Cheaper to buy than to rent.

The first time someone tried to sell me… someone.

I was in Thailand.  It was a rough job.  I slept on the beach in a hammock for 5 weeks.  The local kids taught me how to dive in the ocean.  I spent a lot of time in the water (that I later learned had a problem with shark attacks).   I was really only there in case something went wrong so like all backups, I had a lot of time to burn.  I had a driver that would take me back and forth between the different compounds “safely”.  If you’ve never driven overseas you can’t understand the chaos.  People do whatever they can get away with.  A lot of things in third world countries are like that.  In the first few days, I saw my first death.  A guy was trying to splice into the electrical lines to get power to his house.  He fell into them.  A few days later I saw my first family killed.  Motorcycles are family transportation in most countries.  Wet roads and intersections are bad when the five year old decides to wiggle at the wrong time.  Three kids and two parents.  Bodies everywhere.

So a couple of weeks in I actually had some real work to do.  I had been spending all day and into the night working with the Thai recon marines.  My driver put up with me pulling him out of bed at strange hours without complaint.  We were driving “home” one night and with limited English and my limited Thai he was able to get across that he wanted to stop and meet his friends.  At that point I was too tired to argue so we went to a little hole in the wall bar to have a few drinks. 

Now, I really like to study people.  My degree is in Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.  That’s a lot of ologys that basically mean I like to look at the whole person.  I may be a brick when it comes to language but when I go to country X, I make a point to learn to be polite.  (when you are outnumbered and outgunned, smile.  At the very least it will confuse them so you can run.) 

So the waitress, maybe 15, brings me a drink of “whiskey”.  I smile.  That’s how you say “thank you” in Thailand.  It’s called the “land of a thousand smiles” for a reason!  She scurries back behind the bar.  I think nothing of it.  I’m trying to follow the conversation, and failing.  A while later she brings another drink and I smile and nod.  That’s “thank you very much” in Thailand.  She quickly scoots back behind the bar.  A few minutes later, she comes back.  In front of her is an adult that by age and face, I assume was her father.  He starts throwing out prices.  Thailand as a whole has a bad reputation as being the place to go for prostitution.  Foreigners amplify that reputation.  Most foreigners don’t learn the culture so a smile to them is, “how much?” not “thank you.”  While not interested in his pimping of the poor girl and trying to convey that in limited Thai, I did hear the prices.  They were really high for the area.  The poor girl was just staring at the floor.  I turned to my driver and tried to explain that I wasn’t interested.  With broken English and bits of Thai he explained that if I was going to be here for a while, it would be cheaper to buy than to rent.  This guy was trying to sell me his daughter.  I couldn’t speak.  Welcome to the real world.

Two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner

Proposition 8 and involvement of churches in lobbying.

I see two issues here.  The first is the confusion of what an organization has the right to do vs. what an individual has the right to do.  The second is the failure to maintain a separation of church and state.

The person at the pulpit has the right to say what they want.  The people in the congregation have the right to say what they want.  The church itself has no rights.  It is not a “U.S. Person” under the law and therefore has no rights.  It is governed by laws pertaining to churches and in some instances businesses.  The leaders of the churches have the right to use any and all available loopholes in the tax codes to the advantage of the organization. 

I think it was wrong for out of state churches to send people to California to convince people to vote for Prop8, but I only say that because they were from out of state and it was a state matter.  (it will have a national effect)  GLBT groups could have brought people in from out of state but I think that would have been equally wrong.

I’ve read all kinds of editorials about how this is a “Christian country” and without basic Christian fundamentals, like the Jewish Ten Commandments, society would collapse.  Our basic laws could just as easily be based on Aristotle’s Ethics.  Besides, I don’t remember the last time someone was stoned to death for not honoring their father and mother.  Our laws are based on the governments reaction to what people were doing that was bad for the society.  There is a law against murder because someone tried it and it was bad for the group.  There is a law against tax evasion because someone tried it and it was bad for the group.  However, the U.S. Constitution has a couple of provisions in it that are used to justify all kinds of nonsense.  The two main overused clauses are “common good” and “interstate commerce”.

Most laws are written for the common good.  Common being defined as 50+% and good being what they want.  One of the most dangerous things in a democracy is having two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner.  The sheep will lose a “right” in support of the common good. 

From a legal perspective I would say that there needs to be a measured harm or a good provided to the majority of the group in order to justify the law and have it backed by the constitution.  I have yet to see any person that is personally harmed by non-monogamous/non-heterosexual marriage or would benefit by the banning of such marriages.  On the reverse side I see many people, not a majority though, that would benefit and are currently being harmed by the ban.  It has a broad emotional and financial impact on their lives.   85% of the people have no real effect either way and 15% have a strong negative effect based on the ban.  The civil rights movement had a similar percentage.

