All Things Controversial: 2009

Soul Mates: A Female Fallacy

Disclaimer: Of Course it's controversial... that's why it's here!

I don't know any men who subscribe to the theory of Soul Mates-- i.e. the idea that there is only one true love match, in all the world, for each individual. But soul mates certainly dominate the thoughts of women and the concept seems to be almost universally accepted by them. If you thumb through a romance novel you can't help but be bludgeoned about the head by soul mates, as not only an accepted concept, but one that is utterly, fervently, and blindly insisted upon by women.

Most men instantly recognise the idea of Soul Mates for what it is: A very large load of horse poo. (Which doesn't necessarily mean that some men may not push the soul mate horse hocky for reasons which support their own agenda.) So, why is it so difficult for women to ditch the idea and move on to a more realistic vision of romance? Because it's what they WANT to believe, of course. If you want something to be true enough (not so very different from the case of religious fanatics) you can ignore a lot of reality which points to its non-existence.

Since guys who are in a relationship usually realize (if their IQ is larger than their shoe size) they must pretend to go along with many feminine foibles if they expect to keep the peace. Naturally, that tends to foster the idea among women of universal acceptance of the fallacious concept of soul mates. If NO ONE tells them it is nonsense, how are they gonna know?

If you take a close look at the idea of soul mates it's pretty obvious why it could not be true. All it takes is a little logic and a bit of statistical thinking. For example, if there were only one person of the opposite sex in, all the world, who was your perfect match for romance: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES YOU'D EVER ENCOUNTER THEM? Statistically speaking, probably less than that of lightning vaporizing both of you simultaneously. For the mathematically challenged, that translates to virtually non-existent. Which means, that even if there were something to the idea of soul mates, you would almost certainly never encounter them in your lifetime. And, if by some miracle you did encounter them, who's to say there wouldn't be so much age disparity a relationship would never work... or they might already even be dead.

I can already hear protests from those who would also like to believe that placement of people for soul mate encounters is divinely programmed. Puh- lease. So you are telling me the football jock from your local high school that you married was divinely arranged to be in the same town with you... even though after ten years of marriage you'll have to admit you really have very little in common. There's a Soul Mate. Or maybe it's the really exciting, and slightly more compatible, guy from the next town over you think might REALLY be your soul mate if both of you could dump your current spouses and start over together... Oh yeah, that's gonna work too.

So, you might ask, what's the harm in millions of women believing in soul mates... even if it is a lot of crap? Because, if you are concentrating on and expecting 'perfection' (which to most women translates to a guy with a muscular bod who agrees with her on everything) you may never notice a guy that has such stupid irritating ideas that you'd never even CONSIDER a relationship with him. Even though he might turn out to be-- certainly not a soul mate-- but a better match than you might find relying on a concept that is a complete fallacy and farce.

No More (frivolous) War

Disclaimer: Of course it's controversial... that's why it's here.

There really isn't much that is more controversial than U.S. Involvement in wars of one kind or another. As one of the world's major powers, we set an example for the rest of the world, whether that is our intention or not.

By now you probably realize that I am something of a social liberal. In fact, I consider people like Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama to be moderate conservatives. I am not however a pacifist, as such. I believe there are better alternatives to war. I also think war should be a last resort when all else fails and the consequences of NOT taking military action would be dire.

It is my contention that any war or 'military action' which is not a direct counter to an attack on American soil is an invalid war and should not be undertaken. As an example then, the strike against terrorists in Afghanistan WAS valid because the U.S. was attacked first. Attacking Iraq was NOT valid, and should never have been started because no action had been taken against the U.S.

I can see all the military people and conservatives with pro-military leanings out there shaking their heads at the poor misguided liberal and telling their friends that it just isn't that simple. Well, actually it is. Sure, Saddam Heusen was a hot-headed bully who only knew the meaning of civil rights so that he could violate them more fully. He certainly had a record of military actions against the countries around him. If he had been in possession of weapons of mass destruction he would undoubtedly have had few scruples about using them to get his way.

But the core of this question is an ethical one. You can't-- or shouldn't-- attack a bully, whether person or a country, because they MIGHT do something. I don't care what your religious persuasion, or lack of it, is: It just isn't right. If you shoot your neighbor because something has given you the idea they MIGHT be going to shoot you... who is the criminal?

But, what about all the bad things Saddam Heusen DID, I can hear you wanting to say. Those things fall under the province either of the countries the acts were committed against or the United Nations. They are NOT and would not be the responsibility of the U.S. UNLESS actions were taken against a country with which the U.S. had a legal treaty of protection.

