The Frog and the Prince

I heard about a friend who was having a string of unsuccessful dating experiences. One of her friends advised her that she would have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a prince. Hmmm. I guess the same would be true of princesses. Got me thinking about frogs and princes and it occurred to me that while the world is filled with princes and princesses who masquerade as frogs, few of us ever get to see below their green exterior.

Then it hit me. The old saying about for everyone there is someone. Cast in a different light you could say that every frog is a prince or princess for someone. And her friend was correct up to a point: you have to spend some time looking around, sampling the wares so to speak, before the green peels away revealing the royalty beneath. But you have to do the sampling yourself. Recommendations from others rarely work, because where they see royalty, you see frog. I know everyone that reads this has looked at a couple somewhere and thought “what the hell does she (he) see in him (her)? Simple. She sees a prince and you see a frog.

So go easy the next time you are tempted to make a judgment based on what you see. Others will surely see the same thing differently. You are probably a prince or princess to someone, and a frog to others. Remember what Kermit (1) said: “It’s not easy being green.” And he also said:

“And people tend to pass you over
'Cause you're not standing out
Like flashy sparkles in the water
Or stars in the sky”

Not many of  us stand out like flashy sparkles in the water. But sometimes someone sees a tiny little sparkle, gives you a kiss, and reveals the royalty underneath. And by the way, the converse is also true: sometimes you find a prince and after the kiss he turns into a frog.

Image: http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/uploads/image/Kiss%20a%20Frog.jpg
1. Kermit singing the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

A Whiff of Asshole

We are watching an old Masterpiece Theater drama with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson currently.  The film is called “Fortunes of War” and begins in Romania in 1939. It is the first time I ran into both Branagh and Thompson. Loved her and seriously disliked him. The reason is very simple: he is a consummate actor and convinced me that he really was an asshole, not just played one. The bookend to this is the Wallender series currently being aired, and he convinces me that he is a ragged out Swedish cop. I love the guy.

I got to thinking about assholes and who is and who plays one well. Won’t go into names but there are several real ones around, several poseurs and some that couldn’t be one if they tried.

Sally just got good news about a grant she worked hard to get about the time I was being amazed at what an asshole Branagh played. This grant will enable her enhance the college experience for minority males, and she is excited about getting it. I am not. She already works very hard and this just piles on more. I groused about it when she was writing it and again the other night when the word came through. The next morning I finally figured out I was wrong from the get-go. I forgot my own advice not to pick up someone before they fall. (http://searchesworld.blogspot.com/search?q=angel+flying+to+close+to+the+ground ). I think I rained on her parade by being an insensitive asshole. Her job; her grant; her faculty. I care deeply that she works too hard, and she takes on more,  with a smile and determination to do the best possible for everyone, usually students. I am deeply afraid that “Woody 7.2” is vectoring towards assholedom. Or maybe I am just realizing I’ve been here for a long time. Maybe time for corrective action.
My point? Take a good long look at yourself and see where your vector is going. And if you get even a whiff of asshole, turn around and smell the roses instead.

Image: http://www.movieforum.com/movies/titles/muchadoaboutnothing/images/emmaken.jpg

VAGINA! There, that was not so bad, was it?

My Heros: Brown and Bynum
(If all sexes are "actors" then all sexes are "heros.)

A woman legislator, Lisa Brown from Michigan, said the following during a debate over a new abortion bill: "And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'”
And a representative from Tennesee said: “What she said was offensive," said Rep. Mike Callton, R-Nashville. "It was so offensive; I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company."
“Vagina” is offensive? Personally I find them wonderful. What I find really offensive is how male legislators cram their own personal religious beliefs down every one else’s throats. Here is another quote from Representative Brown who is Jewish: "I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?" Jewish religious law allows abortions at any time if the mother’s life is in danger.
So I think Rep. Callton is offensive and I think Lisa Brown is great. She was silenced from further debate. Another woman Representative tried to get this amendment added to the abortion bill: "Byrum, D-Onondaga, caused a disturbance on the House floor Wednesday when she wasn't allowed to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life,"
Some men are such hypocritical assholes it makes me weep.

