Crazy Train - The Mob

"I'm going off the rails on a crazy train" sings Ozzy Osbourne in 1981. That conjures fitting imagery for many of the conversations I have with The Infamous.... We stand opposite on many issues and our conversations have often times been a crazy train. Sometimes derailed in a massive wreck of point and values and other times arriving to a good place at the end of a crazy journey.

I just recently had a conversation that I would like to plop down here for no better reason than to bring up some points that are often a part of our conversations when we banter about President Obama. I would be pleased if some of what we talked about strikes some chord in you. So I submit this conversation for all to see, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors and all. I would have cleaned it up a bit , though presenting it outside of it's raw form seems wrong.

...

The Infamous: Oh, Jesus... is this really news? http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesus-Missing-From-Obamas-Georgetown-Speech.html
The Infamous: fascinating experiment in misinformation.


Drew: what's the problem?
is it bad or good that he covered the image?
I can't tell anymore :(


The Infamous: I think it's inconsequential
wasn't a secular reason - continuity of imagery


Drew: damned if he does, damned if he doesn't


The Infamous: yup


Drew: Polarizing President, yes? I think those on the side of "Love Him!" are far more numerous than those on the side of "Hate Him!"


The Infamous: by at least 20 percent in the latest poll
60% approval


Drew: I have no doubt he will go down as one of the greatest presidents among JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Washington. First Team all American Presidential All Star Team.


The Infamous: but this whole "tax revolt" is completely manufactured... there has been no tax impact at this point
I absolutely agree w/ you



Drew: "Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they'll be distracted"
people, I have found, are idiots when left to their own devices. All but me and those that think like me ;)



Drew: I am not going to say that everything President Obama does makes me happy. There are many stances he takes that piss me off. His view of the RIAA, his view on vehicles and what people should drive. his view on the bearing of arms. Just to name 3. But just because he doesn't want to preserve everything I like doesn't make me hate him. He seems to be working hard to support his promises and that makes me respect him even more.
There are to many Americans that can't see past their own interests to the greater good of the country. This is a sad realization that the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's evolution of mentality have stripped a common community thread from us all and given us the sad desire to be an nation of individual islands.
If there is anything in what President Obama has done that earned great respect from me is his numerous calls to step outside individual selfishness and buck the fuck up for the good of America.



The Infamous: I absolutely agree with you.
We have to gain a collective awareness that we will not like or agree with everything that even our favored elected leaders will do
and honestly, we shouldn't
that means that they are acting in the interests of the people as a whole, as opposed to just that of a small faction


Drew: acting for the interests as a whole is probably much easier when the whole has some kind of common goal, as opposed to a whole that is as scattered as it's members individuality. I am guessing that being a leader in the 40's and 50's was a bit easier than today's leaders.


The Infamous: agreed
information was not nearly as readily or universally available... message discipline was much easier
So much easier to govern when you have absolute control and/or are the only messenger of much of the information that people learn


Drew: And there was a strong desire to be accepted by the community as a whole. Men didn't do things or say thing openly for fear of being ostrisized or socially exiled. Rule by fear and peer pressure. I won't say it was healthy, but the desire for the little pink house is some of what drove the intense aversion to complete selfishness.
by that i mean resistance to becoming part of the collective.. for a better example.
the stepford wives, plesantville, etc...
I don't want my individuality to be culled from me... but at the same time I would give up individuality for a common good. That's the part of the transition America missed going from the 50's to the 90's
I think that feeling is starting to become common out there among individual American's. I think it's a good thing.


The Infamous: I agree, but htink about where that leads if followed to it's logical conclusion - strips people of their individuality, freedom of expression (in its various forms)... which could lead to outright censorship
who is in charge of determining what those "social norms" should be?


Drew: yes, and that's what the 50's were
bad bad bad
Hoover - example
Wallace - example


The Infamous: I agree that a collective social responsibility is part of what kept society orderly at the time, but think of the blatant persecution and prejudices that were also prominent at the time
ostracizing those that were "different," i.e. gays, blacks, latinos, protestants?
strong women?
I agree there was value and continues to be in the general premise, but I guess I am hardened after having seen what this led to, which really catalyzed many of the changes we have seen take place in the last 50 years


Drew: absolutely. But follow that logic to the opposite side and you get extreme individuality with no common goal. It all boils down to what you said earlier.. we may not like what our leaders do.. and your implied "but we must trust who we elect and allow ourselves to be lead"


The Infamous: now, if you are talking about the general sense of selfishness that has become so pervasive, there would absolutely be some benefit to reinstalling those values
but even in the 50s, the phrase "keeping up with the Jones" originated
i agree w/ you
need to unite around some common sense of purpose


Drew: Yes
and for many that spark has been Obama


The Infamous: all of this discussion is one of the reasons so many of our social institutions have degraded
agreed - the sense that things can be better, and perhaps this man is willing - if not entirely able - to lead us in that direction if we allow it to happen
you need to be a contributor to the blog that G and I just started


Drew: For me I have a common goal with 60% of America now. Obama's performance as President is the horse we have hitched our cart to.

The Gathering Storm

Just a warning: the following video was made by morons, for morons, but we watched it anyway. What does that say about us?



