2940: The Other Side (Deep Dish Remix)
Carolyn on cupcakes:I think this is a natural reaction as we are surrounded by friends getting hitched. If everybody who walked by you were eating a cupcake, even if you didn't want one yourself just then, you'd wonder why everyone had one but you.
But while peer frenzies are common, they're also a great way to find yourself separated from your better judgment. Summon a little extra willpower to help keep you focused on doing what's right for you, and one day you'll realize you haven't seen anyone with a cupcake recently. (They need both hands to push the stroller.)
I recognize the desire to gloat or show off something you have that others might not, but it's a little bit mean-spirited. Even then--for instance--it's Christmas season and your BFF just gave you a pony, how do you NOT want to declare how awesome your BFF is? There needs to be a balance, which is why I both appreciate and loathe "Singles Awareness Day" as St. Valentine's Day.
Something that has occured to me, tho, is a LACK of appreciation for anything gained easily. If someone was just handing out out cupcakes, you'd prolly say thanks and eat it [unless you were on a diet], then it would be forgotten after a couple of hours. If, on the other hand, cupcakes were ONLY given to a precious elite, and you had to fight long and hard to win one, I bet you it would taste a lot better, right? [plus, maybe, you've worked off the calories in advance if this was literal fighting]
Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida suck for making life unnecessarily difficult for those who--in their eyes--are already cursed [I say, isn't that "punishment" enough?], but at least you can still abort that unwanted child before it grows up homosexual and have to live through this nonsense... ¬_¬
But what is this cupcake about, anyway? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "marriage" genuinely is the foodstuffs of religion, and it's religions right to declare it as only being between two people [of legal marrying age] but each of the opposite sex? If a "civil union" is a cupcake made of exactly the same ingredients as the "marriage" cupcake, why would a lack of legally-recognized gay marriage matter? Is it ONLY that one's called "marriage" and the other's called "civil union"? [I see the reason where they're different ingredients, but this post at least is an exercise in semantics.]
Also hypothetically: If the "marriage" cupcake is further legalized as being legally-valueless, where only "civil unions" are recognized in the eyes of the government [and universally], would marriage still be desirable? I'd argue if the answer is "yes," then it's an ingrained desire for the cupcake, much like the "You HAVE to have kids!!!1" instinct, itself based on cultural influences rather than logical evaluation of the pros and cons thereof.
The trouble with this "gay marriage ban/nullify legality of marriage" solution is I see it a little bit as taking away the cupcake and saying, "Alright, NOBODY gets the cupcake!"--which may be the best course of action in terms of finding a middle ground. Of course, no one will want it as a result: Everyone wants EITHER 1. everyone gets a cupcake, or 2. protect the cupcake, and any kind of compromise somehow generates a stale cupcake with no icing.
So, I'm inclined to believe that secession [or, at least, a well-planned political takeover] is a good idea--for this reason: This is not "the United State" I live in--it is the United States of America. Though we are bound by one legislative/executive/judicial process, there are fifty [arguably] states within our country divided by geography and ideology. Oregon wants no sales tax, while Virginia wants separate sales taxes for food vs. other items. For a long time, Tennessee didn't want a lottery. Here in Maryland, we just approved 15,000 video slot machines. Each state gets to pick and choose what features it has, within a certain reason--for instance, slavery is out of the question [except as relates between consenting adults behind closed doors or whatever].
So why could there not be a "gay" state and a "religious" state? At least one of each? If they existed, and were government-sanctioned as allowed to exist, why would anyone want to fight the other from existing? Give each their own sandbox to play in, the other's only going to affect you if you let it--that is, go into that other state. Why is it so important to convert the other viewpoint when it's clear that's impossible?
Problem is the unilateral desire to ERADICATE the other side--taking away the cupcake isn't enough. It's a shame that politics is about getting people to get along, especially when people aren't inclined to do it. Further exacerbating the problem is voting for people [complex animals] vs. specific issues: Mrs. G told me she wanted the president-elect to support health care, and the problem is health care might be a casualty of Politics as Usual, so it's not enough to pick a good person. What are you voting for in a person? Person A might have a great health care plan at the expense of the economy, while Person B would sacrifice the poor and high-risk to save our financial foundations. How do you pick the best of each to get a SUPERCANDIDATE?
[besides write lots of fan mail on the matter]
FTR, I believe conflict is just a part of life, and part of what makes people better. That's my theory: if everyone got along 100%, something would come along to ruin that, and we'd be knocked out of balance again. [Besides, it's BORING.] So even though my main concerns are health care and the environment, I await our postapocalyptic Mortal Engines future with OH SHIT REAL LIFE MOVING CITIES ACTION =B
The leaves are pretty today. I need to walk to the post office and take some photos, but the last time I did that, I came back with a big ol' blister =(
Edit: They've finally called California as passing Prop 8, even if almost every other non-"gay marriage" initiative in the nation seems to have passed/failed in a progressive fashion. Well, congrats California. The "no smoking in bars" should really have been the canary in the coal mine, I think.
