I have been listening to discussions and debates about whether or not marijuana should be legalized for years. I’ve heard about the non-drug uses of hemp (which aren’t, in and of themselves, illegal), the medicinal uses of marijuana, the potential health risks of marijuana, and the mother of them all. Comparisons to drinking alcohol.

I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t compelling reasons to legalize marijuana, but I am a little sick of the comparisons to alcohol. I believe those arguments are nothing more than a smokescreen and, in and of themselves, are indicative of the reasons marijuana should not be legalized.

First, they are not equivalent. I’m not a doctor, so I can’t attest to specific effects, but I know they are different. Comparing apples to oranges will never convince me.

Second, there is one big difference between alcohol and marijuana. One is legal and one is not.

Okay, I know that gets to the heart of the problem. I recently saw an internet meme pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of being against legalization of marijuana, yet drinking heavily every weekend. The primary difference between those two things is that the law permits you to do one of them, while it does not permit you to do the other.

Yes, this argument disappears if pot is legalized, but until it is it is also not a valid argument for marijuana legalization.

It does bring me to my final point, though. Heavy drinking may be legal, but it is definitely not a good thing. We have a word for people who habitually drink to the point of intoxication. We call them alcoholics. And there are lots of facilities and resources devoted to helping people stop doing that.

Marijuana, though, has very much become a lifestyle for many people. It is a cause that many people have incorporated into their ideological structure. Do you think, for a second, that making pot a lifestyle choice is any less of an addiction than making alcohol a lifestyle choice? Do you really think there is a difference?

Personally, I have no interest in smoking pot. I also rarely drink alcohol. I also don’t care what other people do, as long as it does not put me at risk.

Marijuana, though, is worse than alcohol in its secondary effects. What I mean by that is the impact it has on the people around you. If you are sitting next to me and drinking, there is no chance I am going to get drunk as a result of your drinking. I can. however, get a contact buzz from sitting next to you while you smoke pot. It’s an intrusion on not only my life, but also on my morals.

Well, I seem to be drifting here and that wasn’t my intention. I also don’t believe for a second that this blog will convince anyone who supports marijuana legalization to change their mind. I do hope that people will stop focusing on smokescreen arguments or invalid comparisons, though.

Feel free to use the comments here as a springboard for discussion and debate on the subject, or just to share your opinion. I always read every comment.

Still, I was curious how FOX”News” would report on the Trayvon Martin shooting. No surprise there, but they seem to be supporting George Zimmerman.

Now it’s time to try to cut through propaganda, politics, and dogma so we can really talk about what happened.

I would hope that most people would agree that anyone has a right to walk down a private street for no reason whatsoever. I would also hope that most people would agree that seeing a stranger walking down the street of your subdivision on a rainy night (assuming that report was accurate) would be enough to at least raise a little suspicion.

I remember when I used to work in sales. I lived in one city, but my sales territory was about 60 miles from home. One day, I had about an hour to kill before a sales call, it was a very hot day, and I was really tired. I decided I would just rest for a bit, then head off to my appointment. I found a spot on a subdivision street – pretty much the only spot available in the shade of a tree – reclined my seat and began relaxing.

School must have just let out, because about ten minutes later three girls wearing backpacks walked into the house across the street from where I was parked. A few minutes later, they were outside playing in the yard. About ten minutes later, I was startled by a knock on my passenger-side window.

It was Mom inquiring who I was and why I was there. And not in the most pleasant manner possible.

Now, I was a clean-cut white male in a nice car and a business suit, so this suspicion was obviously not racially-based. People get suspicious of things that are out of the ordinary, especially when those things involve our homes or children. I could have been indignant, but I told her why I was there and went back to napping. I have no idea what she did after that, but that wasn’t really my concern.

Returning to Trayvon Martin, we should try to look through irrelevant points and try to really understand what happened before we condemn anyone (whether that be Zimmerman or Martin).

Zimmerman’s history of calling the Police to report suspicious events while on neighborhood watch is irrelevant. Even if he was prone to jump the gun, that does not necessarily mean he was wrong this time. You remember the boy who cried wolf, right? There’s a dual moral to the story. The obvious one is not to “cry wolf” when there isn’t a wolf because people might not listen to you when it really matters. The flip-side is that we should not always assume that a wolf-crier is wrong.

NBC News apparently did a bad thing recently when it edited George Zimmerman’s 911 call in a way that made Zimmerman look like he was targeting Trayvon Martin because he was black.

Well, that’s certainly inappropriate. Shame on you, NBC. These are tactics that people use to bolster their positions in the court of public opinion, but which are either untrue or irrelevant. That is never okay.

Which brings me back to FOX”News.”

After reading that Yahoo! story, I decided to hop on over to the FN site (a place I would normally never voluntarily go) to see what they had to say about it all. After all, this is one case where the competing viewpoint may well prove enlightening.

Sure enough, it appeared that FOX”News” was squarely on the side of the white guy, calling out NBC News for its editing job (good for them on that one because deception is never okay), enhancing police video to show that Zimmerman might have been injured that night, and interviewing Zimmerman’s father.

That was the most interesting thing to me. I listened to the first couple of minutes of the senior Zimmerman’s story, just to see what their side of it was. Ya know what I couldn’t stop thinking?

This just doesn’t pass the smell test.

