"He who troubles his own house will inherit the wind, and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
Book of Proverbs 11:29
INHERIT THE WIND
Remember when Spencer Tracy's "Henry Drummond," defending the teacher, B.T. Cates, who was arrested for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution, was confronted by his old, right wing friend, "Matthew Harrison Brady," played by Fredric March, who was prosecuting Cates? March's character asks Tracy's why he abandoned their friendship of so many years.
Spencer Tracy's memorable response was elegant and profound, and quite applicable today as a message to the few remaining hold-outs on the extreme conservative side of our current cultural evolution, who even now, are trying to say that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was racially motivated.
Listen up, Rush:
"Perhaps," Drummond says, "it was you who moved away from me, simply by standing still."
Spencer Tracy's memorable response was elegant and profound, and quite applicable today as a message to the few remaining hold-outs on the extreme conservative side of our current cultural evolution, who even now, are trying to say that Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama was racially motivated.
Listen up, Rush:
"Perhaps," Drummond says, "it was you who moved away from me, simply by standing still."
READ THIS! THANK YOU, GENERAL POWELL!
Here's an excerpt from Colin Powell's interview on "Meet The Press" this morning indicting the McCain campaign and the Republican Party, of which Powell is a member:
"Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."
"Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
"I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."
COLIN POWELL ENDORSES OBAMA!
"I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities - and you have to take that into account - as well as his substance -- he has both style and substance. He has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president."
Colin Powell
Colin Powell
"DUDES FOR SARAH!" THE SADDEST THING YET? NAH, JUST THE STUPIDEST!
An article in this morning's NY Times, entitled, "Among Rock-Ribbed Fans of Palin, Dudes Rule," is an appropriate follow-up to my post from yesterday about how the hate being spewed by Palin's male followers is rooted in their insecure sexual identities.
Here's an excerpt from the Times piece:
"Palin’s stoutest defenders are often the Joe Sixpacks in her crowds, who shrug off her critics, ridiculers and perceived adversaries in the news media. It is not unusual for fans of Sarah Palin to shout out to the Alaska governor in the midst of her stump speeches. It is noteworthy, however, that the crowds are heavily male. When Sarah Palin makes a campaign appearance, as she did last month in Carson City, Nev., the men in the crowd often respond with particular enthusiasm. 'You rock me out, Sarah,' yelled one man, wearing a red-checked hunting jacket as Ms. Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, strode into an airplane hangar here on Thursday. He held a homemade 'Dudes for Sarah' sign and wore a National Rifle Association hat. Kenny Loggins’s 'Danger Zone' blared over the loudspeakers, and the man even danced a little — yes, a guy in an N.R.A. hat dancing in a hangar, kind of a Sarah Palin rally thing."
Gee, these guys aren't desperately fighting off their horny fantasies of joining the Rockettes or maybe... the Village People, are they?!
Here's an excerpt from the Times piece:
"Palin’s stoutest defenders are often the Joe Sixpacks in her crowds, who shrug off her critics, ridiculers and perceived adversaries in the news media. It is not unusual for fans of Sarah Palin to shout out to the Alaska governor in the midst of her stump speeches. It is noteworthy, however, that the crowds are heavily male. When Sarah Palin makes a campaign appearance, as she did last month in Carson City, Nev., the men in the crowd often respond with particular enthusiasm. 'You rock me out, Sarah,' yelled one man, wearing a red-checked hunting jacket as Ms. Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, strode into an airplane hangar here on Thursday. He held a homemade 'Dudes for Sarah' sign and wore a National Rifle Association hat. Kenny Loggins’s 'Danger Zone' blared over the loudspeakers, and the man even danced a little — yes, a guy in an N.R.A. hat dancing in a hangar, kind of a Sarah Palin rally thing."
Gee, these guys aren't desperately fighting off their horny fantasies of joining the Rockettes or maybe... the Village People, are they?!
Tonight's Bonus Quote - ANOTHER PAPER ON THE RIGHT TRASHES McPALIN!
"More than any single factor, McCain's bad judgment in choosing the inarticulate, insular and ethically challenged Palin disqualifies him for the presidency."
The Salt Lake Tribune (which supported George W. Bush in 2004)
Geez! Who is for McCain-Palin at this point?
The Salt Lake Tribune (which supported George W. Bush in 2004)
Geez! Who is for McCain-Palin at this point?
Tonight's Quote for the Righteous Right
“You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Anne Lamotte
Anne Lamotte
“IT’S A THIN LINE BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE?”
Not exactly, Annie Lennox. But hate is a reaction to an aspect of love, specifically the “feminine” expression of it.
Let me be as direct and hard-hitting as I can about this, because we are seeing a destructive and dangerous rash of hatred coming out of the lower-functioning end of the far right since it has become apparent that Barack Obama is heading towards a landslide victory two weeks from now.
There is no rational explanation related to policy positions or political philosophy for the vile and vicious tenor of the attacks by what’s left of the right wing in this country. This is way beyond debate or heated discourse. This is becoming violent and out of control. Now that every thinking conservative has either outright declared support for Senator Obama, or at the least, decried the current crop of prehistoric primates being led by Sarah “Wilma Flintstone” Palin as moronic and beyond the pale, only a bestial group of paranoid, hate-mongers remains.