Some might say that is a rather callous attitude. Not really. It is more a practical attitude. There are more injustices being committed in the world today than even the United States could possibly fix. War is not the answer to righting the world's wrongs. It simply makes more of them. It should be remembered too that even the best of intentions can sometimes make things worse. I am fairly certain that the net effect, in nearly every way, is going to turn out to be quite negative from our interference in Iraq.

There are also 'appearances' to consider. I realize most conservatives have a rather belligerent attitude with regard to what 'feriners' think of us. But our world is becoming an ever smaller place as communications improve to tie us together. If we don't learn to live together, there may be no living left to do eventually.

Since no 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' were ever found in Iraq, it is pretty easy to conclude that either our much-vaunted intelligence gathering systems are about as effective as a spy ring prize in a box of cereal, or that they were hampered by a president who had already decided what results he wanted, i.e. an invasion of Iraq. Since I came to the latter conclusion myself, I could hardly fault the people of other countries for doing the same.

After reaching that conclusion, it is only a very minor leap of intuition to arrive at the possibility that the REAL reason for our involvement in Iraq had something to do with oil. We need it. They have it. For all practical purposes, while occupying the country, the U.S. has control of its oil resources.

Could it be that is why our new president has taken little action for withdrawal from Iraq even though Obama was quite vocal against the war? Something is certainly keeping us there, and I think we'd be fooling ourselves to think it was any possibility of making things better for the people of Iraq by our continued occupation. In fact, the longer we are there the worse things are likely to get in terms of the eventual chaos that will ensue.

As a last note here, I'd like to take a final shot at the conservative pro-military war-is-the-answer-to-everything faction. Their strategy seems to be to get involved in a military conflict as soon as possible then immediately cry foul at anyone who protests because that would be so un-American and unpatriotic not to support the troops when they are already fighting.

Let us be clear: Our military men are a necessity and should be supported... because we might need them to protect us from a REAL threat at some point. But the more our government gets the country involved in questionable wars and military actions, the more the value and capability of our armed forces will be seen to deteriorate and will be questioned. A tool that is put to the wrong use speaks ill, not of the tool, but only the wielder. Did that one go over your head Rush? It is conservatives who are making our troops look bad by their willingness to engage in frivolous wars.

Thought before action. Fight if we must... but ONLY if we must.

It's All(ways) About the Kids

For women kids are, quite simply, the reason for our existence. We live, we work, occasionally we play-- if we can sandwich it between the changing of dirty diapers--and finally we die. If there are decisions to make or a future to look forward to, it's always about the kids. If there are choices to be made about how to spend money, it's always about the kids. In fact, you could almost say that children are 'national security' for women. There's just no questioning it. If you even try, the look you receive will make finding half a bitten worm in an apple a pleasant experience.

I'm guessing there might be a few guys reading this who think I'm exaggerating. Well, I hope the vacation you've been having on that deserted tropical isle for the last 10 years has been enjoyable. Welcome back to the real world.

Let me just give a small example that should bring the point home. Suppose you find yourself in a life and death situation (doesn't matter what it is) and your wife is presented with a choice of saving you or saving her child. You know how that plays out... and don't fool yourself that she would even have to think about it. I just picked a drastic example for illustration but, the truth is, the very same attitude applies in any kind of conflict involving her children. The kids win and you lose every single time.

You can't really blame women for being that way. Well, you can but it won't do any good because her 'protect the kids' instinct has been hardwired into her brain by the last several thousand years of evolution. A child who is protected by Mom tends to survive and prosper. A guy's instinct to want to hook up with every cute girl we see is a similar gift of evolution. It's a fact. Of course that particular instinct can be derailed sometimes in the case of gay men... but that is certainly another topic.

This evolutionary difference in attitude can really cause problems in relationships. I'll be the first to admit that I'm different from most other men in some areas. For example, I hate sports but, again, that's another topic. In the area of my expectations concerning relationships with women though I expect I am very much like a lot of other guys. After you realize you aren't going to be able to have every cute girl you run into, you look for someone to share long-term sex and companionship. What you really want is someone to share your life and do the things you want to do with you.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but kids don't really come into the equation. It's all about you and the girl and your companionship and enjoying your life together. And, sometimes women can even agree with that viewpoint... before they have any kids. AFTER the kid is born, you quickly become dirt beneath her feet and the child assumes paramount importance. Which, of course, is why so many marriages fail after the first child is born.

This problematic situation leads me to believe that, in all likelihood, true happiness in a relationship can only be achieved with a woman who can't have kids. Sure, she'd be unhappy, but probably not a lot more unhappy than you are likely to be taking second (third, fourth, hundredth) place to the kids.

