with the Iraq war, and then walked away.  Upon returning to the area a few minutes later, he was arrested, and held for several hours in jail before being released. 

Is it now illegal in this country to express your disagreement with government policies?  I thought we had the right to freedom of speech, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Has our fear over our vulnerability led us to such extremes?  Do we really need to eavesdrop on the conversations of hundreds of everyday citizens, without going through the legal system to obtain the proper authorization to do so?  Do we need to track people's reading materials, and put them on a "suspicious" list when perhaps they were simply doing a report for school on terrorism and its roots?  Do we need to try to secure every square foot of our border with armed guards and electric fences?

Safety is an illusion.  It can never be truly attained, because bad, sad, and random things happen every single day, in every part of the world, to every type of person.  There's no guarding against it.  We could secure our borders so tightly that no one comes or goes, and still step out of the house the next day and get run over by a bus.  You can surround yourself with nice middle-class white Christians, and still find out one of them was being abused by their spouse, was molesting children, was embezzling funds from their work, or was an alcoholic.  Why?  Not because people are bad, but because people are people.  We all have our weaknesses, our problems, our beliefs that we will defend.  We all have buttons that can be pushed that will make us act out.  All that happens when we "protect" ourselves in this way is that we remove outside influences that can be broadening, educational, enlightening or soothing, and become increasingly incestuous and frightened.

We could surround the Amish schoolhouse with metal detectors, guards, dogs, and electrified fence, and it could catch fire and burn down, and rescue personnel wouldn't be able to stop the inferno because they couldn't get past the "safety measures".  Quit turning our schools into locked down military institutions, and quit trying to turn the United States ("land of the free", remember?) into a military Christian theocracy.  "Safety" of this sort comes at far too high a price.  We vilified the former Soviet Union for spying on their citizens, censoring their newspapers and television, and keeping a military state, and we were right.  Why are we now doing the same thing?  Whatever excuse you use, it's still wrong.

True safety is not possible, but peace of mind is.  Peace of mind comes from trying to understand the world around you and to live in it compatibly, contributing what you can and appreciating the contributions of others.  It will not always be a fair, fun, or yes, safe, place to live, but at least you will actually be living.

Moral Absolutism

I've decided that moral absolutism is my current favorite candidate for "root of all evil".  At times I've been tempted to ascribe that to monotheism, which seems to produce more wars and prejudice than anything else around, but I really think that moral absolutism is the better choice; it includes monotheism, but a whole host of other annoying, self-righteous and generally anti-social behaviors.

Of course I realize that moral relativism has been used in recent years, in this country, to exemplify evil.  This puzzles me a bit, since this is a democracy (at least on paper).  Isn't the whole point of a democracy that no one person has all the answers or the one and only best way to do something?  So you let the majority decide, and hope that you come out with something that works for the greater good of most.  In order for this to happen, you have to understand that not everyone believes the things you do, or wants the things you do, and you have to respect that.  You also have to realize you can't always get your own way in everything.  That's my personal definition of moral relativism, but hey, what do I know.  Here I go with that crazy talk, thinking that personal choice is important or something.

Of course what things can be looked at in this way is the root of the debate.  Gay marriage?  Right to die?  Right to free speech?  True freedom of religion?  Pro-choice or pro-life?  As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't causing me active harm by doing any of these things, I'll butt out of it.  Obviously if you've been following US politics in the past few years, many people do not share my opinions on these matters.  I personally don't see how Steve and Harvey marrying in San Francisco ruin the entire existence of Fred and Maggie in Iowa, but apparently it does.  Destroys our society, or so I hear.

Right now religious absolutism is my absolute least favorite thing in the world, in any society, for any religion.  It hasn't been my favorite thing in a long time, in fact it's what drove me away from conventional Christian churches lo, these many years gone by (I never could believe that devout Hindus or Moslems were doomed to Hell, with a capital H).  Recently it's being used as an excuse for any amount of saber-rattling, pissing contests, and self-serving purely political rhetoric masquerading as concern for our immortal souls.  You're suppressing me, you're oppressing me, you're trying to take over and force me to believe what you believe, your religion is trying to take over the Earth!!  Monty Python does it better, not only more convincingly but also much more amusing.

Well, piss off, all of you, and particularly anyone that lives in the United States.  Go back and read the Bill of Rights, and try to remember that our country was founded in part by people fleeing religious persecution, in larger part by people fleeing political oppression, and in largest part by people fleeing economic oppression (in other words, they were broke).  See that?  Separation of church and state?  That means that the church doesn't get to run our country.  Bad things have happened to us in the past when that has been the case.  It means that political decisions should not be based on the teachings of the Christian church.  It means that court judgements and laws should not be based on Christian ideology, unless that happens to coincide with mainstream beliefs (you know, things like "murder is bad").  When you're done reading, take your favorite hot-button religio-political issues, things like homosexuality and birth control and abortion, and compare how different major (and minor) religions feel about them.  And then realize that not everyone in this country is a Christian, and that according to our Constitution, they shouldn't be forced to live as though they were.