But what is fueling their terror and hatred really? Since this is clearly not about politics, and it certainly isn’t about “love of country” or patriotism, what is it about?
Folks, here I go again - it’s about love and sex, and sexual identity.
Over a hundred years ago, Freud postulated that the root cause of paranoia in men was extreme “homosexual anxiety.” So fearful are some men about the feminine side of their emotional/sexual life, so tortured are they by their identifications with their mothers, rather than their fathers, that these men adopt a hyper-masculine (macho) persona to disguise the deeper tendencies which they fear would destroy their fragile egos and gutted sense of self (The childrearing causes of this dysfunction are a discussion for another day.). The terror in response to their own “softer” feelings in this extreme male personality is inevitably projected outwards, so any other men who show signs of the feminine – cooperativeness instead of competitiveness, receptiveness instead of aggressiveness, openness and communicativeness instead of bullishness and control – threaten to upset the house of cards of their own sexual identity. Other men who are comfortable with both their masculine and feminine sides, like Barack Obama, must, therefore, be destroyed at all costs.
Okay. And what about the women? Well, just take a look at the nearly psychotic Republican congresswoman, Michelle Bachman, who called all liberals traitors yesterday, or the already psychotic Ann Coulter, who called John Edwards a “faggot.” With bone-hard features on their chiseled faces, and blazing, penetrating eyes, these women have thoroughly eradicated their feminine sides. It has long been understood that while the women of the far right are so opposed to abortion and birth control, women like Michelle, Ann and Sarah Palin, they are not in practice “pro-life.” In fact, these hyper-masculine women are as gleeful about executions and war (and killing doctors who respect a woman’s right to choose) as any crazed neo-con men. These women, overly identified with their fathers, and in deep conflict about it, are in the same paranoid quandary as their homophobic male counterparts. (Oh, and why doesn't anyone find it surprising anymore when yet another right wing politician or religious fundamentalist is discovered having closeted gay sex?)
But this is not about being gay. This is about sexuality. And love. And sex. Real sex. Loving, soul-quenching, gut-wrenching, bliss-inducing sex (Not sex as conquest or sex for ego inflation.) As I’ve said and written many times before, nobody who is having mind-blowing orgasms with someone they love ever feels inspired to go out and kill someone or throw toxic waste into a river or steal someone’s life savings... or call another person a traitor or a faggot. Only sexually dysfunctional, homophobic, emotionally distorted rage-aholics do those things.
This is a potentially wondrous time we are living in. The shift in consciousness that Barack Obama represents can be a real pendulum swing towards a cooperative, inclusive, open society, the kind once envisioned by the founders of our country.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident...”
Remember?
Let me be as direct and hard-hitting as I can about this, because we are seeing a destructive and dangerous rash of hatred coming out of the lower-functioning end of the far right since it has become apparent that Barack Obama is heading towards a landslide victory two weeks from now.
There is no rational explanation related to policy positions or political philosophy for the vile and vicious tenor of the attacks by what’s left of the right wing in this country. This is way beyond debate or heated discourse. This is becoming violent and out of control. Now that every thinking conservative has either outright declared support for Senator Obama, or at the least, decried the current crop of prehistoric primates being led by Sarah “Wilma Flintstone” Palin as moronic and beyond the pale, only a bestial group of paranoid, hate-mongers remains.
But what is fueling their terror and hatred really? Since this is clearly not about politics, and it certainly isn’t about “love of country” or patriotism, what is it about?
Folks, here I go again - it’s about love and sex, and sexual identity.
Over a hundred years ago, Freud postulated that the root cause of paranoia in men was extreme “homosexual anxiety.” So fearful are some men about the feminine side of their emotional/sexual life, so tortured are they by their identifications with their mothers, rather than their fathers, that these men adopt a hyper-masculine (macho) persona to disguise the deeper tendencies which they fear would destroy their fragile egos and gutted sense of self (The childrearing causes of this dysfunction are a discussion for another day.). The terror in response to their own “softer” feelings in this extreme male personality is inevitably projected outwards, so any other men who show signs of the feminine – cooperativeness instead of competitiveness, receptiveness instead of aggressiveness, openness and communicativeness instead of bullishness and control – threaten to upset the house of cards of their own sexual identity. Other men who are comfortable with both their masculine and feminine sides, like Barack Obama, must, therefore, be destroyed at all costs.
Okay. And what about the women? Well, just take a look at the nearly psychotic Republican congresswoman, Michelle Bachman, who called all liberals traitors yesterday, or the already psychotic Ann Coulter, who called John Edwards a “faggot.” With bone-hard features on their chiseled faces, and blazing, penetrating eyes, these women have thoroughly eradicated their feminine sides. It has long been understood that while the women of the far right are so opposed to abortion and birth control, women like Michelle, Ann and Sarah Palin, they are not in practice “pro-life.” In fact, these hyper-masculine women are as gleeful about executions and war (and killing doctors who respect a woman’s right to choose) as any crazed neo-con men. These women, overly identified with their fathers, and in deep conflict about it, are in the same paranoid quandary as their homophobic male counterparts. (Oh, and why doesn't anyone find it surprising anymore when yet another right wing politician or religious fundamentalist is discovered having closeted gay sex?)