Cutting it down to its relevant parts, the story is that a man is walking down the street, he is approached by a black man who challenges him uttering obscenities, then, without provocation, punches him in the nose and starts pounding him in the face.

I’m sorry, but the real world doesn’t usually work that way. And if it did, I would expect the aggressor to be someone with a history of aggression. Regardless, even roughians (sorry, but it’s the best word I could come up with) are usually provoked in some way: either a strange look, some bodily movement, or a heated exchange of words.

I don’t believe for a second that Zimmerman was minding his own business when a kid walked up to him, started swearing at him, and the only thing he did was reached for his cell phone.

“Reach for his cell phone.”  That’s a phrase I got from the FOX”News” report. Who “reaches” for their cell phone. You “reach” for a gun, not a cell phone. Oh, I see what they’re doing there.

Anyway, Zimmerman’s story does not hold water to me. I obviously have no idea what truly happened that night, and that will ultimately be for people other than you or I to decide, but you can probably be certain that it is not exactly what either camp is telling you. There was probably a mutual confrontation that escalated to the tragedy that occurred that night.

Having said that, let me arrive at my point. I don’t care how strange someone appears to you. I don’t care whether they are somewhere they belong or not. I don’t care what names someone has called you or whether they are provoking a physical altercation with you. Just because you are allowed to buy a firearm, does not mean you are allowed to use it on another human being.

George Zimmerman’s wounds (such as they are) will heal and life will go on for everyone in this story except for one. Killing is permanent and there is no undoing it if it’s a mistake. So whether it’s a black kid walking down a suburban street at night or two high school students who have gotten into a fight, there is never a good reason to take someone’s life.

The dead tell no stories, and we will never get to hear Trayvon Martin’s side of this one. I have no idea whether this shooting was legally justified or not. Frankly, I don’t care. The law is just the bare minimum of decency you must abide by to be left alone. It is a floor, not a ceiling.

Maybe if more people ascribed to, and taught their children, a higher ideal, Trayvon Martin might still be alive.

Which one are you?

I once argued to a gay friend that there was no such thing as “gay.” I think he was ready for a fight, but then I explained my reasoning.

Imagine a teenage boy who has been raised to believe that he should like girls. One who has always been taught that boys liking girls, and vice versa, is the only natural way to be. One who has been constantly subjected to a barrage of statements, images, laws, rules, and opinions that heterosexuality is good and homosexuality is bad. Not a difficult world to imagine, right?

Imagine, then, that this boy finds himself attracted to a male classmate.

Now, before anyone pipes up with a “people that age shouldn’t be thinking about that sort of thing yet,” let me ask you this. Would you be asking the same question if that same boy were attracted to a girl? Probably not, but I digress.

Can you imagine what that boy must think of himself, to realize that he is gay when so any of the messages he has been receiving throughout his life are that it is wrong to be gay? Shame, embarrassment, anger. Who knows how many others?

But when a gay person comes out, there is this whole community that they now qualify for membership in. Being gay is not a prerequisite for membership, but it does guarantee automatic admission. This community has clubs, organizations, parades, lobbyists, radio and television shows, web sites, and countless other methods of affiliation.

Actually, approve or disapprove of their lifestyle, you’ve gotta admit that the gay community has got its shit together when it comes to establishing and promoting its identity.

Okay, now imagine this boy at 30. He has been out of the closet for half of his life now and has become an active member of the gay community, both socially and politically. Then, let’s say this boy meets a girl and he finds himself attracted to her. At first, he chalks it up to the fact that she’s beautiful and he can certainly appreciate female beauty every bit as much as male beauty. But as he gets to know her, he finds that there is something more there. He finds that he has genuinely strong feelings for her.

Is that a scenario that you can admit is possible? And, if so, how do you think he would feel about it? Conflicted, perhaps? Maybe worse?

So now, I can get to my point, which is that there is a very serious danger in attaching labels to people.

Labels, by their very nature, are generalized. You can’t have a specific label or it ceases to have any significance whatsoever. I am a 6’8″, Jewish-American, adopted, heterosexual male with black hair, green eyes… yeah, not a very effective label. I am 6’8″, or Jewish, or adopted, or heterosexual, or male. Those are better labels, but they are meaningless.

After all, what does it mean that I am adopted?  What does it mean if I affiliate as a democrat? What does it mean if I affiliate as a republican? What if I affiliate myself as gay, straight, black, white, or anything else for that matter? Does that mean I have to think a certain way or believe exactly the same things as others in my affiliate group? And if I diverge in my thinking in any way from others in my affinity group, what does that say about the label I’ve identified with in the first place? Do I then need to change my label? Or change back when I find commonality again? Are labels of any use of we wear them and discard them at will, like a pair of socks?

So my argument that there is no such thing as “gay” comes with an elaboration. There is no such thing as “straight,” either. Or “bisexual,” “transgendered,” or any other gender-related label you can come up with. There is only people. People who should be making individual decisions based upon what’s best for them, not based upon an agenda that someone else has created and foisted upon them.

I have a serious problem with labels in general. Take racial labels, for example. Why do we have them? I mean, really think about it, what purpose do they serve? Perhaps to enable us to track hiring practices or college admissions? Perhaps to find people who qualify for certain scholarships or types of aid? Perhaps to track statistics on health and fitness, literacy, crime, or a host of other practices? But what do they really do?

