Isn’t it weird that satirical sites nowadays give a more honest and balanced perspective than the so-called “Mainstream News Media?”
Suppose you’re going after a job. It would be ideal for you in so many ways: it’s work that you really want to do, great company and setup, reasonable hours, no commute, having that job would enable you to complete a pending home purchase or marriage, etc. And, for whatever reason, you’re not having luck in other job offers – for now. Truth be told, you are desperate for this particular job.
It’s time to negotiate salary. You don’t want your employer to know your desperation. That would give them the edge. You want them to feel desperate. So, you drop hints about your many alternate offers and plans.
You don’t lie outright – for example, you don’t say “I have four other offers that I need to answer by Monday.” Because you know that would be false. You say things of a general nature whose implications could easily become true by next week or next month, such as “I have my shingle out there of course, and you can imagine some of the great responses coming my way.”
The distinction is that you’re saying things whose implications are not true at this moment, but not impossible either. You’re saying things that are potentially true, if you yourself were to invest more time or effort. Are such statements lies? Are you a fraud or sleazeball for making them?
I’m asking this for a political reason, not a personal one. After I see a few comments, I’ll write the second half of this post. 🙂
Reason has an article on Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in a case that ruled that schools have the right to have kids arrested for burping in class. After reading it, I don’t want Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court… I want him cloned eight times and replace everybody on the Supreme Court.
I am not sure which claim I find harder to believe; but there is at least some evidence that aliens exist.
So, as I’ve said before, I’m mostly agnostic on gay marriage (I believe the entire institution should be left to personal/familial/community/religious devices and the government should remove itself entirely from the argument lock-stock-and-barrel). That said, you can’t be gay—well, or even straight it seems—in the United States today, according to the media, and not be completely and obsessively consumed by the issue (and, natch, your opinion can only be “FOR!”).
And since SCOTUS is hearing it this week, I suppose I might as well poke a stick into the monkey cage:
If we’re supposed to oppose DOMA on states’ rights grounds, should we then oppose the effort to overturn Prop 8?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from HHQ
Excellent point made (and I don’t just say this because I have several captions vying for his “Best of” category) by VtheK from the comments:
This country would be so much better off if people cared as much about fiscal responsibility and economic growth as they do about giving same sex couples a piece of paper signed by a bureaucrat to legitimize their coupling.
Speaking of which, I think the time has come to push for polygamy. If gender doesn’t [matter], what’s so damned magical about the number 2?
(As for the first part, I have made this exact point many times myself, and I have much more to say about Viking’s second point, which perhaps I will anon…)
Perhaps like me, you’re enjoying this great new TV show I just found on C-SPAN2 called Mr. Paul Goes to Washington where my favorite Senator is currently filibustering President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan. As I write this, he’s currently about to ring in his sixth hour. The goal of Senator Paul’s soliloquy is, as he has stated several times since I’ve been watching, simply to elicit one thing: A straight-forward answer to the question, (to paraphrase) ‘Does the president believe he has the legal authority to execute through drone strike non-combatant citizens on American soil?’
Brings up a very interesting point: For eight solid years, we heard screeching and gnashing of teeth from the Left about how George W. Bush wants to kill us all and eat our babies and of course shred the Constitution through wars based on lies and the horrible PATRIOT Act. But in the end, who is it who’s actually standing up for these ideals? Well, so far I’ve seen Senator Paul in exchanges with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Pat Toomey. Odd, don’t you think, that it’d be these ‘Tea Party right-winger knuckle-draggers’ who are actually doing the work that the Bush-haters allegedly wanted done while the leaders of their nominative party are lining up with their president in his expansion of Bush’s ‘unitary executive’ policies?
Clearly it’d be expecting waaay too much for the addlepated adherents to the Bush-is-Satan school of political thought to recognize the irony of the situation, let alone find that realization a great opportunity for self-reflection. Sad, that.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)
NB: I had originally written the paraphrase of Sen Paul’s question as “power” to execute. Clearly that’s within the president’s power, but I’ve clarified (I hope) by changing my original post to read “legal authority”, which I think is likely more to his point.
As I worked on my essay answering the question “What does it mean to be gay”, I reviewed a paper on individuation I had written for a class in Jungian psychology and highlight this passage on the “shadow”(that part of one’s self of which we remain unconscious) as it is particularly relevant to an issue about which I have blogged in recent days:
In recent debates on gay marriage, we see how many gay people have projected their shadow onto Republicans and social conservatives. Promoting a benefit concert for the gay group, “Freedom to Marry,” John Cameron Mitchell, an openly gay actor and writer, not merely faulted [then-]California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for vetoing a same-sex marriage bill, but accused him of enshrining “fear and loathing in the Constitution”. Mitchell is not the only gay activist to accuse the Governor – and other opponents of gay marriage – of hatred. Even as they vilified the Governor for vetoing the gay marriage bill, that Republican signed four gay-friendly pieces of legislation. That is, the anti-gay image that many projected onto him did not correspond with the reality of his record on gay issues.
