Law of the land

Difficult day for a lot of people.  I empathize with those that are disappointed and upset with the Supreme Court.  There is nothing wrong with that response, or stating that response, having those opinions.  I understand and share some of the misgivings.

But, there is a significant truth that must be stated here.  The Bible is not the law of the land in the United States.  Nor is the Quran, nor is the Torah, nor is anything made up by Joseph Smith.  The high point of hysteria that results from these legal decisions regarding the constitutionality of governmental action is improperly incorporated into worship and faith.

That does not mean that one should participate in the government or society, and ignore your faith, religion, morals and ethics.  Quite the contrary, those should be what inform you and guide you as you participate in the activities of the municipality.  So, our governance should not be in a vacuum of faith, nor devoid of our beliefs and most deeply held truths.

I do not consider it bigoted or evil to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and wrong, and should not be practiced.  If you struggle to find Biblical references that back up this view, let me know I will help you.  Per the Bible, polygamy, slavery, infanticide, vigilanteism and genocide are not sins in certain cases.  What do the two statements have to do with one another?  Are we just going to pick and choose what we follow from the Bible.

This is the beginnings of the conversation I normally have.  I have put all my cards on the table before on this issue.  Homosexuality is a sin.  It is wrong as stated in the Bible.  There is no denying that, nor do I wish to argue that it is somehow vague and not applicable to today.  Murder is a sin, stealing is a sin, adultery is a sin, taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  This is all sin, all wrong in God's eyes and should not be our activities.

None of these are unforgivable sins.  There is one unpardonable sin, blaspheme (rejection) of the Holy Spirit.  This comes from Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32.  I am not a pastor but I have taught a lot of Bible classes.  At any time, those of you that wish to, may discuss and study this with me.  I am not claiming to be the indisputable expert.

We can be, and will be forgiven our sins.  There is not a need to have the public condemnation of the lifestyle of any kind of sinners.  I cannot cast the first stone on just about anything in the conversation.  If you can, then you should definitely.  We, the rest of the population, could surely use the guidance.

What is the point Joe?  The point is that the Supreme Court was not interpreting the Bible, was not bound by Rabbinical law, and was not instructed by Muslim law.  They were interpreting the legal structure of our government, as to whether there was exclusionary prospects for a secular status that has financial, tax, inheritance and guardianship ramifications.  Of course, Justice Kennedy had to put all kinds of flowery language about no distinction of love.  And Justice Scalia is probably pretty close to an aneurism.  None of that is necessary.

What they found was the only available legal interpretation.  If you recognize a Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish or Voodoo wedding as being as legal as a Christian wedding, then you cannot exclude same sex marriages from the pool on religious and Biblical grounds.  Our Constitution specifically prohibits a national religion, or adoption of religious mores that trump individual freedoms.

The Constitution is a secular document, rife with ambiguity and errors that have sometimes been corrected, sometimes have not.  It is not perfect.  But, it is not Christian dogma either.  Of course the trappings, mantle and language is informed and influenced by Christianity and the Bible.  In my opinion, it could use a whole bunch of God that aint there.

But, it is not okay to treat a Korean American differently from a German American.  Lots of clauses and articles I could quote to back up that statement.  It is, therefor, not okay to treat a married gay couple different from a married Hindi couple.  Satanic church marriages are legal from a secular, government recognized standpoint.  

Let's pray for the continued growth of Christian love in America.  Let's continue sharing the Word, one to another.  Let's continue being fervent in the pursuit of our individual relationship with God, whatever that means for each of us.  And, let's let same sex couples pay taxes, observe property and divorce protections and not have their kids screwed by the government if one of them passes unexpectedly.  It should not be too much to ask in America.

You don't have to agree with or champion homosexuality to champion their rights to the same secular consideration and financial and legal protections of any other citizen.  The two positions are not mutually exclusive.  Supreme Court said so and everything.

I love you all.