They divide us.

They make us take ownership of an identity that is separate from others who do not share a certain ideology. They emphasize our difference, rather than our similarities. Even as it pertains to equal rights or equal opportunity, racial labels do more to divide than they do to unite. Ironic, if you think about it.

For that matter, what about labels of ownership? I was doing dishes this morning when I began thinking about my fiance and it hit me. She is not “my” anything, nor am I “hers.”  We are engaged to be married to each other, but that is as far as it goes. I have no ownership interest in her, nor she in me. Neither of us belong to the other. We are partners, equals, a team.

Parents and children are a big one. My child. But what does that make her? Does that mean she must respect me? How about I try to earn her respect? Does that mean she must obey me? How about I set rules that make sense, take the time to explain them to her, then empower her to make the right decisions… even if they are not the ones I would have made. Last I checked, slavery was outlawed in this country about 150 years ago, so nobody owns anybody else.

Labels like “my” are every bit as detrimental to individual empowerment and unity as are gay, straight, black, white, Jewish, Hindu, Catholic, or any other manner by which you might affiliate yourself.

I found the picture in the upper-right corner of this page on facebook this morning (before I did the dishes, in case you’re wondering) and it struck me that I have been a fool to respond to those equal opportunity questions on applications. I will not be fit into a box. I will not ascribe to society’s labels. I will not be pigeon-holed. I will not let you decide who I am and what I believe based upon one facet of an infinitely complicated individual.

And my greatest hope for humanity is that we can all, some day, do the same.

“But Jeff,” you may say.  ”His social ideas are his own personal beliefs and they have nothing to do with his position on any proper political issues.  He should be allowed to believe whatever he wants in private.”

The idea that people (especially candidates for the Presidency) can think whatever they want and we shouldn’t evaluate them for it is not just naive, but also dangerous. Our society has grown fearful of confrontation, but confrontation is the only way to correct people when they’re wrong. The President, especially, because he is the representative of our country to the world and his (maybe someday her) words and actions reflect upon our values as a society.  And it is equally naive to believe that someone’s personal beliefs do not affect their politics.

Besides, if it were true that we shouldn’t care about a candidate’s personal beliefs or that we shouldn’t try to correct social injustices, blacks would still be enslaved, women would not be allowed to vote, there would be no unions in America and automobiles would still be rolling death traps, and countless other societal inequities would never have been corrected. Some of the ideas being debated today, such as reproductive or queer rights, fit perfectly within that list.

Now there is a lot of rhetoric being thrown around about how evil Little Ricky is and I don’t necessarily agree with all of it.  I think it is the same type of sensationalism that the people making those characterizations are complaining about in the first place.  That, folks, is hypocrisy, and there is more than enough of it to go around on both sides of the fence.

The idea that different is bad has been a dangerous view since Greek politicians convicted Socrates, basically for thinking differently than them and encouraging critical thought in his students.  That drama ended with Socrates drinking an arsenic cosmo and ending his own life. I hope we don’t get to that point here, but the mud being slung by both sides is equally dirty.

Going back to my original point, though, the idea that the government should be allowed to dictate people’s personal sexual choices and activities, that women should not have the right to make decisions regarding their own bodies and reproductive health, that gays should be treated as second class citizens by having rights such as marriage or serving their country or receiving health benefits for their partners at work withheld simply because of their sexual orientation, that homosexuals should be compared to child molesters, polygamists, and practitioners of incest, and that the leaders of our government should be permitted to express their belief that women do not belong in the workforce and should just be raising families are equally wrong and dangerous.

For the record, every one of those positions has been taken by Rick Santorum, and often several, of the 2012 Republican Presidential candidates (including a woman who apparently believes a woman’s place is in the home).

These ideas have nothing to do with political discourse, though.  They are not about entitlement programs, our economy, defense spending, infrastructure, state’s rights, foreign policy, or any of the host of other responsibilities entrusted to our government.

So if they are not part of the political discourse, why should we care where Rick Santorum, or other Presidential candidates for that matter, stand on them?

Two reasons.

First, the President, his cabinet, and members of Congress have a large pulpit and the ears of a tremendously large number of Americans who are forming their ideas based upon what their political leaders say.  Is this a good thing?  Well, if the system is running effectively, sure it is.  The idea that everyone should research every issue thoroughly before making decisions on them is unrealistic and impractical.  And since some people’s talents lay in areas other than intelligence, we don’t want everyone doing so without a little guidance from responsible people who actually understand the issues.

Our political leaders should fit that bill, in a perfect world.

The second reason is that the President represents our country to the rest of the world and world opinion of America is largely derived by his beliefs and actions.  Unless we plan to enter a period of isolationism, foreign perception of America matters.

The point is that the President influences the common thought of the American people, as well as the world community.  If he is spouting off messages of hate, he will foster hatred.  And that hate can be of conservatives hating liberals or vice versa.  Since politicians wield such social power, it is not only acceptable for us to question their personal beliefs, but it is equally as important as questioning their political ones.

Very bad things can come of these beliefs if we’re not careful.  There was a politician once whose country was in economic turmoil because of a recent war and who promised change.  He had some decent political ideas, but a very strong social agenda and set of beliefs that he believed were in the best interest of his country.  These ideas were not really political ideas, they were his own personal ideas.  That man was Adolph Hitler and Germany’s esteem in the world forum has still not completely recovered from it.

