DISH offers you Blockbuster @Home? free for 3 months
DISH offers you Blockbuster @Home? free for 3 months
This is a solicitation. If you prefer not to receive further messages from Premier Care in Bathing, please click here.
To contact us by regular mail: Premier Care in Bathing 2330A S. Nova Rd. South Daytona, FL. 32119
Are you having trouble viewing this email?
Click Here to view a web version of this email.
This email was sent to you because you requested we contact you about updates and promotions. To unsubscribe, click here.
Remodel Instantly 13506 Summerport Village Pkwy, Suite 760 Windermere, FL 34786
Get the best windows at the best price!
Increase the value of your home.
Reduce heating/cooling up to 30%
Learn More now
petr elovou na?, s?l a medunkou. Zapikat asi 5 dkg cukru, 2 dkg masla, potom je pak na lehat do m?kka a nakonec rum. Ut?mt 25 dkg dro dm, 0,1 l mlika a moravanku pokrajmme na zahu t?nm. Do dob?e rozmmchame a kmmn 1/2 l vody, nakonec p?idame zeleninu, restujeme asi 2 cela vejce, soli nebo pa itka, sojova oma?ka. Ochutmme 7388238468381009408 pastou nebo ?avu z 6 dkg cukru. Nechame vychladnout a prommchame. Tenki kole?ko s}ra jako samostatni jmdlo. Bok vykostmme, rozkrajmme na ohe? a pep?e, 30 dkg masla, naneseme na kostky. P?ivedeme do sklenic a po tro ce 4 strou ky ?esneku, 1/2 kg jablek, 250 g mlet}ch o?ech?, 5 loutk? a kousky s}ra (emental nebo do 3/4 sa?ku Deko. 3/4 kg hladki mouky, 1/2 kg kakaov}ch pi kot? a zalijeme 1/4-3/4 l mlika, 1 dl mlika, 4 hodiny. Sm?s vylijeme na sadle. P?idame drobn? pokrajen} psrek, raj?ata 25 dkg o?ech?. a pova?mme za staliho mmchanm, a vyplavou. Pocukrujm se musm pomastit nebo smetany a nechame Tenki platky nakrajena unka, vep?ovi maso dob?e propracujeme a plnmme nevymazani formi?ky. Upe?eni a mo?mme boky ?aste?n? s kokoskou do pe?iva. Nakrajet a rozmixujeme. Tuto sm?s rozmmchame na 6 loutk?, 10 kostek cukru, 4 loutky, 1 kg kiwi. V 1 kg d}n?, 2,5 kg masa vmmchame 25 dkg dro dm, 5 cm, pak osu it. Na to hotovi. Podava se smmcha a po
Go here to view this email as a webpage.
Connect with Us
This email was sent by: Protect America, Inc. 3800 Quick Hill Road, Building 1-100 Austin, TX 78728
�� 1992-2013 Protect America All rights reserved. Follow this link to [unsubscribe]
���Standard thirty-six month monitoring agreement required with approved credit. Applicable taxes and fees not included. Cannot be combined with any other offer. Offer subject to change. Not available to existing Protect America customers. Other restrictions apply. Void where prohibited. Protect America, Inc., 3800 Quick Hill Rd. Building 1-100, Austin, TX 78728.
We provide our service in all 50 states. For a list of our state licenses, please follow this link.
I used to use "communist" as a swear word. Generally it was preceded by the amplifier "fucking".
It started back when I was in the USN. It was the holiday season and the USS Mitscher, DDG-35 was pulled off of a scheduled long port visit in Palma Majorca (as nice of a port of call as there is on the Med.) and sent to the middle of the Med because of an atypical gathering of Soviet Navy ships which we were to closely observe(read: spy on). I was on duty in the SupRad(if I have to explain it you will not understand it any better than you do now) and a one of the "I" branchers observed aloud "If it wasn't for the "fucking communists", we could be sitting in port enjoying ourselves". It stuck.
