Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

Osama will conveniently be captured in time to give Georgy enough of a boost to win the election fairly this time. Georgy will then start screaming about Iran and their nucular weapons. Invasion. More of same.

Schwarzenegger runs for President and out comes the inevitable remarks about the other Austrian who headed a foreign country.

The Lakers don't win the championship. All that talent...whimper.

Not so much a nightmare but more of a "What did I eat before bed to come up with this?". Laura Bush's non-commital evasive reply regarding same-sex marriage got me imagining her as sort of an Arianna Huffington - you know, brainy female married to a Political Schlub. So the dream plot continued. Laura Bush divorces Georgy for domestic incompetence. From there, I pictured Hillary Clinton running for President in 2008 with Laura as her running mate. They run as Independents and suck the Middle Roaders from both the Left and Right. They win with about 60%. Then they get married on national TV. Talk about ratings!

OK, no more chocolate and salted popcorn before bed.

Something on TV

Lately I've been grousing about the lack on anything worth watching on regular TV. I'm down to 3 shows (Alias, Angel, and wrestling) and the number will shrink soon. However I saw a preview for a show called "Game Over" - March UPN. If it is anything like the cartoon 'Re-boot', filled with computer and game geek references, it'll get my four eyes. And it will likely die because of a too small niche market.

OK, so I'm old-fashioned. I don't have (or want) Cable/Satellite TV. My TV's not widescreen, high definition, or plasma. I don't have DSL. I don't have a spiffy cellphone with text or photos. Maybe it's not so much old-fashioned as cheap and/or jaded. I grew up with computers and I suffered through too many waves of upgrade-itis. You buy something and next week it's obsolete, or there's something a little better for a little more money. Marketers sell you the Electronics to make you feel complete and then once you bite the bait, they work to make you feel incomplete unless you buy the Next Great Thing. It gets tiresome and expensive so I opt out of the game. Regular TV and no "Sex in the City" - such is Life.

If you're into conspiracy theory check out Everything You Wanted to Know About Skull and Bones

Skull and Bones Members


Or use Google to do the search

Certainly something to think about especially considering that with Kerry or Bush likely in office nothing may change at all. Where do their true loyalties lie?

(Aren't I good? No mention of Bush slapping some skull on somebody...)

Bushes on Marriage

From AP: 'SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco. Asked how she feels about the issue personally, Mrs. Bush replies: "Let's just leave it at that."'

Ms. Bush, Americans are debating the issue and the courts ultimately must settle the issue. Or are you saying the courts will follow the outcome of the debate? This is most dis-ingenious because likely the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriages. *BUT* the Laws aren't always for the Majority. Instead they're for the Minority to protect them from the Majority. It's called Freedom. The Majority of Americans are likely Christian or Catholic. Should we therefore let them dictate Religious thought for all Americans? If we let Majority rule, kiss most Freedoms farewell. The women would never have gotten the vote. "Separate but Equal" would be the Law of the Land far more than it is today.

If two people want to get married for "all the right reasons" let them. Gender is irrelevant.

If marriage is so sacred that it must be between a man and woman then certainly those people who violate that sacredness should face some punishment. Our kids look to parents and to celebrities as role models. Certainly abusive or absent parents aren't much of a model. Nor are the fun frolics of celebs like Britney Spears who marry from an alcoholic whim. And what kind of model is Liz Taylor, who changes husbands on a near daily basis. Or Anna Nicole Smith? She married an old rich guy "for love" and is now suing to get control of that "love". Are these better role models for kids that two people commited to each other who happen to be of the same gender?

There is NOTHING inherently better about a non-same sex marriage that makes the participants somehow better as people or as parents than couples of the same sex. In fact because of the scrutiny same-sex couples may be better, certainly more tolerant, as people and as parents.

Death of TV

Looks like this will be the last season for Angel. So now my watching is reduced to Alias and wrestling, and wrestling is getting boring mighty fast. Looks like DVDs will be the fare. Hmmm, I wonder if the garbage on TV is just a ploy to sell DVDs....