“Jeff,” you might say (why am I doing so many of these hypothetical questions today?).  ”This is not Nazi Germany and Rick Santorum is not Hitler.  That’s a ridiculous analogy!”

In a sense you’re right, if that is what you would say.  Santorum is not Hitler and the idea that what happened in Nazi Germany could ever happen in America is absurd.  I mean, it’s not like this country ever got wrapped up in a patriotic furor that ruined people’s lives, ended their careers, and alienated them from society long after that furor had died down.

Right? (I feel like I should hashtag McCarthy here, but I won’t)

Germany was susceptible to Hitler’s ideas for many reasons.  Part of it is that the people were desperate to change the state of their country and would listen to whatever anyone who promised change was saying.

That doesn’t sound like what’s going on in America at all, right?

Change is not inherently bad, nor is it inherently good.  It is just change.  We can change for the better or for the worse, though.  When government interferes in our personal lives, beyond establishing laws to protect people from the actions of others (laws against theft, murder, fraud, etc.), we inch closer to that totalitarian state and strip people of the liberties this country was founded in order to ensure its citizens have.  Take same-sex marriage, for example.

Confession time. I do not support same-sex marriage (of course, I’m not sure I support opposite-sex marriage, either, but that’s a subject for another day). So what do I choose to do about it?

Not have one.

It is not my place to try to force our government to force other people to not pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit.  I don’t believe there is an asterisk in the Constitution next to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that leads to a footnote exclaiming “except for non-heterosexuals.” So if same-sex couples want to get married, I’m not going to fight for their right to do so, but I’m certainly not going to stand in their way. I’m not going to foist my probably unfairly intolerant moral ideas upon them.

But whether we’re talking about reproductive rights, rights for same-sex couples, equality in the workplace, the right to unionize and bargain collectively, or any of the other issues I addressed earlier in this blog, each of them are ideas that at least one Republican candidate for President has very vocally opposed. Why the double standard?  Why the hypocrisy?

If we keep our mouths shut about this travesty of governmental interference, we might as well enslave blacks again, put Japanese-Americans back in internment camps, repeal the right for women and blacks to vote, and kill another 6,000,000 Jews, because intolerance and permissiveness are what enabled those things to happen in the first place and people standing up against them is what stopped each of them.

So I have no qualms about expressing my strong disapproval for the policies of interference Rick Santorum, Republican leadership, and the Tea Party seem to have embraced. I will not sit idly by and quietly dismiss the hateful words of any politicians as being nothing more than their private beliefs and not being the proper subject of public discourse. I will also not fail to point out the irony of the social interference many Republicans are currently advocating when one of the deepest-held beliefs of the Republican party has always been the importance of less governmental interference.  That is another of the great hypocrisies currently invading American politics.

The greatest demonstration of our freedom comes from an open exchange of ideas.

I do not think Republicans are evil. I do not think Republicans are stupid. On the contrary, I agree with much of what the Republican party supports in many political areas. But I believe that Republicans who have embraced an agenda of hate and intolerance are damaging our liberty and freedom and making a mockery of the principles this country was founded upon.

About ten years ago there was a wave of young Republicans coming up that were trying to distance themselves from the far right.  They believed in gay rights and held some more relaxed ideas about government’s social responsibility.  I remember reading articles about how this was the future direction of the Republican party.  I remember being in the center of that movement as a Republican.  But something happened somewhere along the way and that movement has stalled.

No, it has flat-out disappeared!

Instead, the Republican party, through its right arm clenched in a raised fist known as the Tea Party, has gone to the extreme right.  It has begun promoting political strategy based upon personal belief, then foisted this delusion that people should not be criticizing them for their personal beliefs.  This fantasy that whatever they believe is unquestionably morally best for everyone in our country and anyone who dares disagree with them must be vilified.

The separation of church and state, our freedom of expression, and our freedom of religion were intended to guard against that very thing.

The current pool of Republican Presidential candidates frightens me not because of their views on taxation, federalism, or spending, but because of their belief that it is alright to utilize their time in the spotlight to promote fear, intolerance, hatred, and interfering in people’s freedom.

What’s most sad is that there are plenty of people in the Republican party who are exceptionally well-qualified to be President and who believe in the core Republican value of keeping the government’s nose out of your personal life.  They have good ideas about relevant political issues, would be excellent representatives of our country, and would be excellent leaders of our country.

The saddest thing of all is that, in today’s political climate, we will never hear from them.

But I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty.

Rick Santorum definitely ain’t one of them.

First, so you don’t just think I’m talking out of my hindquarters, let me share a little bit about my political ideology and history.  I was born into a staunchly Democratic family.  I certainly wouldn’t call them liberal by any means, but very definitely Democratic.  By the way, those two things didn’t used to mean the same thing.  The point, though, is that I grew up contentedly accepting that I was a Democrat.

I was perfectly happy with that position, too, because I was also completely politically apathetic. My uncle, having been very politically active and once holding a Presidentially-appointed political position, was not so happy.

“You have a duty to vote, Jeff,” he would tell me.

“I actually enjoy the freedom not to vote,” I began responding to that argument (although never to my uncle’s face).  Our forefathers fought for the freedom to be able to become as involved in the process as we want or to be completely removed from it.

