A Short Role-Playing Game (Part I)

This is a sort of morality question... there'll be a couple days before the "answer" is revealed. (Yes, I know that with these sorts of morality questions there are no right or wrong answers per se, only different opinions. I just want you to think about this, and please comment.)

Imagine you have just become the new leader of a powerful modern country... at war. Picture this with whatever images come to mind.

Your enemy is another modern country, with weapons and military technology on par with your own... sometimes even surpassing yours. The enemy is also ruthless... they started the war, and have been known to treat prisoners of war, and the population of captured cities, with terrible atrocities. Nevertheless, the soldiers of the enemy nation are as dedicated to their cause as yours, and sometimes fight to the last man. Millions have died on both sides.

Fortunately, your side has been winning. After years of fighting, the enemy has been beaten back to their home country... but still refuses to negotiate a cease-fire. Your generals now estimate that the final battle in the enemy's homeland will kill millions more than all the previous fighting, on both sides.

One more thing. Since the beginning of the war, your country's scientists have been secretly working on a new unconventional weapon, capable of devestating huge areas while your soldiers could remain out of harm's way. It has finally been completed.

Would you use this new weapon? Or continue to fight on with conventional forces?

How To Change The World (In 1 Easy Step!)

Somewhere between this essay,

http://www.visi.com/~phantos/essays.html

and this podcast video,

http://freakrevolution.com/2009/04/07/the-monkeysphere/
(yes, she explodes onscreen and is a bit annoying to listen to, but trust me, it's worth it.)

is an idea that could change the world...

In my own words:

Being a minority, or outcast, and not getting in people's faces about it never did a minority group or outcast any good. Especially if you have say, a sexual orientation, or a religion, or a lifestyle, or even the odd hobby outside the mainstream. This doesn't necessarily mean being confrontational, or shouting about your private life from the rooftops, but it means not hiding. Not hiding who you are, just because you're afraid of what someone might say to you because they might get offended if they knew exactly who you really were. (And that's a lot of "mights" and "ifs".)

If you have a secret like this, and let slip to all your friends and even half of them remain friends with you... then you just might have gained a few allies who will support your rights when the time comes... but would have chosen otherwise out of ignorance! What's the alternative? Staying in the closet, shivering with fear over what others might think, until the day comes everything you hold dear is made illegal... because you never took the time to try and educate those around you... to help them understand you. The real you. All for what? The preservation of some average lifestyle that's about as accurate a reflection of real life as the .4th of a child in the average family of 2.4 children?

In my experience, finally overcoming the fear of what the illusive "mainstream" people might think, and being openly yourself, will only attract like-minded people. Yes, you will have a bit less friends, but the friends you make will be friends not with a fake person you project in order to "fit in", but friends with you. The real you. Those who are actually offended by you personally will generally be out of your life before you can hear much of anything from them anyway.

Live like you're a hated freak, and you will be hated. Live like your beliefs and lifestyle are no big deal... and they'll be accepted.

In other words, come out the closet and be yourself and you'll eventually change the world...

National Health Care

Ok. It looks like Obama is really serious about national health care, given that he just had a 1-hour televised Q & A session about it. Instead of recognizing his own good ideas, such as ending our wars in the Middle East, or develloping renewable energy, he has to go gung-ho on a bad idea.

Yes, I'm going to admit that my views are colored by the example of Canada. Living in the Detroit area, I'm right next to it. I even have some friends there. They're really big on alternative medicine and herbal supplements, because they don't dare get sick; they know they wouldn't be cared for. Their mother is slowly losing her ability to walk, and cannot get knee replacement surgery because the cut-off age is 55.

Now, I know painting a horror story out of an example of one family is the oldest trick in the book when it comes to persuasive arguments, but this isn't a worst-case horror story. It's what a typical Canadian family has to go through with their country's national health care. (It's also me being up front and honest about my personal reasons for disliking the Canadian system.)

Now, I know not all countries' national health care systems are the same, and that Canada is one of the worst, but still... it's hard for me to be persuaded it would be a good idea to devellop the same kind of system when people there are constantly heading across the border into America to get medical treatment here. If anything, the Canadians should be trying to remodel their dysfunctional health care system after ours.

