Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
What you thought you saw
Just heard about this on Science Friday podcast, and went to see it on their website. You know, you may not be seeing what you think you're seeing...
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Family Values
I have watched with interest the primitive and rather perverse convulsions pushing for a Minnesota constitutional amendment to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."
They don't actually say which one man and one woman, but I suppose they have some idea. Hopefully they don't mean a man and woman who, like so many, will later decide to be divorced from their partner "till death to us part," or find some other one man or one woman to have occasional casual sex with. Anyway...
I note that those on the Moral High Ground -- over there, across where I'm standing -- say it's all about Family Values. I am in favor of family values, having grown up in a rather large Family I deeply and profoundly value. If any of those folks want to say I don't value families, they can explain why, the second or third time they pick their bruised and battered butts up off the ground after attempting to say so.
So, Family Values. Great stuff.
Alright, I'll buy that. It's all about Family Values.
I do value Families. I am also struck by the idea that it is entirely possible that a gay guy (I am profoundly straight) might also value families. For that matter, a couple of gay guys might also. Lesbians, or couples of lesbians, might also value families. For that matter, it becomes rather obvious they do value families -- they want to create a family, with someone who they love and care for deeply. They know that much of society, especially those steeped in Christian Love and Muslim Peace and other violent and intolerant emotions will abuse them viciously, possibly injure or kill them, and they still want to create a family. A greater love, and so on.
In fact, after centuries of abuse for not being willing to enter a committed relationship (expected to be Between One Man And One Woman) they are willing, before God and Everyone, to form a committed relationship... and some folks want them forbidden to do so.
These are folks who value families deeply and profoundly. They are willing to face whatever obstacles, pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of their family -- because they love and are loved, and nothing is more important to them. That is, the definition of every worthwhile family in the history of humanity.
And I should be against this... because of Family Values.
And don't even start with me about polyamorous families. Not only do they love each other, not only are they willing to pay, bear, support, oppose, and so on, they have a fundamental advantage over anyone you care to name as to Family Values. They can, collectively, actually afford to support their children. They have X number people working together to produce enough income to support their families. Back in the '50s and '60s, my folks managed to support us 5 kids. Back in those days, two working adults could support five kids. Now, I really doubt it.
"It Takes A Village To Raise A Child." Yeah, what she said.
So, what are we really talking about here? Legalizing committed relationships? They already have committed relationships, and no government had to give them permission to have them. What these constitutionalists are trying to preserve is the special treatment given to those allegedly committed relationships that involve One Man And One Woman. They want to preserve the few remaining tax benefits to those liable to sexually reproduce by accident. And they want to preserve the Cash Cow of religious corporations over the past millenia, the idea that they can sell the permission of god to have sex over the long term with one's chosen partner.
But I digress, and tend to growl and foam at the mouth. Bottom lines:
Committed relationships are committed relationships, and families are families. They should respected and acknowledged, whatever the details of their internal relationships. (And what's all this obsession with the sex? Shouldn't that be private?)
No special privileges should be accorded any particular flavor or flavors of committed relationship or family, as long as that is what they are at their hearts.
Trying to require government endorsement of any particular flavor of committed relationship or family is shameful. Before you go grab the strawman, there are some sorts of "family" that are exceptionally abhorrent, and should be treated exceptionally -- because they are exceptional. But those exceptions already are unlawful.
I value families. If people who love each other and are committed to each other want to form a family, I hope they will. And I hope my Constitutions, federal or state, won't be perverted to attack these families. Probably will though. It's the Government, and they'll likely screw it up. Maybe not. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....
They don't actually say which one man and one woman, but I suppose they have some idea. Hopefully they don't mean a man and woman who, like so many, will later decide to be divorced from their partner "till death to us part," or find some other one man or one woman to have occasional casual sex with. Anyway...
I note that those on the Moral High Ground -- over there, across where I'm standing -- say it's all about Family Values. I am in favor of family values, having grown up in a rather large Family I deeply and profoundly value. If any of those folks want to say I don't value families, they can explain why, the second or third time they pick their bruised and battered butts up off the ground after attempting to say so.