Say it aint so

For those of you that are not baseball fans and historians, a quick bit of info that will make the rest of the post make sense.  Joe "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, was one of the greatest natural players to ever take the field.  He was, unfortunately, part of the Chicago White Sox team that were found to have thrown the World Series for pay.  I am not sure how I feel about Joe's involvement, as his numbers and performance through the Series was phenomenal.  But, he was lifetime banned for it.

Prior to that ban, the myth goes that a small boy was waiting outside of Joe's hotel, and as he left the boy supposedly begged his favorite player to "Say it aint so, Joe.  Say it aint so!"  Poignant and one of those phrases that has made its way deeply into American culture.  It is appropriate, in a bit of irony, for what is happening today.

Additional background that will help make sense of what I am about to preach from the soap box, I am a child of the 70's and 80's.  The 6 Million Dollar Man, The A Team, Dukes of Hazzard, MASH.  Back in the day, there were only three networks, and therefor, you developed favorite shows, and I had lots of them.  They were TV.  Even when I was 10 or 12, I understood that TV was not real.

That did not stop me from routinely doing the Bo Duke hood slide across my car.  Daisy Dukes became code for those cut off jeans she wore, and I have to tell you that I was really a fan of the costume designer for that particular choice.  Uncle Jesse, Boss Hawg, Roscoe P. Coltraine, and of course Cooter, these were all regularly on TV in our living room.  We were fans of the car.

Honestly, we understood the "controversy" of the show to be the Duke boys liquor running.  Felons could not carry guns, and they always had bows and arrows.  They were known for being able to be get away, down the least travelled country roads.  I mean, come on, look at Uncle Jesse and tell me what those boys were doing.  I don't remember there being one discussion about the fact that the Confederate flag was painted on top of the car.

We lived in the knowledge that down south, people were not constantly getting chased by mentally challenged deputies, jumping their muscle cars over creeks and crashing them through barns.  Even though I wanted it to be true, I had Evil Kneivel'ed my bike into the side of the barn enough times to know that your car was not going to do what showed on TV.  It was entertainment, kind of like wrasslin', and we enjoyed it, but did not take it very seriously.  On a related note, everything that happened on the A Team was entirely believable however.  I mean, that stuff was just real.

We did not form attachments to the show because of the Confederate flag.  We liked the fact that the car was fast, indestructable, and cool, even though a Dodge.  The extremely attractive young lady that drove the Jeep was another reason for not missing an episode.  I cannot recall a single episode that prominently featured a black person.  It was not about black and white in the south.

TV realism was different then.  I kind of miss that.  The terrible life examples that are the basis for the majority of reality TV kind of just tire me out.  I don't find much entertainment in dropping a couple of Yuppies (80's speak for folks with almost no survival skills or woods smarts), naked and afraid in a swamp.  I never understood Big Brother, why the hell would you do that.  And this new one about marrying someone you have never met for a TV show just kind of pissese me off in all kinds of ways.

Today, there is a debate raging in "social space", whatever that is, about the Confederate flag.  Among the most twisted pieces is the really high intensity anger about whichever big entertainment corporation announcing they would no longer make the marketing material for Dukes of Hazzard with the flag.  I mean, it got Cooter so fired up that he posted a piece that was entirely in capitals.  I have learned that in this age of communication, that signifies he is really yelling he is so mad.

A guy, who has been a member of Congress, is not intellectually challenged, has command of a fairly sophisticated vocabulary, is just pissed off.  The PC police are striking again, taking another "harmless" thing and making it something ugly.

Say it aint so Cooter, say it aint so.  I mean, really, it was that act that was the final straw that made the Stars and Bars something ugly.  Nothing about the years of Klan rallies under that flag, the fact that it is routinely associated with violent white supremacy groups, the awkward fact that a war was fought under it to try to continue to keep people as property, none of that justifies not wanting to be associated it with it.  IT WAS ON THE GENERAL LEE!!!  That is like calling no tag backs and automatic base.