As a disclaimer about political apathy, I should say that if you are going to be politically apathetic and not participate in the political process you also lose your right to complain about it, but I digress.

At some point, I became more interested in politics and even considered running for office myself.  This was when I began to question whether I really was a Democrat, or whether I had just accepted it because it was what my family believed.  Also, I lived in a county that was heavily Republican and I would need to be a Republican if I ever had hope of winning a county election.

Hey, I can be opportunistic, too…

So I joined the Republican party and jumped in head-first.  I became active on a state, county, and local level.  I helped a few Republicans get elected.  I began networking heavily and was making inroads in the party.  It was all part of a plan to ultimately run for Congress.

After a couple of years of that, I realized that I was comfortable with many Republican political ideas, but I was not comfortable calling myself a Republican, so I switched back and began the whole process on the Democratic side.  I even ran for office twice as a Democrat.  I was well on my way to reaching my goal, this time as a Democratic candidate, when my life drastically changed.

What happened is a story for another blog entry since this one already looks to become super long, but I decided to completely withdraw from politics and political life again.

Still, old habits die hard, and I find myself very concerned with what I see in the race for the Republican nomination.

For any Republicans reading this, there is a reason why I am not picking on Democrats in this entry, and it ain’t because they’re above reproach.  There are plenty of scary Democrats out there, too.  The reason the Republicans are a more immediate concern, though, is two-fold.

First, the political currents of this country have been shifting toward Democratic for several years now and Republicans across this country are trying to change that current, so many tend to dig in as far from where that current is headed as possible, and try really hard to pull back.

This happens both with Republicans when the country is trending Democrat and by Democrats when the country is trending Republican. Both tend to not be terribly effective. The current generally begins to change as a result of more moderate views, but the extreme views tend to force more and more of those moderates into hiding while the mud is being slung.  This leaves the extremists in the spotlight.

The second reason is simply that they are the only ones with a contested primary so they are the only ones talking at the moment.

I have my theories on why these things happen and why they are changing in today’s political climate, but that is also a story for another blog.  What I really want to talk about in part two of this blog is those extremists, and I will begin tomorrow with Rick Santorum.

The problem is that I feel a little superficial by limiting myself to relationships.  Not that they aren’t important, but there’s a lot more to life than relationships (even if those things aren’t as important).

America is smack dab in the middle of a fascinating (and somewhat frightening) Presidential primary season that could have sweeping ramifications in America.  States are beginning to pass laws on gay marriage.  Countries around the world are reshaping their governments.

I know this is going to seem like small potatoes by comparison, but we just lost a musical icon.

Whitney Houston was buried yesterday in one of the more bizarre spectacles in a long time.  Bobby Brown was apparently shuffled around by security and left after 20 minutes, a right wing religious group claimed to have picketed the funeral (even though it did not), and my facebook newsfeed was blowing up with more people watching the funeral than I have seen since… the Princess Di funeral?  I dunno, it’s been a damn long time.

I also heard lots of criticism of the attention she was getting.

“Why is her death more tragic than anyone else’s?”

“It’s probably her own fault with the drugs and alcohol.”

“She hadn’t really done anything in a long time, so why should we care?”

This has become a circus sideshow of the most tragic kind.

Okay, so maybe those are all valid thoughts.  But she has touched a lot of people’s lives with her music.  And did you know that she was one of the producers of both of the Princess Diaries movies?  Yeah, who knew?

The real tragedy, though, is that she leaves behind an 18 year-old daughter who just lost her mother.

I lost mine a few years ago in an equally sudden and tragic way.  I can’t claim to know how Bobbi Kristina feels, but I know how profoundly shocking an experience this can be.  And do you think all of the articles, news specials, and public criticism makes it any easier for her?  And do you think she isn’t aware of every bit of it?

It’s hard to think of celebrities as normal people because we don’t treat them like normal people.  Their every move is an oddity, every mistake is criticized, and they are under scrutiny anytime they step outside of their houses.

We don’t think of celebrities as being like us.  We can’t imagine Julia Roberts sitting in front of a TV stuffing her face with Doritos (I have no idea whether she does or not).  We would never imagine Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez (are they even still together) playing Trivial Pursuit.  Can you picture Miley Cyrus belching?

Okay, that one’s pretty easy for me.  Maybe not the best example.

Celebrities are just as susceptible to the mundane as the rest of us are.  The reason I feel sad about Whitney Houston’s death is not because she was a celebrity, an actress, or a producer, but because she was a human.  Because she has family who loved her and friends who will miss her.

Maybe I’m just stupid and just don’t get it, but I think that part of treating everyone the same involves treating everyone the same.  I mean, hell, we learn that beginning in preschool.  Robert Fulghum’s simple formula is just as true today as it was when he wrote it.  But I think he missed something.

Treat others how you would like them to treat you.

If you wouldn’t like a celebrity following you around, taking pictures of you every time you scratch your butt and posting it on the internet, and condemning you every time you make a human mistake, maybe you shouldn’t do it to them.

So the next time you’re going to make fun of someone, or criticize someone, or buy a copy of the National Enquirer or US Magazine (apologies to my friend who is an editor there), imagine how you would feel if that critical eye was turned on you.