But this is not about being gay. This is about sexuality. And love. And sex. Real sex. Loving, soul-quenching, gut-wrenching, bliss-inducing sex (Not sex as conquest or sex for ego inflation.) As I’ve said and written many times before, nobody who is having mind-blowing orgasms with someone they love ever feels inspired to go out and kill someone or throw toxic waste into a river or steal someone’s life savings... or call another person a traitor or a faggot. Only sexually dysfunctional, homophobic, emotionally distorted rage-aholics do those things.
This is a potentially wondrous time we are living in. The shift in consciousness that Barack Obama represents can be a real pendulum swing towards a cooperative, inclusive, open society, the kind once envisioned by the founders of our country.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident...”
Remember?
Tonight's Quote - Another Well-Known Conservative Comes Out for Obama
"John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. Even though I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, for the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president."
Michael Smerconish
Michael Smerconish
This Doesn't Compute, Mike!
Mike Barnacle is a veteran print and broadcast journalist, who has written nearly 4,000 columns collectively for New York Daily News, Boston Herald, Newsweek, and The Boston Globe, where he rose to prominence with his biting, satirical, and at times, heart-wrenching columns that closely followed the triumphs, travails and ambitions of Boston’s working and middle classes.
In a piece entitled, "McCAIN AT SUNSET," on the Huffington Post, Barnacle bemoans what he believes has happened to John McCain, clearly a man Mike once admired.
Here's Mike Barnacle:
"It is a sad story: a proud and independent man permits a handful of advisers to take his hard-earned reputation and alter it to such an extent that the original is now hard to recognize, nearly invisible behind a curtain of cynical ads and the preposterous pronouncements of a woman whose candidacy is an insult to intelligence."
What you're saying doesn't make sense, Mike, it doesn't compute. As a sociologist and psychotherapist for 30 years, I can tell you that a "proud and independent man" doesn't somehow morph into a petty, snarling opportunist, regardless of the influence of handlers or the level of misguided ambition. What does happen, especially when you get older, is that the facade, the mask, the "persona," as Carl Jung called it, breaks down, and the raw, unhealed parts of yourself become visible. This is who John McCain always was underneath, festering, seething and self-righteous. The "Maverick" was a fascinating cover that we all liked, but it was not real.
James Garner played "Maverick" once, too, Mike, but it was only a TV show.
In a piece entitled, "McCAIN AT SUNSET," on the Huffington Post, Barnacle bemoans what he believes has happened to John McCain, clearly a man Mike once admired.
Here's Mike Barnacle:
"It is a sad story: a proud and independent man permits a handful of advisers to take his hard-earned reputation and alter it to such an extent that the original is now hard to recognize, nearly invisible behind a curtain of cynical ads and the preposterous pronouncements of a woman whose candidacy is an insult to intelligence."
What you're saying doesn't make sense, Mike, it doesn't compute. As a sociologist and psychotherapist for 30 years, I can tell you that a "proud and independent man" doesn't somehow morph into a petty, snarling opportunist, regardless of the influence of handlers or the level of misguided ambition. What does happen, especially when you get older, is that the facade, the mask, the "persona," as Carl Jung called it, breaks down, and the raw, unhealed parts of yourself become visible. This is who John McCain always was underneath, festering, seething and self-righteous. The "Maverick" was a fascinating cover that we all liked, but it was not real.
James Garner played "Maverick" once, too, Mike, but it was only a TV show.
Oh, and by the way, Morning Joe, you can trickle this, too...
In a stunning report released by the United States Government Accountability Office in July 2008, Americans learned that two-thirds of the corporations doing business in the U.S. paid no taxes from 1998-2005, while collectively reporting $2.5 trillion dollars in sales.
Man, those taxes are killing our businesses, aren't they, Joe?
Man, those taxes are killing our businesses, aren't they, Joe?
HEY, JOE SCARBOROUGH - TRICKLE THIS!
I don't know what "Morning Joe" was smelling this morning, but it wasn't the coffee. He was espousing the same old discredited "trickle down economics" con game that has wrecked our economy, not to mention many people's lives, while obscenely enriching some of the most nefarious members of our society.
This time Scarborough was shilling for John McCain and the ubiquitous "Joe the Plumber," the invisible star of last night's final presidential debate. (Hallelujah!)
JTB, it seems, feels really pissed that if he started a business and it made a profit of a quarter of million dollars or more, he'd have to pay taxes. HELLO?! The story goes that Joe would rather fire all of his employees, or close down his business, or move it offshore, than pay those damn taxes.
Hmm... what does this remind you of? The kid in the schoolyard who when you explain the rules of fair play to him, says that he's quitting and taking his ball home with him? Or maybe the Mafia coming to your neighborhood and forcing you to pay them for protection. Protection from who? Them!