Little Miss Attilla in a new post is questioning whether - gosh darn - Bush lied to us about the reasons for going to war. And if he did what an "abuse of trust". This is the same LMM who in her early blog days mentioned that she had from reliable sources "absolute proof" that Hussein had WMDs and therefore was a threat needing to be taken out ASAP. She frequently took me to task for my disbelief, that the war in Iraq may have had overtones other than WMDs and that Bush et al may not have had the American Interest at heart when declaring war.

Care for coffee with that crow pie?

Damn Skippy

Who is this Skippy or are they referring to the peanut butter?

Marriage Again

My definition of marriage as stated in earlier postings does have one more flaw, something that most definitions have and that is none of them explicitly say you can't marry a relative. Never mind that in the old, old days it was acceptable. A more current definition may need to explicitly tackle this issue (or for the most enlightened - not bother at all). Don't ask me though. I still like my definition.

OK, this has been bothering me. If a man and woman get married and they both get sex changes are they still married? According to their certificates they shouldn't be since the roles have been switched thereby nullifying the paper but by "popular" definition they are. Another reason why gender should be left out of any definition.

A few posts ago I cited a definition of marriage stemming from a Catholic source. Popular religious reasons for marriage is to procreate and this site mentioned that sexual intercourse was a wanted result of marriage. Those were the words "sexual intercourse". Off hand I can think of three types of sexual intercourse so, really, gender does not have to be mentioned for this "rule" to be satisfied. Of course, I think what the Puckered Right wants is a definition like: "Marriage is a union betwen a consenting man and woman where for the sole purpose of procreation vaginal intercourse completed with male ejaculation occurs regularly." Or something stupid like that.

Curiosity

One thing that bothers me about the Puckered Right is their complete lack of curiosity towards Life. And because of this lack they believe and seek that others should also exist in a blind room. They have their Gods, their fervent behaviors and demand that others should also limit themselves. We seek to expand; they seek to shrink. We seek Freedom; They seek Control and Censorship.

We are born curious. It's what drives us to explore and learn. We touch, taste, feel, smell, and often do dangerous and/or outright stupid things because of curiosity. We have to know. Why climb Mt. Everest, visit Mars, crash atoms together, or add a new seasoning to meatloaf? Curiosity, a challenge, it's there.

We experiment and explore as infants and continue, if we're lucky, all the rest of our lives. We experiment formally in the Sciences and informally with hobbies, arts, and, yes, with chemicals such as drugs. We experiment to find ourselves, to advance civilization, to experience something new and unique, to create.

To limit curiosity, to put blinders on experimentation, limits culture and stagnates a Society. More importantly it's unnatural, unhuman. For the Puckered Right to infringe on curiosity is to infringe on our most natural Freedom and is beyond un-American.

A counter-argument beyond "Dude, you're full of shit!" is that, for example, we don't let kids experiment with explosives. Should we remove that limit for the sake of Freedom? No, of course not. But ask them why they want to play to explosives and see whether the information can be given to them in a non-lethal manner. Or for a different example "Just Say No" was an attempt to get and keep kids away from drugs. Like most Puckered Right attempts to control behavior, it failed. It failed because it lectured but didn't explain. Why should kids say no to drugs. Kids and adults do not like to be dictated to - tell them not to do something and guaranteed that something will be done if it's perceived as outlaw. Why alcohol or tobacco but not marijuana?

The Puckered Right likes to rule by authority not by logic and humanity. They like to stifle curiosity instead of nuture it. And then they wonder why Johnny can't read.

Puckered Left

I'm pretty hard on the Puckered Right mainly because they're dangerously organized, influential, and blind to Freedom. But I'm equally disgusted with the Puckered Left, those folks who spend their lives judging based on what foods you eat (organic only), what clothes you wear (no leather), which tree you've hugged (native only). They are Politically Correct to an idiotic extreme e.g. PETA asking the town of Slaughterville (Oklahoma) to change the name because it implies cruelty to animals. Or the Indian Rights group suing the Grammys because the Outkast dancers wore indian-like garb.