So, Family Values. Great stuff.
Alright, I'll buy that. It's all about Family Values.
I do value Families. I am also struck by the idea that it is entirely possible that a gay guy (I am profoundly straight) might also value families. For that matter, a couple of gay guys might also. Lesbians, or couples of lesbians, might also value families. For that matter, it becomes rather obvious they do value families -- they want to create a family, with someone who they love and care for deeply. They know that much of society, especially those steeped in Christian Love and Muslim Peace and other violent and intolerant emotions will abuse them viciously, possibly injure or kill them, and they still want to create a family. A greater love, and so on.
In fact, after centuries of abuse for not being willing to enter a committed relationship (expected to be Between One Man And One Woman) they are willing, before God and Everyone, to form a committed relationship... and some folks want them forbidden to do so.
These are folks who value families deeply and profoundly. They are willing to face whatever obstacles, pay any price, bear any burden, support any friend, oppose any foe, to ensure the survival and success of their family -- because they love and are loved, and nothing is more important to them. That is, the definition of every worthwhile family in the history of humanity.
And I should be against this... because of Family Values.
And don't even start with me about polyamorous families. Not only do they love each other, not only are they willing to pay, bear, support, oppose, and so on, they have a fundamental advantage over anyone you care to name as to Family Values. They can, collectively, actually afford to support their children. They have X number people working together to produce enough income to support their families. Back in the '50s and '60s, my folks managed to support us 5 kids. Back in those days, two working adults could support five kids. Now, I really doubt it.
"It Takes A Village To Raise A Child." Yeah, what she said.
So, what are we really talking about here? Legalizing committed relationships? They already have committed relationships, and no government had to give them permission to have them. What these constitutionalists are trying to preserve is the special treatment given to those allegedly committed relationships that involve One Man And One Woman. They want to preserve the few remaining tax benefits to those liable to sexually reproduce by accident. And they want to preserve the Cash Cow of religious corporations over the past millenia, the idea that they can sell the permission of god to have sex over the long term with one's chosen partner.
But I digress, and tend to growl and foam at the mouth. Bottom lines:
Committed relationships are committed relationships, and families are families. They should respected and acknowledged, whatever the details of their internal relationships. (And what's all this obsession with the sex? Shouldn't that be private?)
No special privileges should be accorded any particular flavor or flavors of committed relationship or family, as long as that is what they are at their hearts.
Trying to require government endorsement of any particular flavor of committed relationship or family is shameful. Before you go grab the strawman, there are some sorts of "family" that are exceptionally abhorrent, and should be treated exceptionally -- because they are exceptional. But those exceptions already are unlawful.
I value families. If people who love each other and are committed to each other want to form a family, I hope they will. And I hope my Constitutions, federal or state, won't be perverted to attack these families. Probably will though. It's the Government, and they'll likely screw it up. Maybe not. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one....
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Time travellers
Authors say ideas for stories are easy, and I suppose they are. They're authors, I suppose they'd know.
Had an idea about a direction for a story I will never write, and probably doesn't need to be written. It's really just a view of other stories from just off to the side a bit. Whenever they do a story about very long space voyages, they point out the long delays of communications after a certain point. The space traveler may only be heard months or years later, and might likewise not hear comments for months or years.
My first thought was that, if the traveler recorded interviews on leaving earth, and traveled fast enough for time dilation, sending those recordings back on the stream could be of historical interest. Then it struck me, an ever more delayed outgoing message, with ever more delayed reactions and comments -- reminds me a lot of my experience of podcasting.
And I wondered... if you did that sort of story, with a focus on the traveler being a podcaster, would there be interesting implications there? There's that historical-interviews thing from early in the trip, sent out later. As the distances and times became greater, the audience would be listening to a perspective years or decades different than their own. Their comments would be "futuristic," I suppose, to the podcaster. But when they were heard by the audience, they might be from their own youth, commenting on how they felt about the shows back then. And they would be hearing perspectives, not only from the past, but from a fairly young person from the past.