I don't mind too often, when these things happen.  I mean, I think a lot of stuff that does not thrill a lot of people.  I try not to get too deep in their crisis.  But, if you have been elected to Congress, if you owe that election and your living to having played the minor character that kept the moonshine car running, you are from Georgia, and you recognize it is 2015, not 1915, save me the hysteria.

This is about making money, which is really the only thing that drives our politics any more.  The company recognizes that keeping that particular paint job is going to impact the bottom line.  It happens, it is a logical conclusion.  Social views change, and are changing, and that means what will be profitable changes as well.

Say it aint so Cooter, the next thing you know, they will stop selling those Daisy Duke britches at Walmart.  When that happens, I am hitting the all caps myself, and having a complete melt down.  Not putting that flag on cars and toys, yeah, that is probably alright.  Go find Uncle Jesse's brown jug and get your mellow on dude.  It does not change being able to hood slide on the damn thing, and it is still a Dodge.

Love you all.

Parenting

How do you know you are a good father?  I am not sure as to the answer to that question.  Perhaps we are to always wonder and worry, so that we are always going that one step farther to get better.  There is no pinnacle, or plateau, that once you reach it, it is all good, and no more effort is required.

I wonder what mistakes I made with my kids, and how it will impact them in their lives.  Understand that it is not IF I DID, it is WHAT did I do wrong.  We all do, regardless of intentions, capabilities and effort.  That is part of being human, and while it sucks, it is usually fairly insignificant.

I have sat here praying and pondering the events of the last week.  A white woman outed by her "parents" for playing black and serving as NAACP president, that was pretty freaky.  Here in Raleigh, there were the usual shootings and murders in the poor minority neighborhoods.  There were two criminals that cooked meth in the house with their toddlers, to the point where the toddlers had detectable levels in their system.  Then, this psycho in Charleston shoots a bunch of people after they studied the Word with him.

How does all this tie together?  See, I am an engineer at heart, and the thought of coincidence offends my soul.  There are only statistical probabilities that govern repetition.  So, everything is connected in its way.  The Christian faith tells us that this is all the result of man's sinful fall.  At a very high level, that ties all the misfortune and tragedy in the world together.  And, I am in no position to argue with the Word of God.

But, I think that this particular string of events comes down to a much lower level connection.  One that is prevalent and pervasive and ever-present.  We have a parenting problem that is driving these kinds of events.  I understand that there have always been crappy parents and broken people.  But, you are not living Little House on the Prairie just raising your kids not to be criminals and psychotic.  You are doing the bare minimum required.

Hillary Clinton got a lot of heat about it taking a village to raise a child.  I don't agree with that, but I think that a village is extremely useful when raising your child.  Both from the aspect of reinforcing good parenting practices, and from exposing how you definitely do not wish to parent when it is your turn.  That last piece is maybe most important.  Your particular family may not deal with teenage drug abuse, but if you are connected within the community, you have exposure to how it is handled and how it works.

The question is how well you paid attention as a child, and, which lessons made the most impact to you.  Unfortunately, this is where it gets controversial and uncomfortable.  But, I am going to call out what I see.  If your environment only compounds and reinforces the most atrocious practices, you cannot be expected to do more than that level of parenting.  Regardless of the love in your heart, the desire in your soul, if you have never been shown how to do something, you will not be very good at it.

If I was given 40 hours and unlimited supplies, I could scribble non stop and actually replicate the entire Hebrew alphabet in those scribblings.  I would not be able to pick them out, order them, use them, or understand them.  I wrote them, but I can't write with them.  It is the same with multiple generations of parents we have raised.

If you are surrounded by dope dealers, criminals, felons and institutionalized individuals, you are limited in what you can do as a parent.  You have choices however.  You can choose to stay there and watch your children become that which surrounds them.  Or, you can take them away from it, whatever it means or takes, and provide them with the external relationships and examples that are required to fully form them as adults.