Anyway, this blog entry has been a rambling mess, I know.  I’ll chalk that up to the fact that I’m still getting back into the swing of things.  But I think I’m done focusing exclusively on relationships.  I’ll still write about them, but I’m planning to expand my view of the world and tackle some of the other big subjects affecting the world today.

Oh, and I should say that a sure-fire way to get some positive pub from me is to write something positive about me in your own blog.  Therefore, I should once again point you in the direction of Fieldwork in Stilettos, where the author has not only mentioned me, but also called me cute.

I’m blushing right now.

Seriously.

Anyway, I was sitting in a round table discussion about balancing your life as a performer with your life as a scholar.  I was sitting next to a stunning statuesque brunette with long, brown curls and a compelling, angular face framing a brilliant smile (no, I did not write that just because she will be reading this entry… *ahem*).

After a brief chat, I learned that she writes a dating blog.  What a coincidence!  I shared that I used to write a relationship column.

Okay, you may be asking yourself why she refers to hers as a dating blog and I refer to mine as a relationship column?  Well, aside from my trying to be pretentious, I think it has a lot to do with our focus.  Kat writes about her dating life and she unabashedly promotes her writing as being about dating.  I remember reading one of her blog entries where she shared that of the 30 guys she had dated, only three had made it past the fifth date.

My column, on the other hand, was more about my experience as a serial monogamist.  I had some casual dates, in fact I think casual dating is a very good thing.  You learn about yourself, you experience new things, you might make some new friends, and you never know whether something unexpected might happen.  Generally, though, I jumped headlong off the cliff into the freefall of love… a journey that usually ended in a very messy puddle on the rocks below.

But enough of my jaded cynicism.  That’s not what this entry is about.

In the course of our discussion, we began to talk about relationship experts.  Those of you who have been longtime readers of TMP know my feelings on these so-called “relationship experts.”  I’ll save that rant for another day.

A couple of weeks after the conference, though, lo and behold!  She had written a blog about our conversation.

This was a new experience for me, and it really gave me an appreciation for what others in my life felt like when I wrote about them.  I was flooded with a variety of possible responses.

“Hey! I’m not nearly as creepy as she is making me out to be!” (sure, a matter of opinion)

“What the hell!  Did she have a court reporter with her?!?” (quotes around things that aren’t necessarily exact quotes, though, is perfectly fine in blog world)

“Why am I complaining?  Isn’t the most important thing what I think of the point she was making?”

I decided to focus on the last one.

The point I was trying to make is that  we tend to be very myopic in our approach to dating.  We are looking to do something that we enjoy, we dress in a way that we think is appropriate, we talk about subjects we want to talk about, and dates tend to get very awkward very quickly if the two participants are on different pages.

I had a mental chuckle thinking about picking her up for a date with her wearing a short, sexy black number with stilettos, looking as glamorous as I am sure she looks when she goes out on a date.  In the meantime, I am dressed for rock climbing.

Awkward!

Of course, this would only happen with a dating novice.  Dating 101.  You always discuss your plans with your date ahead of time so you both know how to dress.

Over the past couple of years, though, I’ve been trying to challenge my preconceived notions about a lot of things.  Do I do the things I do because I have carefully considered them, and the alternate possibilities, or do I do them because it’s just how someone told me to do it?

As a scholar, I get this all the time.

“You can’t write like this.”

“Why not?  <insert renowned scholar> does it like that…”

“But you’re not <renowned scholar>.  (S)he does it because (s)he is <renowned scholar>.”

“But before they were <renowned scholar> they were just like me.  It was writing like this that made him/her <renowned scholar>.”

“Nope.  Sorry.  You get a C on this paper.”

This gets back to the crux of the issue.  Relationship “experts.”  (I put quotes around that word because I say it with such disdain.  Imagine me saying it in the most sarcastic voice imaginable as I roll my eyes)

They, like most people, live on auto-pilot.  Their perception of the world is limited by their experiences and they cruise through life assuming that their perception is true.  In reality, there is no such thing as true.  True is an idea that humans came up with to moralize the world around us.  We have an almost unlimited arsenal of artificial constructs that we take as incontrovertible truth when they are nothing short of balms to assuage our complete bewilderment at the world around us.

Whoah!  Where did that come from?!?  Sorry for the “there is no spoon” moment.

The point I was trying to make with my dating blogger friend is that there may be a better way to go about dating.  Unfortunately, she was pulled away (or was I the one who was pulled away? I have a crappy memory sometimes) and I never actually got there.

I could create a list of new experiences I have had in my life because I was open to trying something completely new.  I have had wonderful relationships because I have striven to not have a “type” that limits the pool of potential matches.  I try to roll with the punches and find out what my prospective date is interested in so that I can increase my arsenal of experience.

Am I right?  Is she wrong?  Who’s got the better of it?

In reality, neither of us.  And both of us.

If what she’s doing is working for her and making her happy, then she’s doing perfectly fine.  I worry that defining yourself as an expert dater prevents you from being in a relationship.  After all, if you fall in Love with someone your identity has been shattered.  That is a demon for her to struggle with, though, not me.

If I lived in the same general area as her, I think I would have enjoyed going out with her.  And I would have dressed to impress (I clean up pretty good).  I’m sure it would have been a wonderful, enlightening date.