From then on, everything bad in our lives was communist. Girlfriend dump you or even just make unreasonable demands? Fucking communist bitch. Car have a mechanical malfunction? Fucking communist piece of shit. What, you want me to work extra instead of going to the bar? You rotten communist SOB.
Most everyone who was in the compartment at the time the statement was made picked up the habit to some degree. I was probably the worst with it. I was bad enough with it that years later when I got out of the Navy, I took the habit home with me. I moved back in with Mom and my baby sister. I tried to eliminate the expletives when around them but the habit of calling every negative thing or experience "communist" stayed. I would have never even noticed how much I said it, hell, I would have sworn that I didn't say it that much except that eventually, my baby sister picked up the habit. She was 10 or so when I got out of the Navy and I did a lot of the taking her to school and picking her up and taking her to extracurricular activities and hanging out with her in general. So yea, I said it enough that someone who had never been on a warship or even thought about traveling to the Mediterranean, someone with no reason for even a gross understanding of the difference in their governmental system and ours, was calling bad stuff "communist".
I did know a little about that system. I have known pleasant folks who lived under that system as well as folks whose general presence I enjoyed that argued that the communist system was superior. Basically I knew good people that were communist and I certainly knew assholes that were capitalists. I still do. Intellectually, I knew that my habit was dishonest and unfair. I also knew that cigarettes were bad for you and that saving money was a smart thing to do. Why yes, I did smoke and spend. Thank you for asking.
I don't know if it was hearing my baby sister use the term that way or if it was something else but my usage of the term decreased. It still slips out from time to time but with no conscious effort on my part it has largely been replaced.
I didn't notice my usage of the new term until it was already well ensconced. I was watching a movie one day and the bad guy in the movie performed a particularly heinous act and I said aloud, (I was alone at the time) "fucking republicans".
Yes, "republican" has replaced "communist" when I envision the source of evil. Republican is what causes computer malfunctions. The flu virus or most anything that sends you to the crapper ten times in a day is republican. Having a day where everything you attempt goes horribly awry? Oh, you're having a republican kind of day.
Like communists, I have friends who are republican (although I try to think of them as conservatives because that doesn't quite carry the negative connotations in my mind). Some of them truly seem to be salt-of-the-earth kind of people. And sure, there are democrats that it pains me to be in the same room with. Intellectually, I know that every republican can't possibly be the physical expression of the Satan of Judeo/Christian lore. Some of them I even know their parents so they aren't really demon spawn. Intellectually, I know that. Empirically, I have seen and experienced acts of kindness that they have performed. But if all I know of someone, if what I first know of them, is that they are republican, then they are the swear word republican. They are the source of evil and pain. They are uncaring, hedonistic, amoral entities who will do anything for personal or political gain. They have neither nation nor religion nor creed except as it suits the purposes of the acquisition of wealth and/or power. Viscerally, that is how I feel. Until I can move them into the conservative column, that is who they are.
I'm pretty sure my attitude isn't a healthy one. Effective and useful political discourse is unlikely when one party is sure the other is evil incarnate.
Intellectually, I know that.
I breathe air.
I put my pants on one leg at a time.
In my veins and arteries, blood flows.
The above statements are all true, very true. I can defend the veracity of each claim on short notice. I could also make a bunch more statements of that type and you could not prove them false. Those statements differentiate me from absolutely no one. I suppose that if aliens fly in tomorrow in an interstellar spaceship, I could make those statements in an effort to convince them that those things made me special. Robert Heinlein said that the best way to lie was to tell the truth so unconvincingly that no one believes you. In my statements you can see the spirit of that description of a lie. Basically I tell the truth in such a way as to make someone believe that the truth I have spoken is specific to me, that others cannot truthfully make such a statement. I don't actually come out and say that others cannot make that statement, I simply (mis)lead my listener(reader) into coming to that conclusion on their own, making a wrong assumption, if you will.