Should Coonville (Texas) change it's name? It's a racist epithet against Blacks. Should the Cleveland Indians change their name because they have a terrible ball team and that can be a negative? Should "Radar Love" no longer be broadcast becuase of that Indian-like beat?

Puckered Left and Puckered Right deserve each other with their tunnel vision. Neither can see outside the tunnel to the mountain and sky. Seal the tunnel! Extremism is always ugly and best left buried.

The Passion

The Sunday Feb 15th Los Angeles Times front page - Mel Gibson is feeling persecuted over his unreleased film "The Passion" and he's upset. Considering his film may further flame anti-semitism his feelings of persecution are rather ironic.

It's further ironic that he's showcasing his film about the last 12 hours of Christ's life as authentic and accurate when most if not all Biblical scholars know very little about Jesus's life and death beyond the biblical propaganda. Remember that the books in the New Testament were written starting 70 years after Jesus's supposed death and were subject to the needs of a new church. That is, the books were editied with a goal in mind of supporting the ideology of the new church.

That religious texts are essentially tools for the Clergy begs the question of the purpose Gibson had for making the film. Propaganda for the conservative church he belongs to? A money maker? More fuel for Jew hatred?

Many "Mainstream" Religions fail to teach the histories behind the dogmas for to do so reveals the human impact and manipulations, possibly undermining the efficacy of teaching and control over the sheep...errr...followers. Religions, particularly of the Judeo-Christian kind, rely on dogmatic blinders and unquestioned beliefs for if you ask questions you may discover that Religions are basically nonsense. Hence Faiths.

Side story. I have a relative who's a devout Ultra-Orthodox Jew. He lives in Israel, has a wife, 3 kids, one more en route. He doesn't work because "G-d will provide" and instead studies all day. The "Full Catastrophe" to quote Zorba. Point being that he was a very nice, open, and generous kid growing up but now he's nice, living with his blinders on, and is in his own way extremely selfish without realizing it. For G-d he has alienated his family. His brothers feel like they've lost him to a cult.

One of the Commandments is "Honor they Father and Mother". As a parent I can think of no greater Honor then when one of my kids gives me a hug, a smile, or a kiss for no particular reason other than love. This Ultra-Orthodox relatives honors his mother by essentially ignoring her. She's female and therefore unclean, possibly beneath contempt. He visited from Israel for a funeral and his mother tried to keep a kosher kitchen for him but not up to his demanding standards. No thanks for trying and that's the honor she gets.

Conservative or Ultra-Orthodox means severe blinders, limited thought, and potentially dangerous actions according to the whims of the controlling Priest, Rabbi, or Imam (think Jim Jones). Not that all of the Priesthood are evil but simply that the control and power are there, and absolute power... What if the Pope with his last breath declared War on Islam and backed it up with select quotes from the New Testament?

*sigh*. Mel, perhaps this feeling of persecution will gain you a new understanding, of the fear of living around others who blindly hate and may act on that hate. Perhaps you'll make a film about the aftermath of Christ, of how the Church came into being, of how the New Testament was edited, of how much blood was spilled in retaliation for Christ's supposed crucifixion. Perhaps you'll make an authentic film about anti-semitism.

In any case, Mel Gibson, welcome to Judaism.

From greeneyedgrrl: "Is it just me, or is MaryAnne kind of hot?" Well, I can't vouch for greeneyedgrrl's thermostat but this is one of those debates that periodically rages forth from the loins of G.I. viewers. I've decided to settle the issue once and for all with a little analysis as a function of raging hormones. As a little kid there was no debate - both girls were "Ewwww!" though Mary Ann was kind of like an older sister type. Puberty came and the raging hormones, and with that came the lust for Ginger. Ginger the tease, the wet dream, the unattainable. We wanted her and we knew - deep down - that we couldn't have her. She'd coy up to us with The Look and The Pout, get us worked up to a fever, and when the pants were piled around our ankles, she'd be gone with a giggle. Ginger the Teasing Bitch. Look how many times she caused poor Gilligan to knock himself out.