And we never would have gone out on a second.

Not because we are incompatible, but because that’s just the way these things work out.

Of course, maybe she would have surprised me.  Maybe I would have surprised myself.  Maybe we would have transcended the typical first date bullshit and had a truly meaningful experience.  Maybe she would have answered the door in her harness and climbing shoes.

We shall never know.

As it is, we are left to hypothesize on what might never have been and justify each of our biased views of reality.

After all, we’re bloggers.  That’s just what we do.

I’m speaking, of course, about straight marriage.

Surely, he jests, you might be thinking. But no, I am dead serious. Marriage amounts to nothing more than legal blackmail. It forces people into a legal obligation to each other which they are perfectly capable of entering voluntarily. It is so difficult to leave, though, that millions of Americans choose to live in agony rather than spend the time and money necessary to secure their happiness.

Government and religious leaders have colluded for millennia to perpetuate the belief that marriage is good and being single is evil. The facts do not support the conclusion.

There are countless examples of happy couples who have loving, healthy relationships without getting married. I always used to point to Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, but I guess they’re not really my paradigm anymore. But still, look at how long they were together compared to most Hollywood couples.

If you really want proof that a couple can spend a lifetime together in a healthy, committed relationship, look no further than the gay community. Until recently, same-sex marriage was against the law in every state. Even now, official recognition of same-sex unions is relatively rare.

Despite this fact, millions of gay couples are in strong, healthy relationships. While straight married couples are getting divorced at an alarming rate (the frequency of divorces is nearly half that of marriages), gay couples are, in some ways, becoming the model for healthy relationships.

Many of the historical reasons for getting married have also gone by the wayside. In olden days, women were not legally permitted to own property, so it was necessary for a woman to get married to enjoy the benefits of her husband’s title and property. Thank heavens that is no longer the case!

Legitimacy was another historical reason for marriage. A child born out of wedlock was not permitted to inherit property from his father. This was why being a bastard child was so heavily stigmatized. Legitimacy has no bearing on property ownership or distribution in the United States, so that is no longer a valid reason for marriage either.

Religion has always had its hands in its followers’ lives, but even that reason has been minimized in recent years. Religions have been relaxing their stance on nontraditional relationships, some even officially accepting same-sex couples. Even religions can make progress.

But while the non-romantic reasons for getting married have all but disappeared, the burdens of marriage are stronger than ever.

You see, marriage changes things. I hate to stereotype, but most women began fantasizing about their wedding when they were young girls. They’ve built up this gloriously romantic idea in their mind for decades and only think of marriage as a covenant of love between two people.

Unfortunately, there is no fine print or disclaimers when you get married, so most people fail to realize that there are consequences to marriage. For example, marriage puts an artificial limit on how you can own and distribute your personal property. Did you know that if you try to write your spouse out of your will, the government forcibly grants that spouse a portion of your estate? It’s called a “forced share.”

Married couples also own all of their property jointly. While the specifics vary from state to state, the gist of it is that you forfeit the right to own anything of your own when you get married.

Many people live under the mistaken impression that marriage provides a tax benefit. Speak to tax professionals, though, and except in rare cases, married couples filing jointly pay more taxes than they would filing separately. Tax professionals lovingly refer to this phenomenon as the “marriage penalty.”

And what happens if things don’t work out? Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a divorce? If it is amicable and you hire a cheap lawyer, it is not unheard of to spend $5,000, or more, to sever the marital ties! If you’ve got kids and the divorce is contentious? Well, start buying lottery tickets.

It’s no wonder people spend years in failed, destructive marriages, growing more and more bitter and resentful every day—they can’t afford to put an end to their misery. Of course, avoiding problems only makes them worse, so choosing not to get a divorce only causes more bitterness and pain.

The fact of the matter is that marriage is an outdated and outmoded institution which is destructive to the fabric of our society. States such as Michigan, which have constitutionally banned same-sex marriage, should be applauded for their support of the gay community and their sensitivity and concern for the health and stability of same-sex relationships.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to stand up and demand equal treatment. It’s unfair for the gay community to reap the benefits of a constitutional ban on marriage while the rest of us are forced to accept this destructive institution and to submit to the controlling effects it has on our lives.

I encourage each of you to write your Congressmen and demand a constitutional ban on straight marriage. It’s about time we all stood up for what’s right and put an end to this madness.

I’ve always gotten along better with women than I have with men, and as a result most of my close friends have always been women. Lately, though, I’ve noticed two trends that combine to make it nearly impossible to navigate the waters of intergender friendship.

The first is an apparent presumption that the only reason someone of one gender would be friendly to someone of another gender is to get some. This, of course, presumes an ulterior motive.

In other words, someone can’t be friendly just because they’re friendly. There has to be some underlying salacious motivation. Heaven forbid a man should strike up a conversation with a woman just for the sake of striking up a conversation!

The second is a complete disregard for the chain of command.

I was always brought up by a certain code. When you have a problem with someone, you try to talk it out with them. If that doesn’t work, then you might work your way up the chain of command.

Society has become so litigious that almost every time someone feels uncomfortable in any type of a situation it has to go into lawsuit damage control. This is doubly so in a university environment.

Students at a university have the formal support of that institution to help resolve their problems. Between supervisors, RAs, teachers and department heads, there are plenty of avenues for students to take to resolve disputes.

