Watched a bunch of history channel over the weekend. There’s a show called “Ancients Behaving Badly“. They compared various Historical world leaders on a psychographic scale from “goal driven killer” to “psychopathic murderer” and pathologies such as ‘histrionic personality disorder’. Fascinating stuff.
So far, I’ve seen Genghis Khan, Nero, Attila The Hun, and Cleopatra episodes. They only made eight of ’em, so I hope to catch the rest.
I encourage both men and women to take full responsibility for their mating decisions.
Abortion advocates rejoice in their concerted, planned attack on breast cancer research today at the resignation of Komen’s CEO, who was supposedly “anti-choice, anti-gay”. I was a little shocked, as by stating her positions on two other issues, (abortion may be relevant to breast cancer, so I can’t say unrelated), they basically exposed themselves as caring more about the CEO’s personal beliefs, and being intolerant of them, then they really cared about breast cancer research at all.
Little Susie wants to grow up to research breast cancer, but she also believes in life. Mommy will have to explain, “No, Susie, the totalitarians won’t allow someone who believes that abortion ends a life to research breast cancer”.
I support both a man and a woman’s right to choose a mate. That’s probably the least controversial sentence this will contain.
I support the right of every man and woman to engage in matrimony. Matrimony is a social commitment between a man and a woman. Screeeech! Told you this wouldn’t all go over easy with everyone. The origins of the word Matrimony roughly translates to “mother” “making”. It’s the social contract that a man would be socially bound to the mother of his children, and children themselves, that he fathers.
Now, you can make the case that other pairings of males and females are in some way socially equal, if not physically. Adoption is possible, all kinds of scientific progress is available to create other forms of social family unit structures. Socially, you can argue on these points, but physically, the social contract was constructed in this way. If you want to prove equality, than make a better case than weakening and attacking the existing structure. Cause that really pisses people off. And pissing people off is no way to way to win them over to your argument. It almost makes it look like you’re pissing them off just for the sake of pissing them off. And that doesn’t reflect well on your argument, either.
Next up, let’s think a little about a public health comparison of matrimony, hetero and homo sex, and which has the least public health risks. I wasn’t the one who voted for public based health system, but if you did, you sure did make your behaviour my business.
This author looks like he’s well versed on the Fast & Furious scandal.
A lot more reading than I have time for right now, but it looks like the Georgia court has punted on the eligibility case.
To me the overall issue looks like a clear erosion of the meaning of citizenship, whatever that means to a people. It’s possible that the plaintiffs approached the issue from too many less relevant angles, and made the core issue less discernable. My father forged his birth certificate to fight WWII. That angle has never been of primarily interest to me. What it means to be a citizen as defined in the Constitution, seems relevant to every discussion: How do you address immigration, if you don’t have clear standards of citizenship.