Why is marriage regulated at all by the government?  Well, the government has the responsibility to regulate all financial organizations that cross state lines.  Traditionally, finances are mingled in a marriage.   Marriages and the financial rights they provide are acknowledged across state lines.  (these are state laws not federal, christian groups want a federal amendment to “fix” this)  The states got involved in marriage because it affected commerce, not because it was marriage. 

Marriage is a religious matter.  A financial union is a state or federal matter.  In my opinion we are fighting over wording here.  I would like to see the word “marriage” removed from the law books completely.  That’s right, I want to ban marriage, not give more people the legal right to it.  The state should regulate financial unions but has no right to prohibit or require a non-damaging religious practice such as marriage.  Marriage should be managed by religious groups and organizations should be managed by government. 

What is now known as a marriage should be treated as a business by the government.  If a business chooses to have five equal owners, that all file separate income tax and then a business tax for the common goods, who cares.  If we would stop fighting for the word “marriage”, we would get all of the rights without having to fight the knee jerk reaction of those that focus on a word.  The government has been toying with the idea of requiring me to get a divorce so I can keep my job and be poly.  Is it wrong?  Yes, but that’s what you get when the government gets involved in matters that it has absolutely no right to be in.

My rubber band theory of human potential

Imagine a rubber band sitting next to a ruler.  Its placement along the ruler appears random but with all things chaotic there is a pattern.  What is the potential of this rubber band?  What is it capable of?  What will it do?  On the ruler many things are written.  Nobel Prize winner could be written on the end, so could NBA star.   At the base are goals much easier to obtain as they require less effort.  “Having a child” is in the base and “Being a parent” is near the end of the same ruler.  It’s easy to get knocked up or do the knocking up, it’s harder to guide and shape rubber bands. 

The how the rubber bands act along each ruler depend on several factors:  size (curiosity), initial placement (genetics), elasticity and composition (determination/environment/culture/religion/soul).

If you look at a person’s life this way, it’s easier to understand how they came to their place in the world.  Michael Jordan has a huge rubber band for sports.  His initial placement is far to the end with excellent genetics.  He has stretched to the limits of his elasticity in ways most people barely understand.  He trained countless hours and gave up many other aspects of his life just to get an extra centimeter or two of stretch. 

All three factors change depending on the ruler used.  Someone many be large, stretchy and located at an extreme for science yet on the opposite extreme with a small inflexible band for music.  Small bands may stretch very well, large bands may be rigid. 

Size can take you a long way.  The more curious you are, the more you can look around without straining and real effort.  Someone with a natural curiosity may be bound by their environment/culture/religion.  Curiosity can be quickly stifled if the penalty for pushing boundaries is death.  Size is also a limiting factor as the more spread out you are, the less you can stretch in a single direction.

Initial placement is more straight forward but to really look at it, you must understand the difference between a genotype and a phenotype.  The genotype is what the genes actually say.  The phenotype is how they are expressed.  The genotype is the placement itself but outside factors will influence how it is expressed.  The genes may say one thing but the environment can change the expression based on what is “acceptable”.

The elasticity and composition of a band is a huge determination in how it is expressed.  However, it is limited by the other two factors.  No matter how hard I try, I could not play in the NBA.  I don’t have the placement genetically and the size of my rubber band for basketball is miniscule.

Human potential can be expressed in many ways.  Along one ruler is sexuality.  Radiating from the end is the Kinsey Sexuality Scale.  (1 being completely heterosexual and 5 being completely homosexual)  For a rubber band born in the United States, I’d say the culturally accepted/desired point is the 1 for males and 2 for females.  If your initial placement, size, elasticity and composition allow you to center around 1, then you fit in well as a male.  If you don’t fit, but it’s something you are willing to become elastic for, you can stretch.  This creates tension in the self that must be resolved or at least accounted for.  It’s much easier for a 3 to pretend to be a 1 but if a 5 tried it… 

Any time you stretch it creates tension and that tension interacts with other parts of your life.  If you want to be great in something, you have to put a lot of tension on that band.  That effort focuses your energy away from other bands that are of lower importance.  If you are a small band, genetically at 5 on the scale but are in a culture/religion that does not accept it, you can pretend to be a 1.  It would take extreme effort and most likely cause problems all over your life. 

One of the problems I have with religious groups telling people that are gay or bisexual that, “Jesus can make you straight.” Is the fact that yes he can, but at what cost?  You can pretend to be anything, hide your true self to make others happy.  The cost is loss of the self though. 

I’m not saying, “Don’t push your boundaries.”  What I’m saying is that when a boundary is pushed imbalance and tension is created.  Before a decision is made, sit down and ask yourself if the price to be paid is worth the reward offered.

Hello world!

So I made a list of things I want to write about.  It’s mostly for myself, but I do like feedback and conversation with others.  Katherine likes to dump things out on paper so it can’t be all bad.  I’m bored and far from home.  I’ll give it a try.