Image: http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20120614&Category=NEWS15&ArtNo=120614049&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&With-video-Two-female-Michigan-lawmakers-silenced-after-vagina-abortion-comments

1. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120614/POLITICS02/206140467#ixzz1xt9SaSZx

What, Exactly, is “Human”?

These look "human" to you?

On NPR this morning, a commentator noted a research publication (1) that indicates cave art in parts of Europe may predate the arrival of the so-called “modern” human, Homo sapiens sapiens by several thousand years. If correct, this means that the decorations were done by our relatives known as Neanderthals. There is some debate about the actual place Neanderthals occupy in the human lineage. There is even debate on the scientific name, traditionally Homo sapiens neanderthalensis . I am not qualified to jump into the taxonomic dog fight.

I really don’t care how the names work out. It matters little to any of us if our ancestors were Homo sapiens sapiens or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis or some combination of the two. Maybe there was a third ancestor somewhere. What I do care about is the arrogance of people who call us and our ancestors “human” and the others just by their common names, implying they were not humans. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the term “human” should only be applied to modern people. Definitions in various dictionaries don’t agree either, but most focus on us.
The essence of the issue is how to define who and what a human being actually is. Art? Neanderthals had it. Religion? Neanderthals had it. Speech? Neanderthals had it. Clothing? Neanderthals had it. Fire? Neanderthals had it. Tools? Neanderthals had them. Forty six chromosomes? Neanderthals had them. The list is probably longer than I have time and energy to research. You get the point? We define ourselves as “human” to create an exclusive club, probably because some bible or other had some cockamamie story of origins. Actual human beings go back a very long way and over much time gradually became us. Don’t fight it, embrace it. And as for the myth that Neanderthals disappeared 30000 years ago? I don’t believe it, and genetics seems to agree with me. Another reason why don’t I believe it? I have had students who were nearly 100% recombined Neanderthals. And then there was Fred, the body man. Tale for another time.
1. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341443/title/European_cave_art_gets_older
Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6a/GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg/220px-GuaTewet_tree_of_life-LHFage.jpg

I Bet You Are Erotically Plastic

TItle: Sam with Son

Come on, admit it. You have sometimes considered your own gender with, um, shall we say “interest”. Consider erotic plasticity. A term that conveys the idea that a person’s sexual preferences are available for change or modification along the scale of totally heterosexual to completely homosexual. Somewhere in there is asexual as well. I don’t know if it on the end of the spectrum or somewhere in the middle. Don’t really care either. The point of an article (1) I just read is that women have more of this plasticity than men, and are therefore more likely to move between heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. Men, they say, are not as plastic. To which I say “bollocks”. I think more men have semi-fluid sexual preferences than research would indicate because of the extreme societal pressure to be hetero. I think more men struggle with where they are on the spectrum than one might think.

Culture has a lot to do with it. Ancient Greeks, Romans, Arabs and others didn’t seem to have trouble switching between boys and girls, or enjoying both at once for that matter. There is some evidence that this is still true today in many places in the world. American men are so hung up on being “real men” that they ignore or deny the role of the sexuality spectrum in their lives or even that it exists.

The question the article raised was “Why are there gay women?” The answer is genetics and erotic plasticity. The answer for men, I believe, is the same. And I think we are all erotically plastic. Men seem to enjoy the “money shot” as much as women.

1. http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-women-160211175.html

Image: http://64.13.224.56/calendar/LA/upload/9954_Sam-with-Songweb.jpg

Ice-T, and not the Long Island Kind.