Does that mean that every single parent family in the "hood" ends up raising gang bangers or skin heads?  No, but it is the feel-good lie we all focus on, that because there are outliers that escape and break their cycle, it is all going to be okay.  What we do not discuss is that for every Jay Z, there are thousands of Dylann Roof's, just with lower body counts.  It is so much easier to sleep and feel less troubled if we do not think about the number of youth that are lost, that we never see, never hear about.

I am guilty of it as well.  I have said it over and over again, when discussing this with others from our beautiful home and life.  "They had the same opportunity that my child had.  If they chose to not learn, to not develop and to be criminals, then lock them up."  You should see me at the end, symbolically wiping my hands of the whole affair.

They did not have the same opportunity as my children.  I moved my children to a place that had decent schools and quality of life, when it became clear that there was nothing for them where we were living.  They did not like it, and they did not find it pleasant.  But, they got the education they deserved, and the start they needed.  And, all those children I knew well, that were part of our lives up to the point we left, they mostly moved as well.

What got left behind, got left behind.  Most of them were/are functionally illiterate.  They have little marketable skills for the work place.  What they have is an ingrained knowledge of how the judicial and entitlement systems work.  They have the learned practices of broken homes, because there is much more money available if there are not two parents.  They have learned to survive within the system of poverty we have created in this country.

They parent the way they were taught.  If you want to know what the cycle of poverty is, it is the cycle of piss poor parenting.  No one rises above their raising.  One either lives up to your raising, or rejects it and goes the other way.  It is always the raising that we come back to and rest upon.

Kids become adults.  There is no guarantee that kids with good parents will be good adults.  Free will and choice are ultimately what they are and always have been.  However, just as there are few outliers from bad parenting that overcome and achieve, there are only few outliers that fail after good parenting.

There is nothing I would like more, than to see the cycle of poverty become the focus of our efforts.  There would be no way to break it without fixing the mess that is the family constant of our impoverished peoples.  We would defeat the growth of the urban gangs, because we would build family units that prevent that growth.  We would break the cycle of incarceration, because we would build families and ethics that prevent that cycle.  We would break the grip of drugs, because we would have generations no longer surrendered to drugs without a fight.

What would happen if we created a culture in our impoverished families that celebrated education and learning?  What would happen if we created a culture in our impoverished families that celebrated parental responsibilities and empowered parenting?  What would happen if we stopped leaving our children to be taught in school, and instead, let them be educated in school and taught them at home?

What would happen if we held parents accountable for the actions of their children?  What would happen if we expected parents to be responsible for their children again?  My mother and father were very clear that I was a reflection of them and their raising of me.  If I made the decision to do something that reflected poorly on them, I understood what was coming.

It was the parenting expectation that my parents grew up under, which they then used as they were raising me.  I then applied that to my children as they were raised.  I expect that they will apply those processes to their children.  As that proceeds, so does the opposite logic.  If you have never learned accountability, responsibility or skills, how do you suddenly develop them?

You don't, nor will those children, nor the children that come to those children, nor the children that come to those children.  It has been ongoing and worsening since the 60's.  It has coincided or driven the decline of the schools, the growth of incarcerations and the marginalization of families as a unit.  That is where the connection lies for what we are seeing.

Until we are willing to do the uncomfortable, and address this, and teach something different, and build other expectations, this will continue.  It is sad, and sadder still that this crystallized for me on Father's Day.

I called my Dad and wished him a Happy Father's Day.  I am so grateful for what he taught me explicitly and by example.  I wish that example had been available to all.  Love is not an antidote to bad skills.  And just trying is not okay when parenting.  Commitment, accountability and responsibility are the bare minimums, and you have to be fully onboard.

I love you all.  Happy Father's Day.

Bias, and I don't mean Lenny

We all have bias.  It defines our lives and our opinions and our reactions.  The basis of stereotypes is wrapped up in that bias, and there are many that are cultural.  Bias is entirely created.  You learn bias from the time you begin to comprehend the moving things around you are people.  Even before you understand speech, you see that reactions, emotions and attitudes change around certain people.