Listen, as I've mentioned, before I became a psychotherapist, I was a 4.00 (straight A) undergraduate student with a double major in Economics and Accounting. Yep. It's true. I studied macro and micro economic theory, and was into it. Here's the scoop: Trickle-down economic theory states that increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the middle class and poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually "trickle down" to the middle class and to the poor. The theory states that if the top income earners make even more, they'll invest more into business, equity markets and infrastructure (How are the roads and school in your area, by the way?), which will in turn lead to more jobs for middle class and poor individuals as well as better goods and services at lower prices for the same middle and poor classes. Thus, according to this theory, regulation of the wealth of the wealthy is counterproductive because the enhancement of the lives of the benevolent wealthy will lead to the betterment of all.
In the face of the rampant corruption and scandalous pilfering and back-and-bank-breaking financial crisis we're in due to deregulation (as per the trickle down shell gamers), is anyone, besides Joe the Plumber, Morning Joe and John "Gollum" McCain still naive enough to believe that the greedy and ego-driven blowfish of the world would suddenly become benevolent if just given their way? I'm sorry, but didn't we just try that? How'd it go? More jobs? Yeah, for illegal laborers and kids in China. In the U.S., the unemployment rate is at a 4-year high. Cheap prices? The Consumer Price Index just went up again by close to 10 percent, while real wages have declined. Better goods? How did your kid like the lead-painted toys from China?
C'mon Joe, Joe and John! Get real! Like another John once said: "Just gimme some truth!"
This time Scarborough was shilling for John McCain and the ubiquitous "Joe the Plumber," the invisible star of last night's final presidential debate. (Hallelujah!)
JTB, it seems, feels really pissed that if he started a business and it made a profit of a quarter of million dollars or more, he'd have to pay taxes. HELLO?! The story goes that Joe would rather fire all of his employees, or close down his business, or move it offshore, than pay those damn taxes.
Hmm... what does this remind you of? The kid in the schoolyard who when you explain the rules of fair play to him, says that he's quitting and taking his ball home with him? Or maybe the Mafia coming to your neighborhood and forcing you to pay them for protection. Protection from who? Them!
Listen, as I've mentioned, before I became a psychotherapist, I was a 4.00 (straight A) undergraduate student with a double major in Economics and Accounting. Yep. It's true. I studied macro and micro economic theory, and was into it. Here's the scoop: Trickle-down economic theory states that increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the middle class and poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually "trickle down" to the middle class and to the poor. The theory states that if the top income earners make even more, they'll invest more into business, equity markets and infrastructure (How are the roads and school in your area, by the way?), which will in turn lead to more jobs for middle class and poor individuals as well as better goods and services at lower prices for the same middle and poor classes. Thus, according to this theory, regulation of the wealth of the wealthy is counterproductive because the enhancement of the lives of the benevolent wealthy will lead to the betterment of all.
In the face of the rampant corruption and scandalous pilfering and back-and-bank-breaking financial crisis we're in due to deregulation (as per the trickle down shell gamers), is anyone, besides Joe the Plumber, Morning Joe and John "Gollum" McCain still naive enough to believe that the greedy and ego-driven blowfish of the world would suddenly become benevolent if just given their way? I'm sorry, but didn't we just try that? How'd it go? More jobs? Yeah, for illegal laborers and kids in China. In the U.S., the unemployment rate is at a 4-year high. Cheap prices? The Consumer Price Index just went up again by close to 10 percent, while real wages have declined. Better goods? How did your kid like the lead-painted toys from China?
C'mon Joe, Joe and John! Get real! Like another John once said: "Just gimme some truth!"
I MET "JOE THE PLUMBER!"
That's right, in line at my bank (yes, it's still open), recently. I overheard two white, working-class types, a man and a women, talking about the election. You know, these are the folks the pundits once were relentlessly saying Obama was having trouble with. The guy was wearing a plumber's uniform and had a classic Brooklyn accent to go along with his thick neck. The woman, sporting excessive make-up and very big hair, spoke with the same accent, though she had a reasonable neck. The point is, in simple terms, they were commiserating about why they were voting for Obama. My thought at that moment? "Landslide. It's going to be a landslide! I may have to apologize to my readers, after all, for my 'How Stupid Are We?' series."
Tonight's Pre-Debate "WHAT?!!?" Quote
"I like being here, because it seems like here and in our last rally too - other parts around this great Northwest - here in New Hampshire you just get it."
Sarah Palin (in New Hampshire - the GREAT NORTHWEST?!)
WIIIILLLLLLLMAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Sarah Palin (in New Hampshire - the GREAT NORTHWEST?!)
WIIIILLLLLLLMAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!
Who's left on the right for McCain? William F. Buckley's Son Endorses Obama... AND THEN GETS FIRED!!
Christopher Buckley... 
...conservative writer and son of famed conservative, William F. Buckly, recently said that he has known McCain since 1982 and once wrote a speech for him, but that the senator has changed, airing "mean-spirited and pointless" attack ads and -- "What on earth can he have been thinking?" -- picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. While the result was "genuinely saddening" and even "tragic" for the country, Buckley wrote, he had concluded that Obama has a "first-class temperament and a first-class intellect" and could be a great president. In his embrace of Obama, Buckley quoted his father as saying, "You know, I've spent my entire lifetime separating the Right from the kooks."