There are times when you just Know you are getting old. Well, older at least. This morning I had one of those moments. I listened to Ice-T this morning and he actually made sense. He was being interviewed by an NPR reporter about his documentary movie about Rap. Mentioned in passing that Rap had probably saved him from a life, short life probably, of crime. Sounded familiar so I listened more. Angry speech, he said, is the result of freeing people to express themselves. I agree. Maybe not the only effect of freedom but certainly one of them. Rap is poetry produced by poets freed from the constraints of convention. I get that. Rap was and maybe still is angry, lashing out at the world the Rappers inhabit. I get that too.

I don't like to listen to the music (?) called Rap, but Ice-T sure made sense. Back to getting old. This guy started 20 years ago. Twenty!!! I remember hearing his early gangsta stuff and thinking something like "man, this is dangerous and angry stuff!" It was. And now he is making films, acting in a major TV series and being interviewed on NPR, not as a criminal but as a spokesperson for Rap. How fast those 20 years went.

Image: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZaRc8v8bwL43UCIvsEha5oDxJF3ttGMZMEmdL9FVplxQ7Dv0fi7gNJgEMU4P5XXfLkd0YXOrrIuwptbFaZdRdaGKLMQC53p5WQrOw6U1s5tAsWLWwzybVZjNVhQ5b6gxA5bNvcXduYiBS/s400/Ice+-+A+Memoir+Of+Gangster+Life+%2526+Redemption+From+South+Central+To+Hollywood.jpg

I Just Don’t Get It, or, Cherry Picking Christians

Before I start, let me say to the few who site “free will” as an answer to all the conundrums: Either you follow the Word of your Lord (your God) or you don’t.

So, to continue this puzzle I look to my Christian friends and ask about their teachings. I often hear “It says in the Bible” or “God said it” or “my preacher says that it the Lord said” and on and on. They maintain that abortion is an abomination because it says so in the Bible. Ditto with gay life style. Ditto with divorce. Ditto with what-ever-the-hell-you-want to support. They throw WWJD around like a soap commercial jingle. Too bad Jesus didn’t have the Bible (new) to guide him into hatred.

This brings me to Leviticus. Lots of good stuff here for everybody, and it is unquestionably the Bible. Take 21: 16 -20. What utter crap. Take 21:5 and then take a look at all the bible-quoting skin heads and so-called Christians like Rick Scott. Which brings me to Leviticus 18:22 where it specifically forbids the tattooing of the body.

Which brings me to this question: if you follow the Bible and want to stone gays to death, why do you have a tattoo? Because you CHERRY PICK THE BIBLE, that’s why. Or you really don’t know what the Bible actually says. And don’t go to the free will argument. I agree you have the free will to do what you want because there are no natural or sacred rules to follow. I do not agree that you can quote one section of a sacred text to support your ignorant opinions and then ignore others because you have “free will”. If you have the free will to get a tattoo, then any woman should have the free will to have an abortion and any couple should have the free will to get married.

Anything short of that reeks of hypocrisy in the name of Religion.
Image: http://i.qkme.me/BVJ.jpg

Love Wisconsin Cheese? Is that what stinks in Wisconsin?

So. The recall election is over in Wisconsin, and it is a Republican sweep, albeit a close one. To be sure, Republicans outspent Democrats by roughly 7 to 1. To “win” the Florida governors election Scott out spent Sink by more than 6 to 1.

These elections by themselves are troubling, but totally legal. You are allowed to buy your way into power in this country. More troubling is the portent for the future: the party with the most money to spend has the advantage. Which party is that? Why, the Republican Party of course. For the past several decades statistics show plainly that the rich are getting richer, very rich under Republican presidents (Bush tax cuts that gutted the economy but padded the rich with lots of extra income), and the poor keep getting poorer. The income gap continues to widen as the “One Percent” out paces the “Ninety-nine Percent”. Which means that one party will continue to have the “cash” capacity to buy elections.
So what happens is illustrated by Wisconsin and Florida: Out spend your opponent by huge factors and buy the election.  This bodes badly for future elections. Of course as a liberal I naturally think it will be bad. My conservative friends (yes, I do have a few) will think it good. Get rid of “Obamacare”, keep the “Bush tax cuts”, eliminate the EPA, the DOE, the ESA (endangered species act), the CAA (clean air act) etc. Get “Big Government” off our backs. Good idea. And while they are at it, they will kill what is left of the future for profits now. Then they will suffer with the rest of us. Oh well.
My solution? You know, don’t you? Good beer and wine, good friends and family and good travel. In other words, live for today because tomorrow probably won’t be worth living in.