I leave the Moslems, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Neo-Pagans, Scientologists, Satanists, etc. to their own devices, I'm just picking on extreme right Christians today.  In fact, I would happily leave them alone as well except that they keep trying to cram their moral values down my throat.  And if any of the rest of you do, I'll demote you to the same self-righteous bog-dwellers as the rest of them.

Minimal Manners

I realize this blog has degenerated into a series of bitch-fests, but I'm not quite through yet.  I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry yet, either!

This weekend I hosted a bridal shower for some friends of ours.  Invitations were sent out 2 weeks prior to the event, requesting an RSVP.  The potential head count of guests was 41, including possibly 7 children, and I was providing food, so those RSVP's were pretty crucial.

As of last Friday, I had received one, count them one, RSVP.  The bride had 2 other people tell her they were coming -- but they didn't bother to tell me.  I had to get phone numbers and email addresses for the remaining people and contact them directly asking if they were coming or not.  Even then, a couple of them said, "Well, we're not sure yet if we can make it or not."  I politely told them I needed a head count.  They admitted, "No, we're not coming."  One person who not only said yes but called twice for directions ended up not showing up after all.  In the end, there were only 16 people there, including one baby.

First I'd like to say that this was actually great.  I was a lot more worried about amusing 41 people than I was about amusing 16.  The problem I had was with the lack of response to the invitations.  Are people so ignorant that they don't realize what RSVP means?  Are they so accustomed to highly informal affairs that it never crosses their minds that even a casual party could still benefit from some planning?  Did they expect us to prepare for a possible 41 people, and then be stuck with a ton of extra food we hadn't needed?  Have they never attended any kind of party that was formal enough to require planning?  If so, they must have all eloped, since 90% of them were married...

This may seem a trivial whine to people who have never tried to plan a more formal event that included feeding people, audience-participation types of games, etc., but anyone who has will understand.  And it isn't my party itself that's the big issue here, it's the simple common courtesy of responding to an invitation with "thank you, yes" or "thank you, no".  When I got married 1-1/2 years ago, we sent out our RSVP cards, with a "respond by" date on them.  Almost every card arrived about 3 days later, having been sent at the last possible minute.  Cards continued to trickle in after that, with the final one arriving the day after the wedding itself! 

So I tried to figure it out, and I've come up with several possible explanantions.  The first is that people simply haven't been taught good manners, which you knew I'd bring up because it's been such a theme of mine lately.  The second one is that people are so confused about good manners, that they are afraid that declining a party invitation will be rude, so they don't do it.  Even when they have no intention of being there.  The final one is that people are so damn busy these days that they hate to plan anything ahead of time and commit themselves to something that they might not feel like doing that day.

I understand these things, I really do.  I've been invited to parties that I didn't want to go to, but knew that the host/hostess would take it poorly if I refused without a great excuse.  I've also been so crazy busy that making any effort on a day off seems like too much to ask sometimes.

I also realize that sometimes, you put yourself out a little bit for your friends.  If it's important enough for them to plan it ahead of time and send out invitations, and if they cared enough about you to invite you, then it's probably important enough to them that you should try to make it.  Yes, it may be a slight inconvenience to you.  Maybe it's a long drive, maybe it's your only afternoon off, maybe you'll be tired that day and wish you hadn't said yes. 

Go anyway.  Make the gesture.  It will mean a lot to the host or hostess.  Go one step further.  Once you're there, put yourself out a little bit.  Be social, be pleasant, be appreciative.  Try to enjoy the hospitality and the company.  The host or hostess will be watching to see how things are going, and it warms the heart to see people smiling, laughing, talking.  If there's entertainment, try to seem enthusiastic even if it's not totally your thing.  Thank the host or hostess as you leave.  They've gone to a lot of trouble, is it so much for them to ask, that they can go to bed that night feeling that their efforts were appreciated?

Musically Speaking

My musical tastes are eclectic, to say the least, and there's very little music I don't like, as long as it's well done.  Now grant you, my definition of "well done" might not match other people's definition!  I grew up in a very musical household, my mom's a pianist, my dad used to be in choir and band, my brother and I were in choir and band, my aunt was a music teacher, my cousin in a music teacher, all of my cousins on one side of the family play at least one instrument and all of them sing.  So it's safe to say that we appreciate music from an educated, technical perspective as well as a simple "hey, I like that" feeling.  Add to that a bunch of writers, and we're pretty picky about lyrics as well.