Christopher was asked to resign from the National Review for saying these things! SO... as of today, George Will, William Kristol, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Christopher Hitchens and Matthew Dowd, all very conservative writers and thinkers have all turned on John McCain and Sarah Palin. There's also an entire other list of Republican politicians who've turned on the ticket.
Is John McCain a closet liberal Democrat? Or is he just such an emotionally disturbed, prevaricating opportunist of limited intellectual capacities that no one except the rabid "He's a terrorist!" "He's an Arab!" "Kill him!" crowd is still willing to be associated with him?
...conservative writer and son of famed conservative, William F. Buckly, recently said that he has known McCain since 1982 and once wrote a speech for him, but that the senator has changed, airing "mean-spirited and pointless" attack ads and -- "What on earth can he have been thinking?" -- picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. While the result was "genuinely saddening" and even "tragic" for the country, Buckley wrote, he had concluded that Obama has a "first-class temperament and a first-class intellect" and could be a great president. In his embrace of Obama, Buckley quoted his father as saying, "You know, I've spent my entire lifetime separating the Right from the kooks."Christopher was asked to resign from the National Review for saying these things! SO... as of today, George Will, William Kristol, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Christopher Hitchens and Matthew Dowd, all very conservative writers and thinkers have all turned on John McCain and Sarah Palin. There's also an entire other list of Republican politicians who've turned on the ticket.
Is John McCain a closet liberal Democrat? Or is he just such an emotionally disturbed, prevaricating opportunist of limited intellectual capacities that no one except the rabid "He's a terrorist!" "He's an Arab!" "Kill him!" crowd is still willing to be associated with him?
KAHLIL GIBRAN ON RAISING CHILDREN
I just love this so much, I had to repost it, so once again...
Kahlil Gibran on Raising Children:
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable."
Kahlil Gibran on Raising Children:
"Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
and He bends you with His might
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let our bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies,
so He loves also the bow that is stable."
Today's Quotes from the LYING LIARS
During President Bush’s press conference on 8/9/07, The Washington Post’s Peter Baker asked him if he “had read” a highly confidential report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that “has found an interrogation program in CIA detention facilities, that used interrogation techniques that were ‘tantamount to torture.”
President Bush responded:
“Haven’t seen it; we don’t torture,” before moving on to another question.
Now, in this morning's Washington Post, is this headline: "CIA Tactics Endorsed In Secret Memos - Waterboarding Got White House Nod."
From the piece:
"The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding."
OK?
President Bush responded:
“Haven’t seen it; we don’t torture,” before moving on to another question.
Now, in this morning's Washington Post, is this headline: "CIA Tactics Endorsed In Secret Memos - Waterboarding Got White House Nod."
From the piece:
"The Bush administration issued a pair of secret memos to the CIA in 2003 and 2004 that explicitly endorsed the agency's use of interrogation techniques such as waterboarding."
OK?
FROM RAMBO TO McCAIN: THE END OF THE REAGAN REVOLUTION
Well, that's probably a title for a post you never thought you'd see on my blog, but... now that it looks like we're at the end of an era - what conservative Republicans loved to call "The Reagan Revolution" - it seems that the Universe had a message for me to share.
I surfed into the movie, "FIRST BLOOD," late the other night, and found myself glued to it. Originally on the big screen in 1982, the film portrays a very disturbed Viet Nam veteran, played by Sylvester Stallone, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, who goes on a rampage against the local authorities in a small town. Stallone's Rambo breaks down at the end of the movie, flashbacks and all, in a way that reminded me of the Viet Nam vets I worked with as a social worker at the Brooklyn V.A. Hospital in 1984. (I was a therapist in the drug-rehab unit, and man, were these guys broken.)
What was so striking to me today was remembering how the movie was hyped at the time, back in the beginning of the Reagan years. Just as Reagan co-opted Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The USA" (a song actually protesting the war) as if it were some kind of jingoistic jingle, "First Blood" was renamed "Rambo: First Blood," and the tragic lead character somehow morphed into an action hero. Nice slight of hand by the Reagan acolytes in Hollywood at the time.
It made me think about the fact that PTSD today is barely ever talked about, just as the caskets of the dead soldiers are never shown, even though after six years of mind-numbing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there must be thousands of vets crippled by their experience in the same way as those Viet Nam era young guys were.
There's no need for me to give a lecture here on why the death and emotional destruction of a war would need to be hidden, if the war was in fact just. That is obvious.
The good news is, the Reagan Revolution is over. 28 years of unbridled, deregulated greed and excess, coupled with xenophobic nationalism masquerading as patriotism, are crashing down around us today. It appears likely now that the Reaganites and neo-conservatives will be driven from the halls of Congress and from the White House in a few weeks by a tidal wave of awakened consciousness.
All I can say is I'm glad to be alive right now.
