Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

Psych Lit · Guru

RE: dont cry for me argentinaaaaa

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

This was the second republican busted in a week. I know it's not a partisan thing, but it IS the GOP who's running around trying to sniff out a petard to climb atop all the time.
my understanding is that he voted for impeachment for clinton citing the broken contract made with clintons wife. i think he prolly meant that when he said it and that makes his own tear stained confession all the more powerful. and yet thats the thing that stuck with me here. its easy to be judgemental whether one is doing the larry craig deal or whether one has never done anything like that yet, and yet is the operative word here, being faced with something that challenges the belief systems. its the stuff of great drama. and then too, usually when these things happen it is the little general making the decisions and the woman or man in question seems to be depersonalized, a means to orgasm but this seemed different to me. this guy really seems to be in love and faced with one of those impossible situations in life and that intrigues. im thinking of those areas where we operate with some sort of moral certainty whether its the politician who finds unexpected love or the person who performs a homosexual exorcism whose beliefs are then challenged or any number of situations. its that moral certainty aspect bumping up against life as its lived that presents some interesting options for growth

Ya know? I've come around to absolutely thinking that as long as straight couples can be legally married, then same sex couples should have that EXACT SAME right too; that "allowing" same sex couples to have civil unions is clearly separate and unequal, designating GLB people as second class citizens.

Secondary to that ... I wonder somewhat at the advisability at pursuing the right to marriage in that I'm not positive the institution is really a viable one in 2009. Can ANYONE really say they wish they'd have been able to marry the first person they ever MIGHT have married, and that they'd still be with them now? It's the "'til death do us part" thing that causes me to scratch my head. Maybe when you're, say my age, but at 20? 25? Who is the same as they were then? It sorta seems to me that the whole marriage thing really was set up as a patriarchial thing, anyway -- man scores woman who will bear him children, and keep a home for him. In turn, woman gets to live rent free in the house, and oftentimes, decide the menus. I mean, really, when you get right down to the foundation of the whole marriage thing... isn't that about "it?" "A Womb With a View"? Okay sure, it's "evolved" from that, but really only in that a woman "may" ALSO work outside the home -- and oftentimes must. Somehow, somewhere along the line, men got women to believe that was a special privilege they were gifting them, over and above the grocery allowance, so now, yes, women may also work 40 hours a week, and the guy may have to pop something in the microwave a few nights that same week. Other than that, has it really changed that much? And too, when marriage first came around, life expectency was, what? THIRTY? Something like that. I could easily see myself being with my first love until I was thirty, but fifty? No WAY!

So, in my meandering way, I guess I'm just sort of wondering about this same sex couples finally gaining the "right" to marry at this point in human history, when really, I would think the more prudent thing would be to be eliminating marriage as a legal entity altogether for everyone, and yeah, issuing civil partnership licenses to everyone, and allowing them to renew every so many ___ years, or not, at will.

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

This was the second republican busted in a week. I know it's not a partisan thing, but it IS the GOP who's running around trying to sniff out a petard to climb atop all the time.
my understanding is that he voted for impeachment for clinton citing the broken contract made with clintons wife. i think he prolly meant that when he said it and that makes his own tear stained confession all the more powerful. and yet thats the thing that stuck with me here. its easy to be judgemental whether one is doing the larry craig deal or whether one has never done anything like that yet, and yet is the operative word here, being faced with something that challenges the belief systems. its the stuff of great drama. and then too, usually when these things happen it is the little general making the decisions and the woman or man in question seems to be depersonalized, a means to orgasm but this seemed different to me. this guy really seems to be in love and faced with one of those impossible situations in life and that intrigues. im thinking of those areas where we operate with some sort of moral certainty whether its the politician who finds unexpected love or the person who performs a homosexual exorcism whose beliefs are then challenged or any number of situations. its that moral certainty aspect bumping up against life as its lived that presents some interesting options for growth

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

...all of this got me thinking about the nature of relationships and what we owe to them. ideally a commitment is entered into by two who put equal weight into making things work. but what if one grows complacent? or changes?