Eventually, after twenty or thirty years, the raging hormones tweaked down a notch and a curtain was lifted from blind eyes. Why in God's blazes were we ever bothering with a dream like Ginger when Mary Ann - always faithful, very capable, and darned cute - was waiting by the water well. Bless her. She knew us better than we knew ourselves. Mary Ann with the patient smile, the kind touch - there was a mate to build a family and a life around. She was not a vaporous siren but a real dream.

Or to put it bluntly: you knew Mary Ann would be a virgin on her honeymoon night.

Show aside, the pictures I've seen of TIna Louise pre-Gilligan show a rather hot model *BUT* honestly they couldn't compare to some of the pictures of Dawn Wells with those dark eyes - woof!

Bush's War Records

So the records have been displayed and - bye gumbo - it looks like ol' Georgy served his time (less 6 months) and did his duty as an American Fighting Patriot. Yep, he put his butt on the line right in the fire zone and saw the worst of Vietnam. He smelled napalm in the morning, ate Agent Orange for lunch, and learned to sleep with eyes and ears open. Bush can stand proud that he looked the enemy in the eye and didn't flinch before pulling the trigger. Dammit, Georgy paid his dues with his own blood and earned the right and respect to send others in harms way.

You're not buying it either. Worse, he is sending kids to war under false pretenses. Repeat after me "Impeach!"

Halliburton

OK, you don't want to impeach for War under False Pretenses. How about impeach for misuse and theft of Government funds. Halliburton with an open-ended, unchallenged contract - surprise! - has an attitude of "It's not our money!" and so overcharges for damn near everything. Would someone please tell Georgy that Government money and weapons are not TOYS and have responsibilities associated with them. Awww heck, it's not just Georgy. Impeach the lot of them!

OK, when her ex-hubby was running for whatever he lost I thought Arianna was intelligent and likely the one pulling the strings in that family. I didn't like her then. Now I can't stop reading her articles. She's inciteful, funny, vicious, and likely more intelligent than most of the goobs she writes about. I voted for her as California Governor though I think she's better at being a rabblerouser than a Politician.

Marriage Redefined

In a previous post about marriage I proposed a new definition of marriage: "Marriage is a legitimate union between consenting adults." but after a nights sleep I realized that the new definition might be too progressive for most people. For by the definition polygamy and group marriages would be allowed. That might be too much of a societal jump so here's the revised version: "Marriage is a legitimate union between two consenting adults.". Better? And by the way there's really is nothing wrong with polygamy and group marriages in theory IF the "consenting adults" part of the definition is met. That means, no shotgun marriages or marriages necessitated by unplanned progeny. If a group of consenting adults want to jointly marry, let them, as long as they understand the legal benefits and consequences thereof.

How would we check consent? One thought would be the County Clerk has all potential Marries sign the marriage certificate individually without the other(s) present. They sign after swearing under oath that they choose marriage from their own free will without coercion. Also, the Marries would not be allowed to sign while under the influence of any drugs particularly alcohol - we'll call this the Britney Clause. Perhaps making it a little tougher to get a marriage license instead of easier would reduce the divorce rate and restore the sanctity of such a union.

Gilligan's Island

Finally the show has been released on DVD. Gilligan's Island - Season One also has the unaired pilot - most interesting to see the quick evolution it went through. But before you ack! gag! barf! let me say this: I grew up with the show seeing every episode repeatedly. It was funny then, it's funny now. It's truly timeless comedy. My 4-year old and 6-year old laugh at the slapstick. My 8-year old gets quite a few of the jokes. They beg for episodes before bed. Sure "I Love Lucy" is also a timeless classic but my kids didn't respond to that show the way they do to G.I.. It's harmless, clean, silly fun. Get it, watch it, enjoy it.