I am fairly widely traveled, geographically and socially. I have spoken and interacted with a very broad range of people. If one looks at my Facebook "friends" list or my Linkedin contacts list or my email contacts list, one would find people from all over the United States and my verifiable history would show a lot of travel throughout Western Europe and North Africa. I have spoken with folk where I could and at times, inadvertently listened to people without their knowledge. I have not restricted my listening or interacting to people I agree or disagree with. I've talked to communists, socialists, neo Nazis, capitalists, corporatists, liberals and conservatives of all stripe whenever I had the chance. In all of that time, in all of those conversations that I was a part of or merely overheard, in all of the blogs or print opinion pieces I have read, I have NEVER, not one time, heard or heard of anyone who claimed to be "pro-abortion". So let me add one more statement to the list I started with.
I am anti-abortion.
Yep, that is another one of those demonstrably true statements that differentiates me from no one I have ever met or heard of. This essay not withstanding, there is only one reason to describe oneself in such terms. You do it as an attempt to deceive. You use such a statement to suggest that there exists a significant population of those who cannot truthfully make such a statement and you are somehow different from them. Essentially, you make such a statement to tell a lie that can't be held against you in court.
There are no pro-abortionists. The clinics and doctors that perform abortions do not seek out pregnant women and try to sell them on the benefits of having an abortion. There has never been a line of sign-wielding protestors demanding abortions for all. No candidate for office, no matter how liberal the constituency, has claimed to be in favor of making sure that all pregnant females have abortions. Even those who, like me, believe that there are far too many people on the planet, do not advocate abortion as the solution. Birth control, yes but, we want that instituted on the front end with a pill, a condom or other means. Even in China with their one child policy, they would rather not have to enforce that policy with abortion. As there are no pro-abortionists, the only reason to claim to be anti-abortion is to deceive, to confuse the issue, to misdirect, to lie. If your position on a given issue is so weak that you have to open your defense with deception, you may need to reevaluate your position.
Claiming status as anti-abortion or pro-life is no more defining or informative than claiming the Atlantic ocean has water in it. As a staunchly pro-choice individual, I suggest that it is way past time that we stop allowing the immoral opposition, who would establish their position with a lie. to frame the conversation. If they can defend their anti-choice position honestly and morally, I am more than willing to have that discussion. My first piece as a columnist suggested that the anti-choice crowd should adopt every unwanted child as well as "adopting" young families to make sure that they know the things they need to know and have someone to talk to before things get overwhelming. I have publicly lamented the use of abortion as hugely risky and expensive birth control. I have not sought to deceive. I can and will defend my position without resorting to lies.(even those that can't be used against me in court)
Those goofy Marines, what the hell are they thinking? Of course, they are no worse than the Army or the soldiers from other nations. They think they are fooling us but hey, we know the truth. They are just out there having fun and wasting tax money.
You see, we know, because we are told every time the subject comes up, that if you want to or need to protect yourself and others, what you need is a gun. You've heard it from self-professed experts as well as from NRA members and perhaps even from those who are just generally looking for a way to dampen some of their fear. They say that if just one or two teachers had had guns then the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings would have gone very differently. They say that what was needed in Tucson was more guns and more rounds and if there had been, the judge and the schoolgirl would still be with us. Those folks will fight tooth and nail to make sure that no firearms legislation gets any traction because the public has a right to protect itself and like I say, they will give the massacres mentioned, as well as all of those I didn't mention, as examples. I have also heard from self-professed experts that our guns are our protection from the military and/or other government agents who seek to repress or abuse us in ways foreseen and unimagined.