Tolerance Good, Intolerance Bad, or not

I'd be wasting my time talking to the followers of people like Rush Limbaugh or John Hagee about tolerance, because their whole outlook is based on rejecting anything, and anyone, who doesn't fall in line with their narrow-minded philosophy. But, for the rest of us, tolerance is usually seen as a good thing. After all, no two people are exactly alike and diversity is what makes the world more interesting. As the saying goes: 'Live and let live.'

Ah, that's where the rub comes in. Unfortunately there are those who are such extremists in their intolerance that they feel justified in killing those who are vocal enough in their disagreement. This leads me to a modified viewpoint that, of course, tolerance is a good thing and that the only thing which CANNOT be tolerated is extreme intolerance.

This may seem like an exercise in twisted logic, but it really is quite a practical viewpoint. You might think that murder instigated by a disagreement in outlook is probably exceedingly rare these days. Probably so... unless something that inspires fanaticism-- like religion-- is involved.

Consider Amsterdam, which has been, arguably, the most tolerant place on earth. People from all walks of life and many different viewpoints have been able to get along very well there-- up until a few years ago. What changed? Muslim extremists targeted filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 killing him and driving the Somalian-born female politician/screenwriter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for his anti-Islam film Submission, into virtual exile.

Suddenly tolerance (of Muslim radicals) became the thing most threatening to the continued policy of, well-- tolerance-- in Amsterdam. Which, again, shows that 'live and let live' tolerance is a wonderful thing... but it just can't apply to those who are extremely intolerant.

This can be one of those 'where do you draw the line' issues as well. A case like the above-mentioned is pretty clearcut. If a group (such as Muslim extremists) is willing to kill to prevent aspersions being cast on their beliefs then obviously they need to be neutralized somehow. Otherwise their mere presence becomes an inhibiting force. That just leaves finding a practical solution for how.

The only one I can think of would be to throw them out of the country and exercise 'extreme prejudice' if they try to return. This seems pretty intolerant, in the case of someone who has merely expressed radical views of intolerance, and probably would also be a serious violation of human rights as they are now perceived... but it seems justified to me in the case of real fanatics who are likely to take another's life because they express different beliefs.

Let me be clear. I don't dislike Muslims. I dislike extremists of any sort who would seek to harm others of different beliefs because they openly express those beliefs. I also abhor fanatics who would try to forcibly influence the opinions or actions of others even if they stop short of physically harming individuals.

In my opinion Christian extremists and those of the Radical Right pose almost as great a threat to human individuality and freedom because-- even though they don't advocate killing people for thinking differently (at least not openly, yet)-- in the long-term every action they take is designed to shoehorn the human spirit of freethinkers into the cramped and sorry box of their narrow mindedness.

So, tolerance is great: But I have zero tolerance for extreme intolerance.

Insane God?

One of my favorite topics is religion because there are such strong opinions about the silliest things. Take, for example, the idea-- a veritable cornerstone of Christian theology-- that the same God who rules the Old Testament with an iron fist, (here a smite, there a smite) and is frothing-at-the-mouth jealous of ANYTHING that might challenge his authority, could possibly be reconciled with that of the peace-loving turn-the-other-cheek God of the New Testament, as seen through the eyes of Jesus. Talk about your rose-colored glasses!

Just think, for a moment, what the psychiatric diagnosis of a person with such a schizophrenic disorder would be. Serious insanity. Considering all the smiting tendencies of one of the personalities, probably 'lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key' insanity.

Consider jealousy. Not really a nice or loving emotion, is it? In fact, a person who is jealous to the point of the Old Testament Christian deity would be-- let's face it-- a VERY immature individual you probably wouldn't want to be around. And yet, there are congregations this very minute almost certainly celebrating the fact that their god IS most exceedingly jealous! Go figure.

Yet another example of the insanity of the Christian God would be in the choice of companions He created for Himself. (That'd be us.) Since He is such a jealous God He certainly wouldn't want to create anyone close to an equal. (Heaven Forbid, He already made that mistake with the angels when Lucifer decided the possibilities of advancement were too confining.)

So, since people were so far from being equal to a godly being, apparently He deliberately decided to make mankind REALLY inferior. And, if that weren't bad enough, He also decided that gaining knowledge might eventually make up for the planned inferiority of humanity-- so he threw them out of the Garden of Eden so they wouldn't be munching any more of THOSE apple-flavored tidbits of knowledge!

Whew! Sound like fiction? Well, that's what the Bible says to me. You've got an omniscient, omnipotent being powerful enough to create the entire universe... yet petty enough to get really peeved if someone challenges His authority. Oh, yeah. I can believe that... how about you?