The problem is that these institutional safeguards have to take every situation seriously and deal with everything in a very formal manner. While that is not bad in itself, it means that simple misunderstandings can easily be blown out of proportion.

Today, it seems like anyone who has a problem with someone else tries to find a third party to resolve the problem for them. Of course, when you bring a third party into a dispute, you kick up the stakes.

There is no question that it is easier to resolve differences with people when you do so privately. If someone has done something wrong, it is easier to save face and make the situation better when nobody else knows about it.

When you bring in a third party, it’s impossible to save face and resolve problems quietly. Battle lines are drawn and trenches are dug. You’ve forced everyone into defensive positions and any hope of a positive resolution is almost gone.

These two issues combine to make it nearly impossible to be a nice guy. A guy might strike up a conversation with a girl because he’s just being friendly. Far too often, though, that girl will grow uncomfortable because she assumes that he is hitting on her.

Rather than simply say no and let the moment pass, or even let the guy know that she feels uncomfortable with his approach, she will go directly to someone she thinks can exert some influence over the situation.

Of course, if you look at it from the guy’s perspective, he’s just being a friendly guy who doesn’t realize he has done anything wrong. Now, the powers-that-be are involved and he’s been branded as inappropriate.

All because he was just being friendly.

I have to be fair, though. I was just speaking with a friend who is being pursued by a guy she’s not interested in. She has politely said no to him on several occasions, yet he persists.

I know that it is a very frustrating situation for her, and I can imagine it must be difficult dealing with persistent guys who don’t take the hint.

That doesn’t mean you should stop giving it, though. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, right?

Aside from that, any decent human being who learns that he has hurt someone’s feelings or made them feel uncomfortable should feel bad. But do they deserve to feel that way?

I suppose I, as a guy, have only my own gender to blame for it. There are plenty of men out there who seem to assume that the only reason attractive women were placed on Earth is to sleep with them.

Although, women aren’t a whole lot better. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been accosted by women I am not interested in, and every time I turn them away they seem to take it as an indication that they’re just not trying hard enough.

No means no!

And maybe that’s the lesson for all of us to take from this diatribe. It’s okay to express an interest in someone you’re interested in. You must, however, be sensitive to their wishes and take no as their answer.

And if you’re the object of that interest, just make sure you say no before you take the next step. You’ll be surprised how satisfying the resolution to the problem can be.

First of all, I feel I should defend online dating in general. I was recently on an online dating site (for purely researching purposes, of course) and the first thing it showed me after I signed up was a list of warnings.

The top warning was that online dating is not safe and that you should not meet someone you only “know” online.

Um, am I the only one who sees the paradox there?

Anyway, I disagree. You realize that there were creepy, violent people before the Internet, right? Dating online is no more or less, safe than dating in real life.  An online date commits an act of violence and it’s front-page news. Someone commits an act of violence against someone they met in a bar and it doesn’t even make the back page.

To me, that’s a double standard. They’re both equally wrong, and both equally prevalent.

But I digress.

My main problems with online dating are twofold: money and gender.

I don’t see the point in spending money to meet someone just so I can go out and spend money on her. It’s not as if online dating is any more effective than offline dating, it’s just more expensive. That reason is pretty straightforward.

Gender is a bit more difficult. Online dating is an entirely different experience for a man than it is for a woman. Where it may be somewhat more common for “real” women to initiate conversations with men, it happens far less often on dating websites.

The main reason is that they don’t have to.

My friend Tabby and I once joined a popular online dating site together, just to see what would happen. I took full advantage of my initial trial period and sent e-mails to anyone I thought looked interesting. Tabby just uploaded a couple of pictures and filled out her profile.

At the end of the week, I had no responses, no new emails, and a couple dozen profile views. Want to guess what Tabby’s stats were?

She had received dozens of e-mails and was narrowing on 5,000 profile views.

It proved to me that the real catches don’t have to do anything to meet someone online. In fact, if they’re attractive, they probably don’t even have time to seek guys out. They’re too busy sifting through their countless e-mails.

And how do they decide whom to respond to? It’s certainly not in any meaningful manner.

How can someone possibly convey the essence of who they are in 1,000 characters? Online dating profiles certainly don’t favor the loquacious.

Aside from that, what do online dating profiles really mean? I remember stumbling across an ex’s online dating profile after we had broken up. I couldn’t help but wonder, after reading her profile, why I had broken up with her.

It’s because she is more than a collection of words on a computer screen. She is a real person, and the chemistry that makes for a good relationship doesn’t translate into binary.

The lesson I learned from that experience was that people are always trying to put their best foot forward. Obvious, right?

Okay, maybe this will be a bit more helpful.  When people fill out online dating profiles, they tend to fill it out as an idealized version of themselves.  In other words, they tend to think of all of the things they might possibly consider being interested in so they will attract the greatest number of potential matches.

And we all know that a sexy cleavage pic trumps all when it comes to most guys.  There’s nothing wrong with an attractive woman (hey, I’m a guy, too), but that only goes so far.  I want someone with substance, and you can’t find that from a picture or a few choice words in a profile.

So, if it’s all right with you, I think I’ll steer clear of match.com. I prefer to find my dates the old-fashioned way; face-to-face.  That’s way more effective anyway.

Well, in theory, at least…