Must Have TV Series

My wife and I were talking about how great Gilligan's Island (see other blog entry) was in terms of "must get" if released on DVD. Surprisingly we couldn't come up with many other shows. Our qualifier was that you wouldn't mind seeing them over and over. Among the considerees: "Twilight Show", "Brady Bunch", "Mission: Impossible", "M.A.S.H.", "Wild, Wild, West".

But the shows that made our short list had pretty much the same qualities: They were fun, campy, weird, and sometimes subtle. And so The List:


Batman - The original with Adam West. THE camp classic and who says camp is just for kids.


The Monkees - Weirdness at it's best.

And that's it! A true short list. Please give us your suggestions for "must get" TV series.

The puckered Right is screaming for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as something sacred between a man and woman. Never mind the blatant attempt to abuse the Constitution. It's most annoying at how backward, how archaic that thread of thinking has become. These from a Google search:

From Catholic Encyclopedia - History of Marriage


"The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of conjugal union."

From About Marriage - History of Marriage


"Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.


Some varieties of marriage are


polygamy


polygyny


polyandry


endogamy


exogamy


common law marriage


monogamy


Different periods of time and different cultures have very different histories when it comes to women. Ancient Egypt, in theory, gave women equal rights, but it wasn't always practiced. Medieval women faced dual responsibilities to religion and marriage.


Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.


Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.


One nearly universal tradition is that of the engagement ring. This custom can be dated back to the ancient Romans. It is believed that the roundness of the ring represents eternity. Therefore, the wearing of wedding rings symbolizes a union that is to last forever. It was once thought that a vein or nerve ran directly from the "ring" finger of the left hand to the heart.


The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).


Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours.


The statement of Pope Nicholas I in which he declared in 866, "If the consent be lacking in a marriage, all other celebrations, even should the union be consummated, are rendered void", shows the importance of a couple's consent to marriage. It has remained an important part of church teaching through the years.


There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.


Years later, the Puritans viewed marriage as a very blessed relationship that gave marital partners an opportunity to not only love, but also to forgive.


Many people hold the view that regardless of how people enter into matrimony, marriage is a bond between two people that involves responsibility and legalities, as well as commitment and challenge. That concept of marriage hasn't changed through the ages."

Histories of marriage show that it isn't one concept set in stone for all eternity. It has changed, mutated, and evolved depending on the society. With that how about a simple change. Instead of defining marriage as a "legitimate union between husband and wife" (which doesn't make sense by the way because you're neither until after the marriage), how about "marriage is a legitimate union between consenting adults." Plain, simple, flexible. Like I mentioned in a previous rant, children are an option in a marriage whether as a result of sex or adoption, and should not be an implicit part of the definition. That is, "husband" and "wife" implies incorrectly the ability to have children. Instead of ability to have children it's the desire that's more important. The desire to assume the responsibility of parenthood whether through natural means or by adooption.

This definition also avoids the stereotypical terms of "wife" and "husband" and allows the couple to define themselves e.g. "significant other", "better half", "life partner". Consider this possibility: Who is whom if a man and woman are married as husband and wife and they both get sex changes. By marriage the wife is now a man and the husband is now a woman. Do they have to get re-married? I know - silly, stupid, and facetious - but I really did have a valid train of thought there.

What do you think?

Constitutional Abuse

Flag burning and now marriage. Both have been recent subjects for Constitutional Amendments usually at the behest of the Puckered Right, whom in the name of Patriotism and all that is American, seek to destroy America and redefine Patriots to mean essentially those that agree with them. These people who want to amend the Constitution fail to understand that the Constitution is not a axe to use to kill your enemies. Instead it is something to protect those from the axe. That's why it guarantees so many Freedoms instead of taking them away. Flag burning is a way to demonstrate unrest and unhappiness with the status quo. It is a form of speech, eloquent in its defiance of a seemingly sacred symbol. Amend for flag burning and do you Amend for other symbols - the Bald Eagle, the Liberty Bell, the White House? Where would it end?