We are not born hating.  We are not born superior.  We are not born suspicious.  We are not born afraid.  All of these things are taught to us, a part of the bargain as we learn to speak, walk, understand, comprehend.  If you cannot understand why someone disagrees with you, it is simple.  Their programing along the way was very different and they do not share your bias.

Not all bias is bad.  We learn bias about dangerous activities (drugs, promiscuity, etc).  That is a useful bias.  We learn bias about responsibility and accountability.  That feeling you have when you can't walk away from a friend's problem or tell a lie or invest foolishly, they are all bias, and they are all useful.

As with most things tied up in psyche, this is a source of misunderstanding, argument and dischord.  There are those that refuse to acknowledge these simple truths, or acknowledge that you cannot avoid the urging of your bias, in moments of crisis.  I said earlier that we are not born afraid.  We are however born with the ability to be frightened.  It is an instinctual thing, like breathing.  A sharp noise behind you, a flash of light in the dark, these things frighten you.  But, you can only learn to fear others by bias.  If you have ever found yourself off the interstate at the wrong exit and looked around the neighborhood and locked your doors at the red light, that is bias.

Not always bad, but generally overwrought, these reactions occur in all of us.  If your parents were ticketed often, or drove erratically or over the speed limit, you have a very different reaction to seeing a police officer on the road than someone who did not have that experience.  This is bias.  Being afraid of young black men, overly tattooed strangers, groups of teens, the police, Muslims, this is all bias.

Where it goes from emotional makeup to just flat wrong, is when we allow that bias to inform our interactions and politics.  When we find ourselves stopping and blushing because of something we said, it is almost always an outcome from a bias that we know better than to voice.  We know better than to voice it, because it something we have learned is inappropriate.  We have lots of these because we are raised by flawed and imperfect people.  And, we, as a society, learn over time.

It was considered inconceivable after the end of World War II, that a Roman Catholic could be elected President.  The thought being something to the line of, he would just do whatever the Pope told him to do.  We have learned that is wrong and inappropriate.  Now we have had a string of Presidents from Ford on, that we don't know what religion they practice.  This is how bias is overcome.

Bias is often inaccurate and mostly superficial.  Sometimes, even though the bias is ridiculous, we cannot escape it.  Logic be damned, they are trying to wage a war on Christmas.  Bias almost always involves an innocuous and anonymous "they" to be based upon.  The purpose of this explanation is to explain some of what is happening in the news today.

Franklin Graham, yes, Billy's boy, is suggesting that we boycott multiple corporations because they use same sex couples in advertising, or make products for same sex couples.  In particular, Tiffany's, because they make wedding rings for them, and Wells Fargo because they use them in their commercials.  In fact, his Crusade, or whatever they are calling it, are moving all their accounts from Wells Fargo over it.  It is a humongous pain in the butt to change banks, and this seems an extreme issue to do it over.

Next we won't be able to shop at Food Lion, because they sell groceries to same sex couples.  I only get on this bandwagon, when we don't have to pay taxes because same sex couples pay taxes.  That I could get excited over.  Otherwise, it is a dangerous business.  There is no material difference in taking this stance, than there is in boycotting businesses because they serve Chinese or Muslims.  It is  even worse because there is not even a suggestion that there should be a seperate but equal facility for them.

Just this bias that the gay is contaminating us.  It is that foolish sounding.  There is righteous indignation that somehow, heterosexual marriage is going to be damaged by same sex marriage.  These same people are very careful not to imply that folks who have been divorced multiple times are a danger to the institution of marriage, because there are still empty seats in the pews.  Can't have folks that want to be married, and struggle so dilligently to exercise that right in the fold, because it is gay marriage, and you know those gays.  Let them get in the marriage game, and it is all downhill from there.  The value of our hetero marriage will just plummet.  We'll never be able to sell it then.

This is ridiculous on its face.  This is the same dreg, mouthed by the  same people that argued so vehemently about miscegeny.  You know if you let blacks marry whites, it will contaminate the legitimacy of marriage.  In 1967, the Supreme Court said that was bullshit.  I don't think they used that word, but they should have.  And, somehow, this nation has continued to cheapen the legitimacy of marriage, without any needed contamination from interracial couples.  More than 50% of marriages end in divorce already.