Instead of understanding why this politician has a different opinion on gay marriage than they do, they define him as evil. To be sure, gay activists are not unique in ascribing such aspects to their ideological adversaries:
It is in the nature of political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting it off on somebody else. (C.G. Jung, The Essential Jung, 398)
Thus, in projecting something about themselves onto Governor Schwarzenegger, gay activists are only doing what activists have done frequently throughout history. As a gay conservative blogger, I have frequently found some of our critics projecting their shadow onto me. Almost since the moment my blogging partner launched the blog, it has attracted regular critics who often post nasty remarks in our comments section, misrepresenting our ideas and attacking us personally.
While I don’t know precisely what these individuals are projecting onto us, I note that their angry expressions are similar to those of other gay leaders – and activists. Like John Cameron Mitchell, they vilify Republicans and those on the political right in harsh and derogatory language. To some degree, it seems that Republicans have become a kind of collective shadow for a large number of gay people, particularly gay activists.
In honor of Gay Pride Weekend in Los Angeles, Patrick Range McDonald of the LA Weekly asked me to write an essay answering the question, “What does it mean to be gay?” This is my response:
I can’t remember the last time I was asked — or even considered — the question, “What does it mean to be gay?” I don’t really think much about being gay any more. I just am gay. My sexuality is an essential part of who I am, but it doesn’t define my existence.
I take it for granted that others know. As a result, I am occasionally surprised when women interpret my friendly interest as a romantic (or sexual) advance. Ever hopeful that men I find attractive will find me attractive, I often forget that woman too can be drawn to me.
After all, most people in our society seek romantic/sexual attachments with members of the opposite sex. It’s only natural that then a woman would take an interest in a single man. And when one does, her interest serves to remind me of the difference created by my emotional/sexual orientation and the journey required to find myself where I now stand — taking that difference for granted.
Unlike our straight peers, gay individuals must distinguish ourselves from the social norm in order to be true to — and live out — some of our deepest feelings.
You can read the rest here.
Social media have allowed us to interact and connect in ways not possible just a decade ago. They have made it easier for us to track down long-lost friends and to learn about their present doings. Even as I write this, I am chatting on Facebook with an Australian gay man who, like many of our readers, differs from the norm of our community; he reached out to me after discovering the blog.
Facebook has also allowed me to see a phenomenon I first witnessed when I came out in the 1990s, of the loneliness of many gay men, perhaps a loneliness paralleled among our straight peers, but one which, at times,seems unique to our particular situation. And Facebook magnifies it. Some men seek solace in identifying with a political group, fearing to differ in one iota from its ideology, lest their peers cut them off. Others relate the most mundane items of their day, as if that will help link them to the outside world.
Here we have this means of instant (virtual) connection and yet all too many of us aren’t really connecting.
These observations have caused me to revisit some (somewhat) dormant ideas about loneliness — and that too human hunger for real connection, for friends who see us we are and in whose presence we feel part of the universe because to truly feel part of the universe, we must, all of us, feel some connection to our fellow man. And not just the connection of their physical presence, but a meaningful bond where they delight in our idiosyncrasies — and they in ours.
Understanding that, I found it very hard to watch the 1964 Bette Davis movie Dead Ringer, a film where the screen siren plays twin sisters, with the less financially fortunate Edith Phillips murdering her more wealthy sister Margaret in order to assume her identity and live in luxury. As soon as Edie commits the crime, then puts on her sister’s clothes and goes to her house, all I could think about was how miserable her new life would be, no longer able to spend time with the Karl Malden‘s Jim Hobbson, the cop who truly appreciates her–cut off not just from him, but from her friends in the bar she manages.
I just couldn’t believe that anyone, well into middle age, with real friends would want to give them all up for a chance at riches. And yet some people do.
After all, what is wealth if you have no one with whom to share it? [Read more…]
The other day, I had this bizarre first (and last) date. After becoming acquainted in an online dating forum, we agreed to meet at his place for a drink. When I arrived, he asked me what I wanted; I requested a water. As soon as he filled my glass, he pulled out a plate, a lighter, a spoon and some other drug paraphernalia.
“That’s an odd way to fix a drink,” I quipped. He asked me if I wanted to join him.
Guess he interpreted my support for drug legalization to indicate that I was not averse to dating a man who did drugs — and that I used them myself.
Realizing then how uninterested I was dating that man, I debated how best to handle the situation. Should I just tell him as much and leave or be a gentleman and stay? I decided to split the difference, be gentleman, but make clear that I couldn’t date a guy who did drugs. He insisted I stay, so I obliged him. We chatted for maybe an hour and I took my leave, saying I needed to finish some things up before bed.
As I drove home, relieved that I was free, I recalled a similar date with a man I had met online. Wisely, he and I got together at a coffee shop. As the conversation began, I realized we had little in common and pondered how long I should stay before taking my leave. All of a sudden, he said something like, “Look, Dan, I’m just not feeling it, so let’s not waste each other’s time.” I smiled internally, shook his hand and returned home, relieved as I had been recently, but having lost far less time with an incompatible date.
Gentleman he may not have been, but honest he was. The other night, I should have followed his lead.