Marriage as a Constitutional Amendment is ridiculous as history has shown that what defines a marriage changes. As I wrote above perhaps the definition of marriage should be (but not as an Amendment or maybe so if I get credit):


"marriage is a legitimate union between consenting adults."

If anything the Constitution needs to be reinforced, especially in the area of Separation of Church and State but read my crap for any bit and you know it's a pet peeve. I recently read somewhere a list of those countries where Religion wasn't a part of Politics and, of course, they list off the worst of the worst Totalitarian nations in history. As if you remove Religion from Politics and automatically your country goes into a dictatorship. Why not the reverse? List the countries that did or do have Religion as a main part of Politics and you can create an equally vile list. Point being that removing Religion from our Politics will not change our system of Government. As it is, we're a Meritocracy dangerously close to becoming a Dictatorship and that's with Religion. Rant over.

Nothing on TV

Someone convince me otherwise but there's really nothing on TV and by TV I mean normal airwaves - no cable, no satellite. I'm old school. Anyway, I'm down to watching 3 shows:


Alias because of those J.G. dimples and the occasional flashback of Gena Olin. Yes, I'm a male piggy - obvious aini't it?


Angel - it became a habit. I had great hopes that Charisma Carpenter would return to the series but The Powers That Be killed her character.


Wrestling - what can I say. I've been watching for over 35 years. It's a silly, stupid addiction despite the lack of Trish Status on Smackdown.


I used to watch The Practice. After the series housecleaning at the season start, I liked the new slimy attorney but after about 5 episodes it was more of same. Slimy attorney does good after all. Reality shows are boring. Why not have a reality show of people watching reality shows, or just watching period. Neilson could hook up little cameras as part of their surveys. Award shows are more boring. Same old celebrities showing off the clothing du jour from the same old designers. Who cares? I looked outside the other day and there was this bright glowy thingy in the sky. It was warm and inviting. Mmmmmm, sunlight....

tBlog

Even though you can't do batch posts to tBlog I have do give it kudos. The same day I opened LMM I got invites for "friends" and comments about my posts. The comments were great and mostly positive. But even the people who disagreed with what I wrote answered in a mature, non-threatening manner. None of this "You suck!" crap. Very nice. If I'm not careful I might find myself in a real intellectual dialogue using multi-syllable words. Wow!

Yet another issue that the anal-puckered Righters are screaming about: Massachusetts will allow Same-sex Marriages. The World is coming to an end again. Armageddon has arrived. G** forbid that two people who care deeply enough about each other, enough to pledge their lives and worlds together...G** forbid they should be of the same gender. Dang it, a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting this sort of behavior doesn't go far enough. These homos and lesbos should be jailed, no better still, sent to camps - special camps if you get my meaning. They have absolutely no place in a civilized society.

Yes, I'm being an asshole. Massachusetts should be roundly applauded for the courage to stand up for what's right. Consider - what is the issue? What is marriage? Why do people get married? I'm hoping that most people get married, first, because they want to, not because they feel they have to. A marriage therefore is about a relationship between two people who enjoy each other's company so much that they offer to share their lives, assets, good and bad times together. People don't have to get married to do this. There are certain legal benefits to doing so but arguably a marriage is optional. People can spend their lives together without getting married.

Another reason people get married is kids. That is, some get married because they had kids out of wedlock and getting married legitimizes the children. Getting married just to have kids doesn't make sense. Kids can occur from a marriage but should not be the reason for the marriage.

Nowhere in the above two reasons for marriage do I mention gender of the couple. It's irrelevant. Plain and simple.