I'm not saying health care in America is perfect. But I don't think it needs to have the guts ripped out of it. I'd much rather see an overhaul of the existing system. I'd like to see an attempt made to fix the current system before writing it off as a lost cause. At least in this private health care system people are allowed to choose their own doctors, and when all else fails, pay out of pocket for medical procedures; two things many national health care systems (such as Canada's) don't allow.

Yes, I have heard that there are some national health care systems in European countries that work well, such as France, but this isn't a European country. National health care might very well be a good idea in theory, but given the track record of the United States government, would you trust it to run your health care?

Kill the Doctors!

Every time I even start to think about maybe listening to the pro-lifers, one of them has to do something like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/31/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html?iref=newssearch

Information on the shooter here
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/kansas.doctor.killed/index.html?iref=newssearch

Now the flakey Bible-based reasoning on the "pro-life" side would be reason enough for me to take the pro-choice side, but things like this are the icing on the cake. What's their logic: "We think life is so precious we're going to kill people?" And the icing on the cake of this particular killing is the fact it was done in the doctor's own church during a service! Apparently even acts of sacriledge on top of murder are justified in the name of "pro-life".

Think of the Children!

Over and over again, I have seen the idea that while willing, consenting adults are permitted to participate in any sort of "alternative" lifestyle imaginable, children should not be subjected to it.

For example, children should not be adopted by gay couples, or had by lesbians, because they will grow up "confused." Apparently, without one parent of each gender, children will automatically grow up well... into homosexuals. (Because we all know no one with heterosexual parents ever grew up gay.)

Or perhaps, if there are three, four, or more adults in a polyamorous relationship, they shouldn't dare raise children in that environment. Isn't it obvious that children who had grandparents, aunts or uncles, frequently helping the parents raise the kids are going to grow up "confused" as to who their real parents are? After all, it would be cruel for a kid to have more than two family members looking after them.

Or maybe, there's a seemingly normal two-parent family, but the parents just happen to believe in some non-mainstream nature-worshipping Pagan religion; or worse, not believe in any religion at all and are atheists. Under no circumstances should those parents expose their children to their unorthodox beliefs, because all Children should be raised as Christians, no matter the beliefs of the parents.

Yes, implicit in all of these arguments, is the belief that every child should be raised as a straight, conservative Christian, no matter the beliefs of their parents. Those are irrelivant and should never under any circumstances be passed on to their children.

In case you didn't get the idea alrady, I find this highly offensive. It's not as if conservative two-parent families are always perfect. Far from it. Examples of child abuse by straight, conservative Christian parents can always be found. It's also not as if children raised by straight conservative Christian parents always grow up sharing their values. any gay, lesbian, polyamorous, Neopagan, or atheist folks had their roots in conservative families. (Though there are no hard and fast numbers, such things have happened and are happening this very moment.)

Let's for a moment, strip away the complicated words and deceptive terminology and see what we're talking about in words the children themselves might understand...

Children shouldn't be taught men can love other men, and women can love other women. (We should hate those who love the wrong way!)

Children shouldn't be taught to love nature. (We should hate wilderness!)

Children shouldn't be taught to think for themselves. (Scientists and professors are bad people!)

And children shouldn't be taught they can love more than one person. (We should hate those who love too much!)

Just think of what a horrible world we would have if the next generation grew up believing in those terrible ideas!

Gay Marriage In Iowa

Here's a bit of good news. In a move similar to California's supreme court, Iowa's supreme court legalized gay marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_us/iowa_gay_marriage

Even better: unlike California it's not going to be overturned by consitutional amendment anytime soon.

"Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks. Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session."

I was left scratching my head how such a conservative state would do something so progressive, but the article also explains that "Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation."

The Biggest Threat to the Modern World

It's a bit ranty, but this pretty much sums up my feelings... (and I won't spoil the punchline)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qB5w7IYgJ4&feature=related

I will, add, though, that I don't believe military force is necessarily the solution (as this video seems to imply). I still think a diplomatic solution is possible, if BOTH sides are willing to compromise, back off the "us versus them" mentality, and settle for less than world domination.