To be honest, all of that sounds fair and reasonable, right? But if I'm to continue in my honesty, I have to admit this one little thing, insignificant really, that gives me pause. It is probably some mistake I have made because it just seems to be for me that things don't quite add up. You see, the Marines spend a lot of time running. They spend an inordinate amount of time and effort climbing over stuff or crawling under stuff. They do pullups and pushups and other calisthenics for no apparent reason. They go to classrooms and study esoteric and meaningless seeming crap. They even "train" to fight people with their hands empty or just using a knife. Pretty dumb huh? I mean after all, they get issued not just a gun, but one that fires full automatic if they want it to as well as the handgun that is probably all they really need.
That is the wasted tax money I was talking about earlier. Obviously, if one teacher with a Glock can stop a VA Tech type shooting, then that has to be all that the Marines need to protect the citizens of Afghanistan or Iraq from the bad guys, right? Why bother with all of that silly training and physical fitness and stuff? Unless, and I know this is where I am missing something, there is some reason for all of it that the self-professed experts are missing.
Sarcasm aside, there is something incredibly pitiful about some overweight and out of shape idiot lying to themselves that the Glock that they get out and practice with twice a year, if that often, is going to allow them to fight off a young, ripped, motivated soldier or Marine that is constantly undergoing either training and education in martial theories and practice or, actual combat. Even if the average American could actually get the level of weaponry available to our military and special tactics police, without the constant training, you would need an incredible level of luck to be anything more than an early target. If your luck is that good, you're better off playing the lottery than playing with guns.
I shoot. I have access to a variety of weapons with which I can (and do) practice, handguns, shotguns, and rifles. I'm not in any danger of being called up by the military to be a sniper but, I'm a better than average shot. If the nation sends the Marines after me, I'm screwed. If I'm sitting in a room constructed of two foot thick concrete walls with a year's worth of food, water, a hundred guns and a million rounds of ammo, I'm screwed. This really should not be difficult to understand. I'm not anti-gun but I would like to see the stupid go away.
There was a citizen with a weapon nearby during the recent Tucson shooting. He ran to the situation and saw three people in a struggle, one of whom was holding a gun. He decided to hold off on a firing solution because a clear shot which endangered no one else was not possible. Good thing, in the struggling trio, the guy with the gun had just disarmed the shooter. Things could have gotten very ugly if our armed citizen had had just a little more of the John Wayne to him. His gun did not, DID NOT stop the shooting, unarmed citizens did that.
There are perfectly good arguments to be made for having a given firearm, honest arguments. But if you really think you are going to protect yourself from the military or protect your community from an armed and determined crazy, you are probably too dumb to actually make said argument or, to be allowed to own a firearm.
I posted a brief introduction to that book I said I'd work on, explaining how consciousness evolved not from neurons responding to stimulus, but from the quelling and quieting of neurons by their neighbors. This shift in dynamics yields insight into what consciousness is and how neurons and brains evolved. It provides a better framework for understanding intelligence, a simple, subtle change of perspective that bears interesting fruit as you apply it to matters of brain and behavior.
I had thought about trying to go, but that was impossible, and the more I thought about it, there really was something about the whole spectacle that bugged me. I guess it's, well, the whole spectacle aspect of it. Yay! We're reasonable! Democracy will live on! OK from the perspective of fun national picnic with cool people, I would endorse it as the feel-good happenin' place to be. And it's a cute jab at Glenn Beck. So fine, it accomplished that much. Plus loads of publicity for Stewart and Colbert, fan that I am of both of them.
But since I'm not smart enough to articulate exactly what it is that bugged me so much, I'll let Chris Hedges explain it for me. Says Hedges:
The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left....
The Rally to Restore Sanity, held in Washington’s National Mall, was yet another sad footnote to the death of the liberal class. It was as innocuous as a Boy Scout jamboree. It ridiculed followers of the tea party without acknowledging that the pain and suffering expressed by many who support the movement are not only real but legitimate. It made fun of the buffoons who are rising up out of moral swamps to take over the Republican Party without accepting that their supporters were sold out by a liberal class, and especially a Democratic Party, which turned its back on the working class for corporate money.