Back to kids, which has the greater potential stigma for a kid? Having two parents of the same sex, or having two parents - different sex - but unmarried? I'd say the latter holds a lot more ammunition for childhood torment. Why not pass a law that says if you have children out of wedlock you must get married? We don't because it doesn't make sense. People have kids out of wedlock all the time, not necessarily for the best of reasons but it happens. I don't hear much screaming on this topic.

Some "regular" couples can't have kids so the argument that marriage is in support of procreation doesn't hold. Some "regular" couples have kids but really shouldn't - they're just not ready for the responsibility. Conversely, many same-sex couples are not only wanting of kids but offer as good an environment for raising kids as "regular" couples. It's highly ironic that the puckered Right screams to make abortion and birth control illegal, screams that there are too many orphan babies, and then makes it impossible to place these kids in loving households. It's a matter of responsibility. Many same-sex couples are willing and capable to accept the responsibilties of marriage and parenthood. Thank you Massachusetts for the brave step forward.

Kerry - More of Same

As Bush seeks to form a committee to investigate the intelligence failures regarding Iraq - and guess what the outcome of that will be - and as Halliburton starts ads proclaiming their innocence of any corrupt political connections, Kerry continues to steamroll towards becoming the Democratic nominee.

Oh joy! Not only someone who doesn't look Presidential but will likely continue the same-old, same-old political game stinking up our Government. Which is why I was rooting for Dean. He looked like he was going to shake things up and perhaps not fall into the game. Face it, right now, our Government stinks of corruption and influence. I don't see Kerry changing any of that. Dean might have. The problem is that Dean is viewed as too extreme to beat Bush. Kerry as more moderate can beat Bush and that's the Democratic focus - who can beat Bush. Sadly, the focus should be on who's right for America, who will shake things up enough to remove some of the stench.

Maybe in four more years.

On Becoming President

Son: "Daddy, when I grow up I want to be President."

Visions of Bush. Claims military experience but really didn't do much other than go AWOL and party. Claims a Harvard education but got in because of Daddy, had fair grades, and partied. Claims business experience but got positions because of Daddy and showed no business acumen whatsoever. Governor of Texas with Daddy's help but showed no talent for State Management whatsoever. Got appointed President through family help but has yet to show any talent for Federal Management whatsoever.
All of Bush's success culminating in the Presidency are a direct result of family business and political ties, and not one bit due to competency.

Daddy: "Sorry son. you won't ever be President."

Son: "But I'm smart. I get good grades."

Daddy: (sighs) "But you're not connected. Forget the Presidency - you're too smart. Have a good life instead."

Plain And Simple

If it weren't for Science you wouldn't be reading this.

Plain And Simple - Part 2

If we had only Religion and no Science: The population would be low due to widespread disease and high infant mortality. Most people wouldn't know how or even need to read. Most people would work and donate their "wealth" to their Religion (tithings, indulgences, etc.), so most people would be poor. No movies, TV, books, airplanes, cars, cell phones, electricity, decent medicine. Countries would be more segregated, far less tolerant, and pity the disbeliever or the one who questions. Perhaps Science is inevitable as humanity reaches the limits of their endurance for dogmatic stupidity.

Kids Are Scientists Too - Yes, They Are!

Amazing critters - kids. They're born explorers, natural scientists - testing, observing, full of curiosity, asking questions, finding solutions. Why should these behaviors be discouraged?

Ohmigod! The world is coming to an end. Cover the children's eyes. Turn granny's wheelchair around so she doesn't have a heart attack. Janet Jackson flashed a nipple during the Superb Owl half-time. A bare breast! This is worse than 9-11. Laws have to be passed. We must save our kids, save ourselves, save the whales.

Big freaking deal people! So Ms. Jackson flashes a tit. How desperate, how sad for her. That's so Britney, so Madonna, so passe, and so stupid. A bare breast and everyone goes to pieces. Meanwhile you can see the latest corpses from Iraq on the evening news and not a complaint.