What makes it logical that letting gays get in on that failing enterprise is going to just be the straw that breaks MARRIAGE's back?  What is the fear?  Jesus consorted with prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, lepers, and the dead (one of the things that defiled a Jew by the law).  He knew a thing or two about contamination and thumbed his nose at it to show others love.

I am not suggesting Jesus would have been in favor of same sex marriage, but he might have been more interested in the plank in your own eye, before he got interested in that splinter in the gay person's eye.  He even said so about other issues.  He told his disciples to make disciples of all men, which would be much more appropriate a focus than how to get even with companies that do business with the gays.

It frustrates me because I was brought up with that bias.  I even said it from time to time.  Right up until I realized some of the people that I liked the most, that I knew, were gay.  It was kind of a gut punch.  I had spent all that time with the gay, I was surely contaminated.  I could have developed the gay at any moment.  Doesnt' that just sound stupid?  Like it is tuberculosis or flu, and you catch it cause it is on the air.

Or maybe you can catch it because your bank money is next to that gay money.  Or pick it up because the diamond you buy for your girl was tried on that gay finger.  Would it not be more Christ like for the minister to offer front pews for the gay couples, so that they might be taught the Word, and the love that is Jesus.

And, couldn't it be better if we saw them as fellow sinners, fellow travellers on this road?  If we offered them our love, not our bias, does it not stand to reason that they could respond in kind, within the family of Christ.  I mean the freaking Pope would not do what Franklin Graham is suggesting.  I mean the white pajama guy with the white yamika Pope.

It shows some of my unconquered bias'.  There are Christians that don't get Christ, and there are ministers that don't get ministry and there are churches that don't want to be the body of Christ.  I just get really weirded out by them.  My bias lumps them in with the same strain that develops Jim Jones and David Koresh.  When you see them on the street when you are lost, lock your car doors.  I understand.

Love your all, and them too, they just weird me out.

Call her Caitlyn

So, I remember watching Bruce Jenner win the gold.  It was truly an epic athletic performance, demonstrating an overall athletic ability that truly was remarkable.  It was not a courageous thing, but it was well done and without the ARod school of pharmacopia success.  There were many things to be respected in that performance.

It was, however, at a game.  Were the events tied to natural disasters, and you had to leap over downed electrical lines to save a baby, then outrun the wild dogs chasing you both, then throw your spear perfectly to kill food, and you and the kid survived, that would be courageous.  There was risk and potential for tragedy.  Courage is facing imminent tragedy or injury and perservering through the action to coompletion.  Disregarding one's own comfort and safety to achieve an objective fraught with risk is how you demonstrate courage.

Competing, even against better athletes, in a game, is not courageous.  It is evidence of discipline, skill and ability.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  But, it is not courageous.  Playing ice hockey on a sled after you have been paralyzed is not courageous either.  It is competing in a game, no danger, just competition.  It is admirable and a good thing, but not courageous.

We associate courage with the wrong aspects of our life.  It should never be tied up in sports.  Courage should be honored, athletic ability and performance should be acknowledged.  There is a very big difference.  If you have ever thought you should be honored and were acknowledged instead, you have never forgotten it.  It is instantly revealing and quite permanent in your psyche.

Acknowledging Neil Armstrong's small step, instead of honoring his giant leap would be wrong.  Honoring Lebron's latest triple double is wrong as well.  Courage is selfless, non-profiting action beyond expectations, outside the norm.  Acknowledgement for that level of activity is inappropriate.  Expecting honor for winning the race is inappropriate.

Enough on the dead horse, what is my point here?  Well, it does not naturally follow that an athlete, even a great one, is courageous.  It does not naturally follow that a courageous person is athletic.  There is no correlation, because there is no relation in where they come from.