I surfed into the movie, "FIRST BLOOD," late the other night, and found myself glued to it. Originally on the big screen in 1982, the film portrays a very disturbed Viet Nam veteran, played by Sylvester Stallone, suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, who goes on a rampage against the local authorities in a small town. Stallone's Rambo breaks down at the end of the movie, flashbacks and all, in a way that reminded me of the Viet Nam vets I worked with as a social worker at the Brooklyn V.A. Hospital in 1984. (I was a therapist in the drug-rehab unit, and man, were these guys broken.)
What was so striking to me today was remembering how the movie was hyped at the time, back in the beginning of the Reagan years. Just as Reagan co-opted Bruce Springsteen's "Born In The USA" (a song actually protesting the war) as if it were some kind of jingoistic jingle, "First Blood" was renamed "Rambo: First Blood," and the tragic lead character somehow morphed into an action hero. Nice slight of hand by the Reagan acolytes in Hollywood at the time.
It made me think about the fact that PTSD today is barely ever talked about, just as the caskets of the dead soldiers are never shown, even though after six years of mind-numbing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there must be thousands of vets crippled by their experience in the same way as those Viet Nam era young guys were.
There's no need for me to give a lecture here on why the death and emotional destruction of a war would need to be hidden, if the war was in fact just. That is obvious.
The good news is, the Reagan Revolution is over. 28 years of unbridled, deregulated greed and excess, coupled with xenophobic nationalism masquerading as patriotism, are crashing down around us today. It appears likely now that the Reaganites and neo-conservatives will be driven from the halls of Congress and from the White House in a few weeks by a tidal wave of awakened consciousness.
All I can say is I'm glad to be alive right now.
BAR STOOL ECONOMICS!
This is funny, and sad, in it's attempt to portray any real economic logic, but someone sent it to me yesterday, and so I'm putting it out there to show how naive so-called "conservatives" can be. I've since found out that this beer-drinking analogy (Why does every way of explaining things political and economic with this crop of conservatives always include beer?!) has been circulating around the internet. Not surprisingly, the college professor who is supposed to be the author, one David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia, says he never wrote it.
Anyway, here's the anecdote, and then my response:
"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
Here's PL's response:
Here's the thing about the absurd guys-in-the-bar analogy, and you have to be drinking a lot of beer to fall for that bit of 3-card Monty, huh? In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps. Wake up and smell the greed, boys and girls!
Here's a repost of a piece that I wrote a few weeks ago on my blog on the subject of "Trickle Down Economics":
TRICKLE THIS!
A lot of people don't know this about me, but before I became a social worker and psychotherapist, I was a 4.00 (straight A) undergraduate student with a double major in Economics and Accounting. (How I came to be who I am today is a long story, but...) Although I now mostly work with the inner lives of people who are seeking self-actualization, my fascination with observing the macro-systems of our society has always remained. In fact, combining the two fields of study offers me a particular - and I like to think - interesting perspective.
Here's what I see, in the face of the historic collapse of Wall Street, the housing market and the mortgage industry now wrecking our economy as I write this - and this relates to why I've been posting my series, "HOW STUPID ARE WE?"
There are still a number of people out there, enough of them left in the United States to be enabling the disasters befalling our country at every level, who actually still believe in the theory of "trickle-down economics."
Just to clarify, the "trickle-down" economic theory states that increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the middle class and poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor. The theory states that if the top income earners make even more, they'll invest more into business, infrastructure and equity markets, which will in turn lead to more jobs for middle class and poor individuals as well as better goods and services at lower prices for the same middle and poor classes. Thus, according to this theory, regulation of the wealth of the wealthy is counterproductive because the enhancement of the lives of the benevolent wealthy will lead to the betterment of all.
Now, I know, on the face of it, most of my readers wouldn't believe that anyone could possibly be so naive or gullible enough to buy into such an obvious con, but let me tell you something, folks - there are many, many people out there who are still desperately seeking an idealized good parent, one who will happily share their wealth and power and look out for the "little ones" that so many of us unfortunately still want to be. These imaginary good parents, of course, don't have a greedy, narcissistic, psychopathic bone in their bodies, nor any nefarious intentions towards others whatsoever. They are, in other words, what are real parents were not.
You would think that believing such a thing is incredible in the face of the scandals and rip-offs perpetrated by so many of the wealthy and powerful in the last few decades, right? Ha! I can tell you, believers are everywhere, and the political arms of the nefarious and greedy (those who've co-opted and falsely named their psychopathic intentions a "conservative movement") have learned exactly how to fool them and win the "kids" over - with fear of The Other and the wrath of moral judgments that have their roots in our childhood sexual conflicts.
My own working-class father, now living in rural upstate New York, has voted for these characters over and over, in spite of the toll their policies have taken on him economically. But Ronald Reagan seemed like an amiable father, and George W. seems like a righteous guy you'd - UGH! - want to have a beer with. John McCain seems like the grumpy but brave grandfather we wished we'd had, and Sarah Palin, the clear-eyed, firm, baby-making machine we fantasized our mothers were. Yes, that makes people like my father feel secure... even as they're filling out their bankruptcy papers and paying taxes through the nose.
Give up on your parents, folks. Because holding onto the need for imaginary good parents means that you have to stay a child, which ultimately means you end up in a nursing home, broke and alone, but getting all of your needs totally taken care of by someone else.