That being the case, it can be hard to please me.  I get irritated with bands that could be good, but take the easy way out.  I get irritated when you can tell someone has natural musical gifts, but no training whatsoever, so those gifts will never really be developed as they could and should be.  I get irritated when someone with talent and training uses it for insipid, uninspired music.  I get irritated when people who fit any of these descriptions top the pop charts, because it just encourages more people to do the same!

So who do I like most right now?  Right now I'm in a female singer-songwriter sort of theme.  Current favorite listens in that category are Dido, the British pop singer, Norah Jones (first CD, not the second one) and Jem.  All have unique voices and create a sound which is catchy but not cliche.  A new find, surprising on some levels but not on others, is Alexa Ray Joel, daughter of Billy Joel (not to be confused with some bimbo porn actress who was tacky enough to name herself "Alexa Rae Joel" purely for the purpose of exploiting a famous name).  What's not surprising is that she should have a lot of natural talent, since she's genetically gifted in that department and plus was raised around music.  She augmented that with years of training, so her piano skills are formidable.  She also has a husky, appealing, jazzy sort of voice, similar to Norah Jones in some regards (no small compliment there).  What is surprising is that she isn't taking the typical "celeb kid" route of plastering herself all over talk shows and blatantly riding on her dad's coattails; she's got herself a band, is playing clubs around the Northeastern US, and is working on demo tapes to try to get a record deal.  To hear a sample of what she can do, visit her site at MySpace.com, where there are currently 3 songs available.

Growing up I listened to jazz and Big Band music, and quite a lot of classical, thanks to my parents.  Thanks to my peer group, the decade I grew up in, and my own personal inclination, I switched my loyalty to metal in my teens, the louder the better.  I cheerfully admit to getting an adrenaline rush off pounding bass and a strong backbeat drum section.  Now, my old favorites are relegated to "classic rock" stations (boy, don't that make ya feel old!), but that's okay because I'm sick and tired of them by now.  Along those lines, when I'm in an edgy mood I will listen to Godsmack or Tool, and sometimes Nine Inch Nails.  The latest CD's from Tool and NIN and Godsmack were somewhat surprising, for opposite reasons.  Tool's new one is a throwback to earlier, angrier days than were reflected on "Lateralus", but it's no less powerful for that.  NIN's new CD shows flirtation with all sorts of new sounds (typical of Trent Reznor), some of which border on the mainstream acceptable (NOT typical of Trent Reznor!).  Godsmack's new CD has some uncharacteristically thoughtful and tuneful melodies, along with some very typical Godsmack fare, and I think overall shows some growth and maturity that make me really like it.

On a totally different track, I also have been listening to Leonid Agutin's Dekameron.  I first discovered this collection when I was in Russia about 10 years ago.  I came home with the Dekameron tape, and listened to it constantly until it melted one day when I left it in the car in direct sunlight for several hours!  I was fortunate enough to find a copy on Amazon a month or so ago, shipped direct from the Russian distributor (his work isn't available here in the US), and have once again happily played it quite a bit.  Very rich musically, it's mostly upbeat with a strong salsa flavor to several tracks, along with two or three quite sweet tunes.  Agutin is a trained musician, and it shows.

So those are my random recommendations for someone who wants something good to listen to that isn't necessarily the mainstream fare that gets shoved down your ears all day long on the radio!

Heat is a Cat

I find it virtually impossible to believe that I spent several years of my life in the Middle East, when I was very young.  Not because of the geopolitical and religious conflicts which plague the region, but because of the damned heat.  Based on my reactions as an adult, how in the world did I ever survive 110^oF when I was a kid??

We're in the middle of a heat wave now.  Well, maybe not the middle; they promise the temps will lower tomorrow.  I certainly hope so.  The heat has driven me to drastic and unnatural measures, such as rising at 6:30AM to get chores, errands, etc. done before the oven kicks up and tries to kill me every time I leave my nice air-conditioned home.  I let the dogs out early so they can play in the yard for a few hours in relative safety, as I can only assume that having thick black fur makes the whole heat thing just that much worse.  The kitties are also biologically attuned; despite the artificial atmosphere of our home, which keeps them cool (they are indoor cats), they are being unnaturally spunky at 6:30AM, and spend the afternoons (previously a very popular playtime) in something approaching kitty comas.

