.:gayety:.

I was talking with a friend and he asked how I felt about gay adoption. I responded that I hate the topic, but proceeded to offer some of my thoughts. I think that a child should have good male and female influences in his or her life, preferably influences that are lifelong. Consider, why do we have godparents? Or perhaps, if not why, then what function should they serve? So I think the conservative thought is right in that regard--to the need for good role models of both genders (here I'm not sure which is appropriate, gender or sex, but I will say gender because that implies a role within society and the child will grow to become a certain role). However, the conservative thought is shooting itself in the foot by talking about the "defense of marriage" when divorce exists and the sanctity of the family when single parenthood exists. If it is required that a child have both a mother and father then let us destroy all orphanages, let us take away custody from single parents. A child needs a family, agreed. A child needs role models, agreed. A child needs love, agreed. However, if we believe that a child needs a family in the most fundamental sense of a nucleus of mother, father, child, then we shall be hurting the lives of many children because of our high minded principles and would we not be in violation of our other morals? If a child should not be raised without a mother and father what do we do with the many single mothers (and fathers) and orphans? Do we hold out hope that the orphans will be adopted? Do we hold out hope that the single parent will get remarried? But I thought that twice married is adultery? Or am I interpreting the Bible too literally? I suppose I should go eat my challah, grab a floor length skirt, give up shellfish, switch back to the Friday sabbath, wear a doily when in church while I sit silently listening to a male preacher, and give up cheeseburgers.

I'd rather let gays adopt.

ipod: for what it's worth by the cardigans

.:standing on principles:.

I'm always torn between giving the police the power to stop illegal activity and protecting our rights as people. I watch so much Law and Order that I sympathise with the police, while at the same time I watch enough movies about communism and the regime of totalitarian governments that I fear giving the police such power. I think that police should knock, wait and then assess whether to enter or wait a little longer. If they feel that the situation should be conducted without a knock warrant, then they should get that warrant. What to do with them and the evidence they seize when they violate that law is something I haven't quite figured out. I don't like the exclusionary rule when I hear about a guilty man going free. I don't think I know about the exclusionary rule being used when the wrong person is caught because then the case should be thrown out all together. However, it's contrary to our constitutional thought to say that the exclusionary rule allows a guilty man to go free precisely because of the fact that all are assumed innocent until proven guilty. When a man is judged he is judged as "not guilty" or "guilty", not as "innocent". I'm not quite sure what the difference is between "not guilty" and "innocent" but I suspect it has to do with the order. One who is innocent is not guilty, but it is not necessarily true that one is not guilty is innocent. I suppose that is a result of the crime the person is accused of. If John Doe were charged with murder and that is what the jury is deliberating, to say that he is not guilty means that he did not the do that particular crime, but it could be true that he committed manslaughter and so was not innocent on a larger scale. I have no idea but that is just a thought...

On the subject, I know a lot of people and kids watch the show 24. I was an Alias fan so I kinda didn't want to like the show. After seeing a few episodes and watching a few years of Alias, I can conclude that these shows are scary in a political sense. As we watch the shows we become wrapped up in the protagonist, we sympathise, we want her/him to get the bad guys, and at any means necessary. So then of course when in real life the president wishes to spy on Americans the outrage is mixed. 24 and Alias fans would surely support the use of wire tapping if that allowed Agent Bristow or Jack Bauer get the terrorist. So my fear is that as we as a country engross ourselves in the shows where the government is the good guy fighting the bad guy who is a terrorist, we erode our conviction to uphold personal liberty even if that comes at the cost of our safety. It's a principles versus practice debate. In fact, the economists would refer to it as a risk threshold: upholding principles is doesn't protect us physically and is therefore risky, doing what is necessary in practice, alternatively, protects us physically and is therefore less risky. If we are risk-adverse then we'll support more government intervention and we'll stand less frequently on principle. The problem however, is that I'm talking about physical protection from some nebulous bad guy. We've seen over and over again what happens when we fear for our safety and give power to a hero who will promise us safety. He becomes the government who protects us. As we allot him power, we lose our own. History has show the results of extremely powerful governments. Totalitarianism scares me. What scares me more is that totalitarianism usually arises out of a people's belief in the saving power of a charismatic politician who promises safety or prosperity, but the other half of the deal is our civil liberties.

on the ipod: money tree by the dansettes
related movie: v for vendetta
& its great quote: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

.:selves:.

Empty vase I've said I am. In search of water to feed the flowers that I have not. Perhaps it is foolish to say "in search". If I suppose myself to have come to God, am I not already filled? Where does the water go? Do my shortcomings and failings perforate my delicate glass frame, allowing whatever fills me to seep out just as it comes in? Do I, at other times, try to fill the void with alcohol, to join friends in their reveries? Such foolishness am I! The morning after is a wash in stupor, laziness, sickness and at times, regret. The queasiness can disarm even the strongest of stomachs. So why then, if there are so many ill effects, does one persist with such a course? Perhaps it is rash to say all drink with the necessary end of drunkenness. Most of the time judgment becomes clouded and the line that separates pleasant giddiness from wayward indulgence is often cross with just that one last drink too many. It is often said that we engage in certain behaviour because we desire the acceptance of others. I think also that we do so to accept ourselves. Yes that does seem a bit paradoxical to say that we engage in behaviour unlike our normal one to accept ourselves. So, I will act differently in order to accept myself. But these notions of self and behaviour are tricky! Let us suppose that for every "self" in us there is an opposing self. For example, I have a religious self, a self that attempts to live morally and in pursuit of God. Countering that self I have a hedonist self, a self that attempts to live pleasurably and in pursuit of worldly satisfaction. Within "me" are these many and opposing selves. Then, to live with so many combatant selves becomes a daily battle that amounts to a life long war. To accept "myself" is to accept all the inner competing selves. We pick which of these jihadist inner factions we wish to represent and comprise the "me". Yet time toils and in living we see the other selves in us played out in others that we meet. Perhaps out of envy or curiosity, we wish to try composing a new "me" of these sequestered selves. Yet to do so requires either the gut of a titan, the dedication of a monk or the looseness of a drunkard. Should neither the gut nor the dedication appear present within ourselves, the looseness of a drunkard can be attained rather easily. And so we drink to accept our selves, to accept a different composition of repressed bits. We drink to be accepted by others, and more specifically, to be accepted by the others whose composition of a total self resembles the new composition we are painting for ourselves with each new splash of alcohol. And in the light of day we wake to find that the drunkard is gone and in his stead lies an invalid overcome with illness. The "me" of the morning is the same as the "me" of the earlier evening only this time it is a "me" of a lesser physical disposition. The new and different "me" of the night has passed on, chained in yet again, only to be showcased again with alcohol or a complete change in gut. The foolishness of man arises when he learns nothing from this foray into an elixir-induced deviation from the standard composition of self. The composition bonded together by the molecules will break as the elixir breaks. And so the cycle continues.

on the ipod: what sarah said by death cab for cutie