Anyway, here's the anecdote, and then my response:
"Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."
Here's PL's response:
Here's the thing about the absurd guys-in-the-bar analogy, and you have to be drinking a lot of beer to fall for that bit of 3-card Monty, huh? In real life capitalism, not the imaginary capitalism where everyone is good and moral, the rich guy would have bought the bar, watered down the beer, lowered the salaries of the bartender and waiters, or hired illegal Mexicans off the books, and raised the prices of the brewskies and never sat at that bar again. No, he'd be drinking Johnny Walker Gold at the Four Seasons, laughing his ass off at his old chumps. Wake up and smell the greed, boys and girls!
Here's a repost of a piece that I wrote a few weeks ago on my blog on the subject of "Trickle Down Economics":
TRICKLE THIS!
A lot of people don't know this about me, but before I became a social worker and psychotherapist, I was a 4.00 (straight A) undergraduate student with a double major in Economics and Accounting. (How I came to be who I am today is a long story, but...) Although I now mostly work with the inner lives of people who are seeking self-actualization, my fascination with observing the macro-systems of our society has always remained. In fact, combining the two fields of study offers me a particular - and I like to think - interesting perspective.
Here's what I see, in the face of the historic collapse of Wall Street, the housing market and the mortgage industry now wrecking our economy as I write this - and this relates to why I've been posting my series, "HOW STUPID ARE WE?"
There are still a number of people out there, enough of them left in the United States to be enabling the disasters befalling our country at every level, who actually still believe in the theory of "trickle-down economics."
Just to clarify, the "trickle-down" economic theory states that increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the middle class and poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor. The theory states that if the top income earners make even more, they'll invest more into business, infrastructure and equity markets, which will in turn lead to more jobs for middle class and poor individuals as well as better goods and services at lower prices for the same middle and poor classes. Thus, according to this theory, regulation of the wealth of the wealthy is counterproductive because the enhancement of the lives of the benevolent wealthy will lead to the betterment of all.
Now, I know, on the face of it, most of my readers wouldn't believe that anyone could possibly be so naive or gullible enough to buy into such an obvious con, but let me tell you something, folks - there are many, many people out there who are still desperately seeking an idealized good parent, one who will happily share their wealth and power and look out for the "little ones" that so many of us unfortunately still want to be. These imaginary good parents, of course, don't have a greedy, narcissistic, psychopathic bone in their bodies, nor any nefarious intentions towards others whatsoever. They are, in other words, what are real parents were not.
You would think that believing such a thing is incredible in the face of the scandals and rip-offs perpetrated by so many of the wealthy and powerful in the last few decades, right? Ha! I can tell you, believers are everywhere, and the political arms of the nefarious and greedy (those who've co-opted and falsely named their psychopathic intentions a "conservative movement") have learned exactly how to fool them and win the "kids" over - with fear of The Other and the wrath of moral judgments that have their roots in our childhood sexual conflicts.
My own working-class father, now living in rural upstate New York, has voted for these characters over and over, in spite of the toll their policies have taken on him economically. But Ronald Reagan seemed like an amiable father, and George W. seems like a righteous guy you'd - UGH! - want to have a beer with. John McCain seems like the grumpy but brave grandfather we wished we'd had, and Sarah Palin, the clear-eyed, firm, baby-making machine we fantasized our mothers were. Yes, that makes people like my father feel secure... even as they're filling out their bankruptcy papers and paying taxes through the nose.
Give up on your parents, folks. Because holding onto the need for imaginary good parents means that you have to stay a child, which ultimately means you end up in a nursing home, broke and alone, but getting all of your needs totally taken care of by someone else.
Today's Quote by ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN!
"The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: 'What does he take me for?"
Christopher Hitchens
Here's some excerpts from the rest of the essay in SLATE magazine by Hitchens:
"Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin by John McCain. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her — her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations — were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses. Sen. John McCain looks to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him."
Christopher Hitchens
Here's some excerpts from the rest of the essay in SLATE magazine by Hitchens:
"Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin by John McCain. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her — her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations — were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses. Sen. John McCain looks to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him."
And here's yet another response from "Mind Body Shop"...
... to my Stages of Healing series.
MBS:
"Who is the happiest of men? He who values the merits of others, and in their pleasure takes joy, even as though 'twere his own."
Well, okay then...
MBS:
"Who is the happiest of men? He who values the merits of others, and in their pleasure takes joy, even as though 'twere his own."
Well, okay then...
MALE SPINSTERS? Hmm...
Interesting piece I came across today on the “men.style.com” website, called, “The Stigma Of The Never-Married Man,” by Kate Hahn. In a way, it’s kind of a related follow-up to the posts I’ve made about open marriage.
Hahn claims that while the “confirmed bachelor” once used to be envied by many men, he is now looked down upon as “weird,” which is weird since the number of never-married men in their forties has doubled since 1980, according to U.S. Census Bureau.
So, what gives?