The One, the Only, the Infamous: i didn't know you could embed youtube in gtalk
that's awesome
WTF
I am not ok with this
this ad is a serious problem for me.
it really bothers me
this misinformation just has no place in this public debate, and to claim that keeping others from being treated equally is somehow an infringement on your own rights is taking this to a horribly new low
stuff like that just really upsets me

Zart Cosgrove: oh me too
"I'm being forced to change!"
BS

TOTOTI: how dare you teach my children to be tolerant and accepting of all people

ZC: i love how there's a moving target about who they're tolerant of
"we've got a rainbow coalition of people who hate gays"

TOTOTI: exactly. next it's:
blacks
whites
hispanics
men
women

ZC: muslims

TOTOTI: trannies
jews for jesus
sorry, that was the only way I could get myself to chuckle after seeing that

ZC: religion can't exist in it's current form in western civilization without a boogie man
it's inherent to all of the western religions....the moment there's no outside evil, it's back to the garden of eden, and everybody has a good time, and there's no need for priests

TOTOTI: just don't understand how this hasn't been directly challenged on equal protection grounds
I don't get it.
states' rights is one thing, but if it stands in direct violation of constitutional protections...

ZC: well gay people are equally protected.
they are equally entitled to get married to someone of the opposite sex

TOTOTI: but they are not equally protected in the tax code, and there is an inherent bias to a religiously-defined institution

ZC: sure they are. if a gay person is married to a person of the opposite sex, then they get the same benefits as a straight person married to someone of the opposite sex
and marriage is a civilly defined state....that's why you can get married by a courthouse

TOTOTI: but the definition of marriage is state sanction of a religious institution
ZC: hmmm... not necessarily. That's why so many courts have found that gay marriage is legal; because marriage ISN'T defined as between a man and a woman
and that's why there's been a rush to pass laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman....
so that the civil institution will match up with the religious definition.
but is there a reason that marriage SHOULDN'T be defined as a union of a man and a woman, if the people choose to have it defined that way?

TOTOTI: I disagree
the problem here lies with the federal tax code reflecting only the priorities defined by a religious institution, which inherently excludes a lot of folks
I would argue that the tax code in its claims to promote families are actually doing the opposite
I would actually favor eliminating joint filings altogether if they refuse to allow all "couples" to enjoy the benefits contained therein. What do they care if folks are actually "married" or not?

ZC: i feel like there's a disconnect in your reasoning. If marriage, and the unfairness thereof vis-a-vis homosexuality, is really all about tax benefits, then there is nothing stopping gay people from getting married...they would just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex. There's nothing in the tax code, or in the civil code, that prevents them from getting married solely for the tax benefits
is there anything in marriage law that requires the married couple to cohabitate?
or to be monogamous?
or even to have sexual relations at all?
what level of interaction is legally required to validate a marriage?
marriage has been such a ubiquitous thing throughout history that I think the laws on it are lacking. Sure, there's a HUGE amount of "case law" that makes up the "common sense" definition of marriage, but it's a mercurial body of law made up by Child Protective Services, Immigration and Naturalization Services, the bishop of every religion, and divorce lawyers

TOTOTI: I disagree that "marriage" as a sanctioned institution has been so ubiquitous throughout history - it used to be a transactional/financial relationship
it was about property, not about cohabitation or attempting to provide benefit to those who were procreating
this law has its roots in the premise that families provide a more stable upbringing for children, but that has been turned on its head, at least in recent years, and spun into some belief that marriage is intended solely for procreation
Honestly, the idea of government incentivizing the marital relationship is one that should expire. People will do it regardless of whether/not there are financial benefits.
But this extends well beyond the tax code. There are people who have cohabitated with partners (same- or opposite-sex) but have decided not to wed.
Given that you can grant power of attorney to whomever you want, the practical implications of making life decisions (life-ending, altering or otherwise) is still one that is legally in the hands only of a spouse in many states
The ability for someone to live their life peacefully, leave their belongings to their life partner int he event of death without having to formalize an agreement... these things are taken for granted in heterosexual marital relationships
there is no equal relationship in the eyes of the law for those that do not partake of that legal construct
unless you take formal legal steps to define those relationships, e.g. power of attorney, etc.

ZC: So allow me to sum up for you, just to ensure I understand you correctly:

TOTOTI: not just tax, but legal benefits
marriage as an institution is an easy way for people to formalize those legal relationships
howz that

ZC: you believe that marriage consists of a bundle of rights and powers pertaining to another person, that are bundled together under the umbrella term of "matrimony". These rights and powers include tax incentives, legal powers, and often (I'm including this since you missed it) benefits conveyed by private institutions in our society. You think that the choice of persons bound in this bundle of rights and powers should be agnostic of gender. Am I right?
i wonder...should this bundle of rights and powers be restricted to a number of people? what if I happen to be in a committed love triangle?

TOTOTI: good question - is that an argument to change the definition, or abolish the institution altogether?
but yes, you have fairly summarized my points
benefits bestowed by any institution should be agnostic of sex, age, sexual orientation... how about we make these laws consistent with federal law pertaining to discrimination, which is fairly rooted in the premise of equal protection

ZC: At think at root my question is whether the bundle of benefits, rights, and powers conferred by marriage are really something that are there as a convenience pack, like a combo meal, or is there some benefit to society as well? And if it's just a combo meal, then shouldn't it be available in different configurations?

TOTOTI: but therein lies the rub
If this institution and package of benefits are intended to promote some social benefit, shouldn't that be communicated?
supported by research?

TOTOTI: because if the party line is that they are trying to promote families, why is that not gender-neutral?


ZC: Okay, so we should write our marriage laws to clearly convey what marriage is, what it's supposed to be, and its purpose
but religions don't want us to do that, because they deal in ambiguity and making people rely on priests and preachers for guidance. lawyers don't want us to do that, because they make too much money off of it. politicians don't want to do it because it will upset the status quo...and for 90% of the population it's just not a big deal....they can get married if they want

Hey... we should start a blog with our ramblings. I'll bet someone would care.