See, here's my deal with that: If you're in a position to "preach" to other people about their lives, and lifestyles, and do so, then when you get busted for not living up to the standards you set for oth---- SIT BACK DOWN, LARRY CRAIG, I'M NOT FINISHED TALKING... you set for others? Then you don't earn my outward sympathy. This was the second republican busted in a week. I know it's not a partisan thing, but it IS the GOP who's running around trying to sniff out a petard to climb atop all the time.

That said, I've come to the conclusion that it must be a gender thing. I mean... I just don't know that any but only a precious few men can keep it zipped when their wife isn't looking. I'm starting to believe they're largely incapable of it, really. No, really. That little general in their pants seems to have utter dominance over them, which is yet another reason to support women in politics. PMS is one thing, but not usually something which causes you to do something you could ultimately be blackmailed about. And all the gay and lesbian republicans need to wake the hell up and realize that as long as they stay in the closet, and wave that morality wand around, they're readily available targets for blackmail and scorn. It's not a big deal when a democrat is revealed as being gay or lebian, because democrats don't thing homosexuality is demonic.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Thursday 25th of June 2009 10:44:34 PM

Psych Lit · Guru

nesea wrote:

Fox News: We're All Democrats When Scandal Breaks

hmmm if it happens once mebbe a mistake but after that it seems deliberate. yuck

nesea · Senior Member

Fox News: We're All Democrats When Scandal Breaks

Posted:

06/25/09

Filed Under:Scandal, Media

In 2006 Fox News misidentified Mark Foley as a Democrat when the GOP congressman resigned after sending sexually explicit emails to teenage males. Clearly, network producers couldn't imagine a Republican doing anything scandalous and assumed Foley must be a Democrat. An honest mistake, right? (Hey, I'm trying not to be cynical.)

Well it's a "mistake" Fox News has made again: Wednesday, while broadcasting the news conference of Mark Sanford admitting to cheating on his wife, Fox ran a Chyron identifying the weepy South Carolina governor as... you guessed it, a Democrat. Oops!

Fox News: We're All Democrats When Scandal Breaks -- Politics Daily

-- Edited by nesea on Thursday 25th of June 2009 07:52:05 PM

Psych Lit · Guru

SC Gov Sanford has reappeared and I guess its no big surprise that his doing something exotic hence his trip to argentina takes on a new meaning tonight.

I have to say tho that this one feels a little different and I actually feel sorry for the guy and his family. I was listening to him and the man is in love with his mistress and really seems to be torn. there was no stand by your man moment from the wife and Sanfords comments vis a vis his children and his loyal wife were heartbreaking to watch.

all of this got me thinking about the nature of relationships and what we owe to them. ideally a commitment is entered into by two who put equal weight into making things work. but what if one grows complacent? or changes? this past weekend we watched the movie synecdoche and this topic came up. the character played by philip seymour hoffman finds love with one of his cast members despite his being married. gf says there is never any acceptable reason to cheat. i say based on the way the wife in the movie treats him, like something stuck on her shoe, why not? hes been beaten down by her attitude toward him and perhaps the cheating is a step toward recovering what he needs to move on. both of these actions are breaking the bonds of relationship. one by being disrespectful in a verbal way and a withholding of real affection way and the other in a physical way and yet we hold one up as ok and one not. the new york times had an article last week entitled is it ever ok to cheat?
i think in any relationship its a dual responsibility to keep the relationship alive and in long relationships often this stops happening from one end or both. people take their loves and their lives for granted and then are outraged when their partners cheat and we are outraged along with them. while i think he was wrong as the gov to disappear both as a politician and wrong as a father to put his kids thru this. thats irresponsible on both counts but im thinking hes at a crisis point in his life and that its not a bad thing for him or his relationship with his wife which will either end or become stronger as both reconsider the value of the life they have. i do feel sorry for the kids tho.