Playboy, loser, commitment-phobic, too fussy... latently gay? These are often the suggestions bandied about by the married among us. But Carl Weisman, author of the book, “So Why Have You Never Been Married?” suggests that maybe some men know themselves too well to ever commit to a strollers and “banana-pancake lifestyle.” "And," Weisman says, “maybe they don't deserve to be subjected to judgmental looks, because the kind of honesty that prevents them from entering a relationship just for the sake of it is the unmarried fortysomething's saving grace.”
Weisman believes that instead of looking askance at the perennially unmarried man, society should applaud him—even the cad. "The only thing worse than a playboy who refuses to commit is a playboy who gets married," he says.
Of course, as is so often the case in these kinds of phenomena, the answer is some mixture of both and neither... or all of the above, but with a third factor.
Yes, for sure, some men are unable/unwilling to engage in a long-term monogamous relationship because they have unresolved issues around intimacy and negative transferences to women. But just as surely, many men who get married have serious dependency issues and idealized transferences to women - just as bad as the negative ones in their effects, by the way. Both are recipes for the disaster of an unfulfilled life, but as a therapist and sociologist, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd say that at least the unmarried guy isn't screwing up any children by demonstrating what an unfortunate compromise "love" and married life can be.
On the flip side, a man might never get married because he wants to live outside of the institutional box, and avoid all the concomitant expectations of friends and family and corporations in that box. This radical man, however, will more than likely have experienced being deeply in-love and most likely, even cohabitation, even monogamy. He just rejects the contract part of it. Likewise, a man can be married in the legal, normative way, but still have vibrant love-Eros-and-sex and open, honest communication with his partner, without becoming deadeningly co-dependent.
But then there's the question raised by the fact that the number of never-married men has doubled in the last few decades. That fact goes along with other statistics that show that fewer people are getting married in general, and at later ages, and having less children. I've written about this before, with a definite sense of optimism about its meaning. This is the "third factor."
As we human beings are evolving mentally, emotionally and spiritually, as we are moving from younger soul ages to older soul ages, we are becoming less and less dependent on rigid social constructs and controls to rule our day-to-day lives, and more and more able to follow our own individual inner guidance for direction. FULL PERMISSION LIVING! To quote myself: "Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
So, don't judge those single guys approaching middle age. Get to know them, you married folks, lest they hit you back with Eric Clapton's old lyrics: "Fore you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself."
Hahn claims that while the “confirmed bachelor” once used to be envied by many men, he is now looked down upon as “weird,” which is weird since the number of never-married men in their forties has doubled since 1980, according to U.S. Census Bureau.
So, what gives?
Playboy, loser, commitment-phobic, too fussy... latently gay? These are often the suggestions bandied about by the married among us. But Carl Weisman, author of the book, “So Why Have You Never Been Married?” suggests that maybe some men know themselves too well to ever commit to a strollers and “banana-pancake lifestyle.” "And," Weisman says, “maybe they don't deserve to be subjected to judgmental looks, because the kind of honesty that prevents them from entering a relationship just for the sake of it is the unmarried fortysomething's saving grace.”
Weisman believes that instead of looking askance at the perennially unmarried man, society should applaud him—even the cad. "The only thing worse than a playboy who refuses to commit is a playboy who gets married," he says.
Of course, as is so often the case in these kinds of phenomena, the answer is some mixture of both and neither... or all of the above, but with a third factor.
Yes, for sure, some men are unable/unwilling to engage in a long-term monogamous relationship because they have unresolved issues around intimacy and negative transferences to women. But just as surely, many men who get married have serious dependency issues and idealized transferences to women - just as bad as the negative ones in their effects, by the way. Both are recipes for the disaster of an unfulfilled life, but as a therapist and sociologist, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd say that at least the unmarried guy isn't screwing up any children by demonstrating what an unfortunate compromise "love" and married life can be.
On the flip side, a man might never get married because he wants to live outside of the institutional box, and avoid all the concomitant expectations of friends and family and corporations in that box. This radical man, however, will more than likely have experienced being deeply in-love and most likely, even cohabitation, even monogamy. He just rejects the contract part of it. Likewise, a man can be married in the legal, normative way, but still have vibrant love-Eros-and-sex and open, honest communication with his partner, without becoming deadeningly co-dependent.
But then there's the question raised by the fact that the number of never-married men has doubled in the last few decades. That fact goes along with other statistics that show that fewer people are getting married in general, and at later ages, and having less children. I've written about this before, with a definite sense of optimism about its meaning. This is the "third factor."
As we human beings are evolving mentally, emotionally and spiritually, as we are moving from younger soul ages to older soul ages, we are becoming less and less dependent on rigid social constructs and controls to rule our day-to-day lives, and more and more able to follow our own individual inner guidance for direction. FULL PERMISSION LIVING! To quote myself: "Full Permission Living rests on the foundation of truth that all people are entitled to live pleasure-filled, spontaneous, lives without guilt, shame or oppressive inner rules and prohibitions. Indeed, we are meant to live with full inner permission to follow our natural inner guidance and our inborn pleasure instinct to seek out gratification in all of our actions and endeavors, and that such a way of living always benefits those around us and those that we love."
So, don't judge those single guys approaching middle age. Get to know them, you married folks, lest they hit you back with Eric Clapton's old lyrics: "Fore you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