This celebration of the courage of Bruce Jenner, to live as Caitlyn, is probably deserved.  There is risk and danger associated with this kind of change and adoption of this kind of lifestyle.  It may not be, I have not decided how I see this yet.  It is self serving, and does not involve selflessness on the part of others.  It is leadership, or at least demonstration of beliefs and integrity.  There is a lot going on in this discussion.

But, it is not courageous because he was a great athlete.  It is actually immaterial as to whether he (or she) was athletic at all.  This arena is self awareness, morality and integrity of character.  Believe what you will of homosexuality and transgender issues, there is nothing quite so concerning to one's income as a person famous for reality TV, as the dice roll as to how being transgendered would play out.  There was risk, public humiliation and loss of friends and family rolled up in this coming out thing.

I am Christian, there is no question as to my reading of the Bible, that there is significant sin tied up in this.  Honestly, there is nothing that any of us do, that is not wrapped up in significant sin.  We all face that possibility continually and collectively.  I don't know why there are transgendered people.  I do not suffer from confusion as to my gender identity.  I have not dealt with that in my life.

I don't know where it comes from, in the insides of our minds and emotions.  I don't really want to know.  I know a lot of gay people.  Some of them are just terrible human beings, not because they are gay, but because they are just naturally terrible people.  I also know several that are trustworthy, intelligent, caring, and valued friends.  I cannot judge them because of that particular sin, as I do not wish to be judged myself.  I have other issues, but they are no less important to God, because they are not homosexuality.

But, there is a good bit of courage in doing, saying, being and living as Bruce/Caitlyn have chosen to live.  I do not confuse that with admiring the lifestyle.  It confuses me that (s)he claims to only be attracted to women, yet is sure (s)he is a woman in a man's body.  So, she is really a lesbian trapped in a man's body.  I don't get it, except that gender and sexuality are entirely different developments as we grow.  Gender is perception and perceptible.  Sexuality is attraction and inperceptible.

So, I have the same sexuality as Bruce/Caitlyn.  I am only linterested in women.  However, I am positive I have the right plumbing.  It can not be easy to be doing what Caitlyn Jenner is doing.  Regardless of your personal belief system, it has to be understood that this plays out to a broad, huge audience that never stops staring, judging and being human.  Some humans are dangerous.

They blow themselves up on buses and fly planes into buildings over these kinds of things.  There is a large population of the world that considers it legal, acceptable and religiously required to kill people like Jenner.  Being so public brings it's own risk.  We can't predict who will do what, but there is no denying that Jenner's risk profile changed significantly with that Vanity Fair cover.

All kinds of crazies inhabit the world.  The radical Muslims and Christians are equally dangerous, for the same reason.  They have their morality to stand behind.  God told them to do it, whatever it is.  And, nothing we say, think or believe will dissuade them.  Oddly, we are convinced in our society that we can rehabilitate every kind of screwed up jerk off that sells dope and steals for dope.  Yet, we know instinctively that there is no rehabilitation for the sickness of radicalism.

Caitlyn is being courageous.  I don't deny that.  The Sports Illustrated courage award thing confuses me.  Folks that compete in spite of cancer, overcome disabling injury to edify and encourage others, continue to pursue their dream into reality, those are sports things that could be courageous.

Putting hormones in your body is disqualifying in most sports.  It should have been in this situation as well.  Caitlyn is courageous, and I hope it turns out well for her and her family.  (That bunch is so junkball screwed up, they may not even notice this).

I think Sports Illustrated got it wrong, and not because it is wrapped up in the gay/moral questions we constantly fixate on.  It was wrong because this is not sport.  Were Caitlyn to go win a spot on the Senior Olympics Decathalon Squad, then it would be about sports.  (Do they even do decathalon anymore?)  As it stands, it is about Vanity Fair, keeping up with the Jackassshians, and a whole bunch of stuff off the court of competition.

Just my thoughts, but Sports Illustrated has been off for a long time.  So has Time, Newsweek and the others.  Objective journalism and unbiased news no longer exists.  And that is our own fault.

Love you all.