And I am puzzling over whether I feel that this is related to the current state of podcasting. Certainly many of us either started older than the 18-30 target demographic, and if we weren't many of us are now. With few exceptions, comments to podcasts are scarce, and voice comments even more rare. So when we receive a comment, it can certainly seem to come out of the blue, and often refers to something we said a long while ago.
Can't claim to be that "young person from the past," really. But inside my own skull I'm still pretty much that 18-year old geek in high school just discovering computers by typing on a Decwriter sending across phonelines to a college's timeshared computer, or posting to CompuServe, or to the BBS networks. I miss all that, and feel somewhat lost without all that stuff I actually understood.
So that may be a time-and-space-travel story that doesn't need to be written. Or it might be we're writing that story every day. Or both.
Thoughts?
Had an idea about a direction for a story I will never write, and probably doesn't need to be written. It's really just a view of other stories from just off to the side a bit. Whenever they do a story about very long space voyages, they point out the long delays of communications after a certain point. The space traveler may only be heard months or years later, and might likewise not hear comments for months or years.
My first thought was that, if the traveler recorded interviews on leaving earth, and traveled fast enough for time dilation, sending those recordings back on the stream could be of historical interest. Then it struck me, an ever more delayed outgoing message, with ever more delayed reactions and comments -- reminds me a lot of my experience of podcasting.
And I wondered... if you did that sort of story, with a focus on the traveler being a podcaster, would there be interesting implications there? There's that historical-interviews thing from early in the trip, sent out later. As the distances and times became greater, the audience would be listening to a perspective years or decades different than their own. Their comments would be "futuristic," I suppose, to the podcaster. But when they were heard by the audience, they might be from their own youth, commenting on how they felt about the shows back then. And they would be hearing perspectives, not only from the past, but from a fairly young person from the past.
And I am puzzling over whether I feel that this is related to the current state of podcasting. Certainly many of us either started older than the 18-30 target demographic, and if we weren't many of us are now. With few exceptions, comments to podcasts are scarce, and voice comments even more rare. So when we receive a comment, it can certainly seem to come out of the blue, and often refers to something we said a long while ago.
Can't claim to be that "young person from the past," really. But inside my own skull I'm still pretty much that 18-year old geek in high school just discovering computers by typing on a Decwriter sending across phonelines to a college's timeshared computer, or posting to CompuServe, or to the BBS networks. I miss all that, and feel somewhat lost without all that stuff I actually understood.
So that may be a time-and-space-travel story that doesn't need to be written. Or it might be we're writing that story every day. Or both.
Thoughts?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Something of an honor
Back when Christchurch in New Zealand had their big earthquake, I was quite moved to see the video and think about how frightened and unsafe everyone felt, and left a comment on their website. Later I got a nice email that they wanted to use my comment in the Actual Paper. Very cool, I thought.
Being the arrogant, self-absorbed fella I am, I went looking for my comment on their website. Turns out they've gotten hundreds of comments of support, including 343 of them from the US. I scanned through all of them.
Mine is 342 of 343.
I also mentioned one of my (many) favorite authors P.J. Ballantine. But yes, in the end, it's all about me. ;-)
Seriously, it's good to see they're rebuilding and doing better. And I hear they're getting tourists again. Sure wish I could be one of them.
Oh, wait, all about me again...
Ich Bin Ein Cantabrian.
Better?
Being the arrogant, self-absorbed fella I am, I went looking for my comment on their website. Turns out they've gotten hundreds of comments of support, including 343 of them from the US. I scanned through all of them.
Mine is 342 of 343.
I also mentioned one of my (many) favorite authors P.J. Ballantine. But yes, in the end, it's all about me. ;-)
Seriously, it's good to see they're rebuilding and doing better. And I hear they're getting tourists again. Sure wish I could be one of them.
Oh, wait, all about me again...
Ich Bin Ein Cantabrian.
Better?
Second Life Partner: I accept!
Hi Grizzly Silversmith,
Congratulations! Your proposal has been accepted by Samantha Silversmith!
Personal Message :
I love you very much and I always will, I would love to marry you.