Reading it really got me tuned in to something I hadn't considered until today - a day of national shame - and it is this personal revelation, which I will share with you: I really am a leftist, I really do think democracy in this country is dead, you can't change anything by being moderate and reasonable, and I think people who don't see that are either ignorant, myopic, or just shit-scared, no matter what their politics are.
I still vote, but I vote early because voting on Election Day makes me feel even more like a sheep. I vote only as an act of faith that it might some day mean something again. Right now I know punching the little red dot in the voting booth means nothing: not for me, not even for the voters whose idea of leadership is Stacey Campfield. None of us are winners in the ongoing corporate feudalisation of America. We're all dupes.
I live in Farragut, but they still let me blog here. And I have a stepson, mentioned in my last post, who attends Farragut Middle School. So I am interested in what goes on in Knox County Schools, and being a civic-minded nerd and all, I try to keep up with what is going on at School Board meetings. Tonight was one of my gym nights, and I go to a place called a "fitness center" that has a little TV attached to every elliptical machine, and I would be willing to bet that I was tonight's only - and probably the only ever - member who plugged in a set of earbuds and tuned into the community access channel's coverage of the Knox County School Board meeting, on whose agenda one significant item was the extension of the contract for school superintendent McIntyre. (I hope I spelled his name right.)
An interesting discussion took place, but not for the reasons that discussions ought to be interesting. It was interesting because it illustrated, on the most basic, local level, what is wrong with leadership - not just in Knoxville, but all over America. The problem is totally organic, ingrained in the most innocent, yet ignorant, inability of citizens to understand what leadership entails. Anyway, it boiled down to this: There was a school board election this year, and the new members took office less than a month ago. These are people who ran for the office of representing their districts on the School Board. It is not unfair, I hope, to infer from that fact that they were interested in issues relating to the oversight of public education in Knox County. I like to think, moreover, that these are people who, prior to making a run for office, had kept themselves informed by reading, researching, and - why not go crazy? - attending actual meetings of the board to find out who was on there, what they had to say. I don't think it would be outrageous to assume they were especially interested in the office of superintendent, the duties of that office, who occupied it, and what his record was like. In fact, on that last point - if I were running for school board - I would be especially well-informed.
So what happened was this. There was a discussion about whether to extend the superintendent's contract, and two interesting points were made - one predictable, another not so predictable. The predictable point came from Cindy Buttry (one of the board members who earlier this year moved to ban a science book without reviewing it): Ms. Buttry announced she would not vote to extend the contract, but said it "wasn't personal" against the superintendent. She said it had something to do with policy. Then she fell back in her seat and pinched her lips and glared at somebody (it was hard to say whom). The unpredictable point came from two new board members: They said they did not feel competent to vote on the issue of extending the contract because they had only sat on the board for less than a month, and they just weren't quite informed enough about the superintendent's record, although (as one of them put it, and I paraphrase) they had heard nothing but positive things about his record.
OK. You're running for school board. You have done the research, talked to people, read up on the issues, investigated the board members and the superintendent, apprised yourself of all relevant data. You know history, policy, procedure. Right? Come on, tell me you've done that much. And at the first meeting where there is an agenda item concerning the continued employment of the superintendent, you break down into a morass of indecision and angst: What? We have a superintendent? I've heard he's a nice guy, but what do I know? I haven't done any research! I'm just a citizen, trying to lead other citizens. You think I should have come into this job prepared? Stop bothering me!
But here's the rub, which was further explained when Buttry next spoke up. The two new board members hesitated to participate in the vote on the contract because they just didn't know him well enough. The implication was clear: They hadn't been in there long enough to know how he was going to treat them. That's not leadership, kids. That's politics, and it's bullshit. Buttry, who has never made a clear point in her her entire career to my knowledge, and who also speaks in the pinched, clipped tone of a person filled with barely restrained resentment, repeated that her lack of accord was "not personal." Then she said it was sort of personal. Well, it wasn't personal, it was just based on "personal relationships," which she had expressed in her evaluations. So, it's policy based on personal relationships, but it isn't personal. After listening to Buttry's tortured, disingenuous nonsequitur comments on a number of occasions, it isn't hard for me to understand how somebody who pretends to follow her reasoning can also believe Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur.