Until now. Hey, I'd rather see and have my children see nudity rather than corpses on TV. Instead of the FCC and various tight-assed rightwing Holier-than-thou groups seeking to further censor what we see either censor violence as well as sex or, even easier and more American, skip censoring and leave the responsibility to the citizens. By not making such a big deal out of a bare breast you -*gosh* - might not end up with people making a big deal out of bare breast.

For example, I was watching a Trick 2 episode with my rather young kids. They like the absurd acting and the mysteries. Gosh darn it, one of the characters said "Bullshit!". As a parent I could of (a) screamed that such language was present, told my kids never to say such a word under penalty of soap mouthwashing, ripped the DVD out of the drive, and written a nasty letter to the producers (b) interrupted the show and told my kids that that particular word was vulgar and not be used, or (c) ignored the incident and corrected my kids behavior if they used the word later. I opted for 'c' and my kids have yet to use the word. We watched more episodes and "that word" popped up again. No interest. I didn't make a big deal out of it so my kids didn't either.

It's when you make a big deal out of things that attention gets drawn to the deal. Janet Jackson's tit isn't a big deal but thanks to the rightwingers *AND* the Liberal Media she has gained a lot of attention, which I'm sure she never wanted, right? And to make sure this sort of thing never happens again why not cancel the Superb Owl or limit the half-time show to a mud battle between the teams' cheerleaders.

Battle Royale

I finished a most interesting and intense book Battle Royale - Koushon Takami that I think would make a great computer game. The plot focuses Japan in the near future. Japan and other nations are apparently one united coalition and while the economy is great and things are well there is a price - obedience to the government. And one method other than the Police to maintain obedience is through the Battle Royale. Each year or so a random class of Junior High School students are sent to a deserted area, in this case, an island for the Battle. They *have* to kill each other. If no one dies after 24 hours then they all die. The locale they "play" in is divided into grids. Three times a day a different square is declared off limits. Enter an off limits square and you die. Enter the starting square and you die.

Did I mention that each kid wears an unremovable explosive collar?

Escape is impossible. Try to swim away and you die. Each kid is given a backpack with a random weapon in it. Could be something good - an uzi - could be terrible - a fork.

As I read the book I kept flashing on what a great multiplayer game this could be. Like the book, the various uninhabited buildings could contain the makings of an uprising (that is, you can't directly attack the starting building but maybe indirectly *IF* you can get the teamwork together). Like the book would multiplayer quickly descend into chaos or would teams evolve. Whom do you trust? Even a single player game could be decent with the proper A.I..

Xena - Season One DVDs Review

Much to my wifes delight I've been veggieing out watching the Xena - Season 2 DVDs. This right after I finished Buffy - Season 5 and Xena - Season 1. I happen to like shows that have strong woman leads. That and I'm a piggy, geeky sort of guy with kids and little life. Not surprisingly, Alias is what I watch now.

Anyway, the Xena DVDs are fun to watch but the quality is fairly horrible. Supposedly this is due to the series originally being shot on 16 mm film up to mid-season 2 when they switched to 35 mm. Or it could be due to incompetence or laziness in the transfer. Either way, the colors are pretty muddied.

My set included a bonus DVD filled with interviews of the personnel. One of the Directors commented that Xena succeeded because of timing and that there had never been an action show featuring a female lead. Hmmm, what about Charlie's Angels?

I think Xena (and Buffy) succeeded because of the female leads and strong backgrounds supporting them. Xena could and did draw upon darn near any aspect of mythology and religion. Buffy could draw upon near any aspect of the dark underworld of demons and ghoulies. Between the two, that's a lot of background to mine. And there's the problem. Something like a Sheena didn't have this rich diverse universe of mythos to tap upon and died a quick death. Worse, future shows have to be careful when using these backgrounds because they don't want to come off as clones. And, of course, Hollywood is famous for originality. "Next season, Candy the Werewolf Whomper!"