Image: http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/walker.jpg?w=300&h=300

Rough Ride Ahead.

The world’s oceans cover 140 million square miles and have remained stable for most of human history. But in the last 30 years, man’s impact on the seas has taken a heavy toll: global fish supplies are declining thanks to new technologies and overfishing. Climate change has led to a rise in ocean temperatures and the loss of 75 percent of large sea animals. Plastics and agricultural fertilizers are polluting our oceans and killing marine life.

Thus started another program on the crisis of the Earth. Those of us in the conservation field are getting pretty tired of having to answer the same question over and over again: What is the cause of the multiple disasters we find occurring every day around the world? Low fish stocks, fires, floods, droughts etc. The answer is always the same: People. To be more specific: Too Damn Many People. Estimates are that currently we are using one and a half planets worth of resources to keep the current population sustained. Not growing, just sustained. But the population is growing, and the demand for goods and services is not just sustaining, but is also growing. The obvious conclusion it that too many people are competing for too few resources.  And it will get worse: the population is still growing.
A woman caller to a talk show commented that she thought the guest was implying that the earth would be better off without people. The conservationist sidestepped slightly. I don’t. The world would be far better off without people. It was before we got here. I know. Some of you will think in Biblical terms here and invoke “dominion over the earth” or “God made man” or some other rationalization for keeping us around. Face it folks: even if we were given the earth for our own domain, we have systematically been destroying it. Don’t believe it? Energy extraction is a good place to look. Mountain topping for coal removal resulting in the destruction of the mountain, the adjoining watershed and all the things in it, the atmosphere and our health. Mineral extraction. Fishing. Unsustainable farming using fossil water. Over intensive farming of animals such as shrimp, pigs, chickens, and over intensive farming of plants like corn and soybeans. The list is long and sad.
We are the problem, my friends, and the only way we can solve the problem is to stop reproducing and let the population go down. Way down. Won’t happen though. Too many people who just love their children and grandchildren instead of opting to adopt the surplus of orphans. Too many people period. Live through the next 100 years or so and things might just get better. But, that will take a disastrous century of thinning. The tipping point has been passed, so hang on to your hats and buckle your belt. It will be a rough ride.

Image: http://llco.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/slum.jpg

Love, Actually

I was writing to a friend this morning and had occasion use the following: “Sometimes in nature you end up with a bluebird of happiness, and sometimes you end up with a killer flesh eating bacteria. Both good in their own niche.”

Now as I think back on this idea I am reminded of all the controversies that rage over Evolution. Change Over Time. Nothing terribly difficult to understand at the basic level. A process that goes ahead without benefit of plan, just relying on the latent survivability of each individual.

This is exactly what I believe is at work in relationships. Two people meet and the evolution of each separately and both together begins. Often without a plan, and entirely dependent on the latent survivability of each. Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses into the mix, and then they compete for survival. Sometimes the best “traits” make it, and sometimes the “worst”. We usually don’t openly compete for ascendance, sometimes but not usually. We just do our individual and collective best to reach the goal of mutual love, understanding and longevity of relationship. In the “doing” the traits each of us bring to the table work and wiggle for a place, and the end result, which I think never really ends until death do you part, hopefully is a wonderful blend of the best of both. Hopefully.

The friend I was writing to this morning and her partner has achieved a level of blend that is sustainable and good. The only continuous caution I would add is this: evolution moves ahead in time without a plan, and in relationships one needs to be mindful of the changes that are always occurring and evolve with them. Otherwise, boom, no relationship.

Image: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02133/swansHeart_2133563i.jpg