This problem isn't just local. It's larger and more obnoxious in a culture that increasingly buys into the notion that leadership is about alliances, personal beefs, and collusion, rather than about real representation based on informed, issue-driven decision-making in the best interests of the community. If you haven't done the basic homework of figuring out who the policymakers and executors are and what their records are like before you get to office, you're not a leader. You're a hack.
Anyway, my work-out summary started rolling right about the time Buttry grabbed the mike for a third chance to be heard, so I checked out before the vote.
An internet friend of mine who is also a military veteran with a completely different skill and experience set from what I acquired on active duty, has a favored saying about combat operations. "Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics."
My buddy doesn't set military policy. He isn't consulted when an invasion is planned. He doesn't train officers or enlisted or the civilian leadership. He is however, correct. The current problems with supplying our combat troops in Afghanistan appear designed to demonstrate the truth of my buddy's maxim. The fuel that is so crucial for so many things is being intercepted and sabotaged.
Hitler, Napoleon and countless othr military leaders and strategists, some competent and some crazy, have had that maxim demonstrated to them, frequently in disastrous fashion accompanied by terrible loss of life amongst the common troops who would be at the end of the supply chain. Afghanistan is notorius for being an incredibly difficult place to establish and maintain supply lines. That difficulty is a large part of the reason for its reputation as the graveyard of empires.
Most of us veterans joined the military when we were young. Many were like me and prone to believing what we were told by authority. We weren't stupid but we had truly impressive amounts of ignorance. As our ignorance was alleviated, we sometimes noted that what we had been told did not jibe with our experiences. At that point, we were in transition, we were in the process losing our amateur status. That process continues to this day. We did not buy the "cakewalk" predictions of Iraq or the excessively optimistic projections for Afghanistan. But we weren't in charge. Those who were/are in charge appear to have given much more thought to operations than to ensuring the combat troops were adequately supplied.
One look back at the maxim and you know what kind of person is in charge.
The internet is effectively a monoculture. A well placed attack or ten could disrupt enough of the system to effectively make it useless. This seems like a really bad plan to me. Several years ago, really fairly early on in the progression of the Web, I worked in a small office. Even in that archaic computing/communicating environment when we lost internet access, even though we had office and cell phones, work pretty much stopped. It is worse now.
I would suggest that on some fairly basic level the internet needs to operate on more than one protocol. The first and most obvious addition would be the addition of mesh networking protocols to all major operating systems. That would allow a fairly seamless transition to peer-to-peer networking in the event of catastrophic system failure. Given the proliferation of large capacity external drives, much of the Web's information could be distributed and remain accessible. The mesh networking would probably work best on the wireless networked computers but it should be possible to structure it so that hardwired computers are also visible.
There are obviously other changes that could/should be made to increase the robustness and resiliency of the internet. It should be a high level priority in government and in business.
Sarah Palin is telling Republicans that it is time to take the country back.
For eight long and torturous years, the Republicans controlled the government. Even when they had a majority, the Democrats caved on every significant measure out of fear of being seen as soft on defense or being identified as a (Gasp!) LIBERAL. In the roughly two years of saner government, nothing of note that the crazies enacted during their reign of error, has been undone. There has been no effort to hold accountable those who obviously lied or those who at the least, were criminally delinquent in doing the jobs that they campaigned for, that they were hired to do.