But while peer frenzies are common, they're also a great way to find yourself separated from your better judgment. Summon a little extra willpower to help keep you focused on doing what's right for you, and one day you'll realize you haven't seen anyone with a cupcake recently. (They need both hands to push the stroller.)
I recognize the desire to gloat or show off something you have that others might not, but it's a little bit mean-spirited. Even then--for instance--it's Christmas season and your BFF just gave you a pony, how do you NOT want to declare how awesome your BFF is? There needs to be a balance, which is why I both appreciate and loathe "Singles Awareness Day" as St. Valentine's Day.
Something that has occured to me, tho, is a LACK of appreciation for anything gained easily. If someone was just handing out out cupcakes, you'd prolly say thanks and eat it [unless you were on a diet], then it would be forgotten after a couple of hours. If, on the other hand, cupcakes were ONLY given to a precious elite, and you had to fight long and hard to win one, I bet you it would taste a lot better, right? [plus, maybe, you've worked off the calories in advance if this was literal fighting]
Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida suck for making life unnecessarily difficult for those who--in their eyes--are already cursed [I say, isn't that "punishment" enough?], but at least you can still abort that unwanted child before it grows up homosexual and have to live through this nonsense... ¬_¬
But what is this cupcake about, anyway? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that "marriage" genuinely is the foodstuffs of religion, and it's religions right to declare it as only being between two people [of legal marrying age] but each of the opposite sex? If a "civil union" is a cupcake made of exactly the same ingredients as the "marriage" cupcake, why would a lack of legally-recognized gay marriage matter? Is it ONLY that one's called "marriage" and the other's called "civil union"? [I see the reason where they're different ingredients, but this post at least is an exercise in semantics.]
Also hypothetically: If the "marriage" cupcake is further legalized as being legally-valueless, where only "civil unions" are recognized in the eyes of the government [and universally], would marriage still be desirable? I'd argue if the answer is "yes," then it's an ingrained desire for the cupcake, much like the "You HAVE to have kids!!!1" instinct, itself based on cultural influences rather than logical evaluation of the pros and cons thereof.
The trouble with this "gay marriage ban/nullify legality of marriage" solution is I see it a little bit as taking away the cupcake and saying, "Alright, NOBODY gets the cupcake!"--which may be the best course of action in terms of finding a middle ground. Of course, no one will want it as a result: Everyone wants EITHER 1. everyone gets a cupcake, or 2. protect the cupcake, and any kind of compromise somehow generates a stale cupcake with no icing.
So, I'm inclined to believe that secession [or, at least, a well-planned political takeover] is a good idea--for this reason: This is not "the United State" I live in--it is the United States of America. Though we are bound by one legislative/executive/judicial process, there are fifty [arguably] states within our country divided by geography and ideology. Oregon wants no sales tax, while Virginia wants separate sales taxes for food vs. other items. For a long time, Tennessee didn't want a lottery. Here in Maryland, we just approved 15,000 video slot machines. Each state gets to pick and choose what features it has, within a certain reason--for instance, slavery is out of the question [except as relates between consenting adults behind closed doors or whatever].
So why could there not be a "gay" state and a "religious" state? At least one of each? If they existed, and were government-sanctioned as allowed to exist, why would anyone want to fight the other from existing? Give each their own sandbox to play in, the other's only going to affect you if you let it--that is, go into that other state. Why is it so important to convert the other viewpoint when it's clear that's impossible?
Problem is the unilateral desire to ERADICATE the other side--taking away the cupcake isn't enough. It's a shame that politics is about getting people to get along, especially when people aren't inclined to do it. Further exacerbating the problem is voting for people [complex animals] vs. specific issues: Mrs. G told me she wanted the president-elect to support health care, and the problem is health care might be a casualty of Politics as Usual, so it's not enough to pick a good person. What are you voting for in a person? Person A might have a great health care plan at the expense of the economy, while Person B would sacrifice the poor and high-risk to save our financial foundations. How do you pick the best of each to get a SUPERCANDIDATE?
[besides write lots of fan mail on the matter]
FTR, I believe conflict is just a part of life, and part of what makes people better. That's my theory: if everyone got along 100%, something would come along to ruin that, and we'd be knocked out of balance again. [Besides, it's BORING.] So even though my main concerns are health care and the environment, I await our postapocalyptic Mortal Engines future with OH SHIT REAL LIFE MOVING CITIES ACTION =B
The leaves are pretty today. I need to walk to the post office and take some photos, but the last time I did that, I came back with a big ol' blister =(
Edit: They've finally called California as passing Prop 8, even if almost every other non-"gay marriage" initiative in the nation seems to have passed/failed in a progressive fashion. Well, congrats California. The "no smoking in bars" should really have been the canary in the coal mine, I think.