"You got married?!?!?" I got that a lot lately. It was just the other day that Samantha were wed in Second Life (SL). It isn't a legally-binding marriage out in Real Life (RL), nor is it particularly binding in SL, only by choice. There's no Community Property in SL, and in fact it's rather difficult for more than one person to share ownership of anything. And you can't really have kids -- kinda, but not really.
But it's important stuff, at least to us.
Samantha has this rather remarkable habit. She tells me frequently she loves me. I like this. I think this is a Good Thing that I haven't gotten so very much. And I want more of this. I tell her I love her, too, as often as I can manage, though I'm not that sort of demonstrative fellow. And I try not to let her down too often.
I am on the Autistic spectrum, and some things (like actually talking to people) are quite difficult and quite exhausting for me. My day job is spent talking to people all day, and this wears me out. So I often get home and basically crash, even when I am supposed to go on Second Life and do something. I feel bad about that. And I do my best. But she has been remarkably tolerant of me.
I consider myself often, having known myself for 52 years now, and I am dumbfounded as to what she sees in me. I am humbled by that. As a DJ in Second Life, I'm in a moderately unique position. In SL, most of what you "hear" from most folks is just text -- clever or not clever, needing to stand on it's own. I have the sort of voice where people say, "You oughta be on the radio!" And as a DJ people actually hear my voice, and I suspect that gives me a more personal impact on folks in Second Life. And yes, I am basically saying "chicks dig DJs." ;-)
It is obvious in SL if not in RL that what one knows about someone is not necessarily something one Knows. But we've talked on Skype, so yes, she's definitely female, and I've seen her picture, so yes, she's definitely attractive. She's also X years younger than me, which at my age, is rather attractive in itself. And she's seen my picture -- and still loves me. Baffling.
"You got married?!?!?" Yeah. Yeah, it appears I did. Thank you, dear. (smooch)
Griz
Congratulations! Your proposal has been accepted by Samantha Silversmith!
Personal Message :
I love you very much and I always will, I would love to marry you.
"You got married?!?!?" I got that a lot lately. It was just the other day that Samantha were wed in Second Life (SL). It isn't a legally-binding marriage out in Real Life (RL), nor is it particularly binding in SL, only by choice. There's no Community Property in SL, and in fact it's rather difficult for more than one person to share ownership of anything. And you can't really have kids -- kinda, but not really.
But it's important stuff, at least to us.
Samantha has this rather remarkable habit. She tells me frequently she loves me. I like this. I think this is a Good Thing that I haven't gotten so very much. And I want more of this. I tell her I love her, too, as often as I can manage, though I'm not that sort of demonstrative fellow. And I try not to let her down too often.
I am on the Autistic spectrum, and some things (like actually talking to people) are quite difficult and quite exhausting for me. My day job is spent talking to people all day, and this wears me out. So I often get home and basically crash, even when I am supposed to go on Second Life and do something. I feel bad about that. And I do my best. But she has been remarkably tolerant of me.
I consider myself often, having known myself for 52 years now, and I am dumbfounded as to what she sees in me. I am humbled by that. As a DJ in Second Life, I'm in a moderately unique position. In SL, most of what you "hear" from most folks is just text -- clever or not clever, needing to stand on it's own. I have the sort of voice where people say, "You oughta be on the radio!" And as a DJ people actually hear my voice, and I suspect that gives me a more personal impact on folks in Second Life. And yes, I am basically saying "chicks dig DJs." ;-)
It is obvious in SL if not in RL that what one knows about someone is not necessarily something one Knows. But we've talked on Skype, so yes, she's definitely female, and I've seen her picture, so yes, she's definitely attractive. She's also X years younger than me, which at my age, is rather attractive in itself. And she's seen my picture -- and still loves me. Baffling.
"You got married?!?!?" Yeah. Yeah, it appears I did. Thank you, dear. (smooch)
Griz
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Just something I read somewhere.
I would comment on this blogpost I found, but Keka the author actually said it about right. I was unemployed for two years, and now I'm back working, and I think her post explains rather neatly how I've been feeling, even being seven years younger.
Keka's blog, The Animal in Me
Keka's blog, The Animal in Me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)