My combative relationship with heat goes way way back.  According to my mom, I wasn't even that thrilled about it as a small child, so I think my body just rejected the whole concept right from touchdown.  Bliss came my way when we moved to a mountain town in the Rockies, where I got to spend the vast majority of my youth before leaving for college.  Average annual temperature there:  35^oF.  Up to 75^oF or 80^oF sometimes in the summer, rarely hotter, and subzero in the winter on occasion.  My idea of heaven.

Why I chose to move to New Mexico after that is anyone's guess.  I mean, sure, the university looked cool, I wanted to experience a really different life, thought the stucco and adobe was exotic (remember:  mountain town!  everything was made of wood!).  By the end of my second year of college there, I hated the city, hated the school, hated the state, hated stucco and adobe, and particularly hated the heat.  My next two moves, up to Montana and then out to the California coast, were much more logical, and much happier times for me.  Moving back to the Rockies was another example of my maturing enough to quit bucking the natural order, and return my corporeal being to its natural habitat.

I have noticed, however, that heat seems to be like cats.  You know how cats are magnetically attracted to people who hate cats, or are allergic to them?  In a roomful of cat lovers, they'll make a beeline to the one guy in the corner who's hoping to avoid any contact with them.  Well, I think heat is feline.  All these people I know who love heat, who bask in it, whose metabolisms seem to thrive on being heated to furnace levels,  well past the criteria for hospitalization for severe fever... all of these people flock to the hot zones, and are forever telling me that the temperature is unseasonably cool.  A glance at the weather map will show, indeed, that the high there was only 97^oF, instead of 117^oF.  If I should visit, however, they will suffer record-breaking highs.  Trust me on this one, I have witnesses to verify it (all of whom find it vastly amusing and will tell you tales of my suffering through snickers and guffaws).  I visited Phoenix in late October, thinking, foolishly, that it would be survivable.  What happened?  Record-breaking high of 110^oF, the entire 3 days I was there.  I did not find this as funny as some other people did.

So here I am, surviving a summer in Colorado, in which June broke heat records all over the place, and July is trying to keep up with June.  Triple digit heat should not happen in Colorado, not even in the summer, sorry, no way.  But yet, there it is.  I plan a weekend up in the mountains to escape it, eagerly anticipating temps around 75^oF, and what happens?  Heat wave rolls in, it's in the 90's, even up there.

Damn cat, keeps following me around...

More on Conversation

I know, I'm obsessed on this.  It's probably in part because I talk a lot.  I've been made to feel very bad about this at times, sometimes legitimately (as in when someone couldn't get a word in edgewise) and sometimes mean-spiritedly (as in when someone who doesn't like to talk makes fun of me because I do).

That's the thing:  I like conversation.  I like interaction with others, I like bouncing ideas off other people, I like hearing their thoughts and opinions and likes and dislikes, I like discovering areas of common interest, I like learning new things.  I also love those silly conversations about nothing whatsoever.  This is not a crime, any more than preferring to sit quietly is a crime. 

Conversation is also the lubricant that gets new friendships or associations going and smooths the way; how else are you going to start knowing each other unless you talk?  Are you going to hang around nearby while they have a conversation with someone else, and just soak up information without giving them anything to go on?  The surest party-killer is to have everyone standing around awkwardly, silent, no one willing to make friends or strike up a conversation.  The second surest way is to have people who are self-conscious themselves refuse to respond, or to make some snide comment or something because they're actually very uncomfortable and unwilling to make any effort.

I've decided that's where my true dissatisfaction lies.  I can forgo conversation.  Especially when I know someone well, and have spent a lot of time with them, I can sit quietly with them and not feel any sense of awkward silence.  I can sit quietly and listen to someone else tell stories (I love a good story!).  So it's not the lack of conversation itself that offends me.  It's the lack of effort to make friendly chat when it is called for.

Once upon a time, social skills were part of the repertoire of any well-brought-up young gentleman or young lady.  Today, we mock the very concept of ladies and gentlemen, embracing equality and eschewing snobbery.  This is not only fine, it's probably a really good step.  We've lost a few things in the process though.  We mocked a presidential candidate because he'd received a first-rate education from private schools; since when is that a drawback?  And we've lost an entire generation of people who understand that good intentions aren't always enough.  Sometimes you have to make a little effort, even if you're shy or feel awkward or out of place.  You introduce yourself to someone nearby who looks pleasant, you make some small talk, you make the effort to find someone who you like so you can actually enjoy yourself instead of being miserable the entire evening, and you make the effort to help someone else do the same.  You also make the effort to help your host or hostess have a successful get-together.  It's not just friendly, it's plain old good manners.

Too many people aren't willing to make the slightest effort, and most of them don't even understand why they should.  We've not only lost our social skills, we've lost our more subtle understanding of good manners.