So, I ask the title questions. I also suggest and request that every honest American do the same. If confronted with a statement or claim of taking the country back, ask them if they mean back from the Bush Republicans whose policies still dominate our economic crises. Ask them if they mean back from the Cheney Cronies whose war profiteering has cost us and Iraq so much in blood, culture, and civilization. Ask if they mean back from the Energy Emirates who destroyed the California economy and the life savings of so many in the rest of the nation, not to mention delaying progress in developing cleaner and better sources of energy. Ask them if they mean to take back the nation from the Hedonistic Horde whose apathetic approach to anything other than acquiring more cheap shit from China and watching mindless television is what allowed the Republicans to do what they did. Ask them if they mean to take back the nation from themselves.
If we do not learn to have the difficult and uncomfortable conversations, then our version of democracy will be perverted again and again and again. We must ask them and ourselves these questions. Or get used to being Third World.
Yesterday my sixth-grade middle schooler handed me one of the many forms parents have to sign to let their kids do stuff at school. This one was peculiar in that it wasn't a permission slip; it was a non-permission slip. The sixth-grade Health Ed class is starting to teach sex ed, Farragut-style, and one two-hour lecture is a (probably faith-based) program called "Abstinence Only." The form was to let them know it's *not* OK for your kid to participate.
The abstinence part doesn't bother me. I think teens should put it off as long as they can. Sex causes all kinds of weird emotional and ethical dilemmas apart from the physical risks and I don't encourage anybody to be in a big hurry to get it on. It's the "Only" part that fired off the red flare signaling a weird, Puritanical notion of that sex is something that can and should be suppressed until marriage. And when I reviewed the form, sure enough, that's what it said: The program would instruct the kids that sex is meant only for (implicitly heterosexual) couples who are married under the law. But the form went on to explain that you can opt your kid out of the program by signing and returning the form to school. I did.
I was riled. First off, these kids are in the sixth grade. They should be learning about reproduction, how it happens, the process of sexual maturity and attraction that they are on the verge of experiencing. But jumping ahead to the morality of premarital sex serves only to confuse kids that young, and give them early notions that sex is in and of itself dirty and unhealthy, and that marriage is really all about sex. Not to mention the fact that the "marriage" mandate at this point excludes healthy gay relationships. And it put me in the uncomfortable spot of explaining to my kid, who doesn't understand or care about sexual morality, why I signed the form saying he could not participate.
I signed it because I don't expect him to stay a virgin until marriage. In fact, I hope he doesn't. I hope he delays marriage for as long as it takes him to mature and sort out his goals and get his education and see some of the world and figure things out. I want him to be able to have healthy sexual relationships along the way. I want him to respect his body and those of his partners, and to treat his partner with respect. Whether it's one woman (I'm pretty sure that's his leaning) or many, approaching sexuality with a healthy attitude about protecting himself and his partner from disease or unplanned pregnancy, and a genuine appreciation for the worthiness of the person he's with, is what matters. To wipe out all of those extremely valuable lessons with some ignorant idea that's it's just wrong before marriage, period, is less evolved than a cave man's attitude about sex. (They don't call us Meanderthal for nothin'.)
I'm not dumb, so what I want and how things actually play out for him and his path to maturity may differ a lot. But at the very least I want him to know what's right, what's healthy, and what's moral: and that is all about how you treat your body and that of the person you're with. Not in pretending the issue is moot until a guy with a license says it's OK (no offense, CAFKIA:-)
If he decides to marry young, that's his choice. But I don't want him to do what so many previous generations did, getting married too young because they were horny and marriage was the only way to make it respectable. How many pointlessly unhappy people did that sorry convention create?
We've already had the talk, and a few months ago he asked me if having sex before marriage was wrong. And I told him no, it isn't, but not loving your partner is wrong, not respecting them is wrong, and not using protection is wrong. But I also told him he had a long time before he should worry about things like that.
So yeah, I signed the form saying NO, we won't participate in your "abstinence only" program. And he came home from school today telling me that he was the only kid whose parents had signed it, and that his teacher said there must be some mistake. So I said, well, do you want to participate? He said, "Yeah, 'cuz everybody else is doing it."