My man's down with the chronic. This explains a lot.  

What the hell are they??? Part 2

I dunno if ya’ll remember a brief posting back in October of 2004 in which I posted an unusual (or what I thought was unusual) pair of pictures of odd looking wooden structures in the middle of a field in a state park in NJ (“what the hell are they???” or something like that). Well, thanks to my old friend Barb, it seems we have an answer (nice to hear from you after all these years too, Barb). Those things are apparently butterfly houses, if one can imagine. I had no idea butterflies desired to own property. And where’s the central air in these joints?

Ever feel like the guy in the middle? I do! Props to Mark B. for supplying the graphic.

It takes a family. . . just what KIND of family?

Goddamn! I’m back! Phew! Finally, after what turns out to be about a 6 month slacker hiatus, I’m back. Lot’s of things have happened. Got a new righteous pad in a cool locale, got some new phat audio production software so I can finally get started on my solo thang, as it were (planned to be mostly centered on elements of Electronica that are largely focused on the bass and bass-related frequencies. I’ve really delved into literally studying forms like D&B, jungle, and break-beat. . . . ) Serious big-ups to the fine people at BassDrive.com for giving me daily and even hourly inspiration through their righteous streams and wealth of information for such neophytes as myself. Maybe one day my stuff will be getting dropped all up in there as well. We’ll see. . . . Anyway, my kids have all been giving me a lot of inspiration to that end as well (2 boys, 2 girls, all between the ages of 8 and 10). But as part of my attempt to kick myself in the ass and get more motivated, I’ve finally put the virtual pen to paper and started to run my fucking mouth again on this site. Gets the juices flowing and hopefully gives ya’ll something to exercise your First Amendment rights with and discuss things with each other over.

In the past few months, many things have crossed my desk. I’ve seen and read many news items and articles, and have gotten many from friends that have been potential grist for the continuation of my site. But just when I think something is going to clear the cobwebs and light a fire under my ass, I get sidetracked by some issue at work or some house-hold matter or whatever. Well, this evening, I’m sitting at home chillin with the fam (actually, the girls are doing their thing and the boys are either building stuff or working on some loop-editing projects of their own), and my fiancée turns the satellite to Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central. And as it turns out, I haven’t sat down and really enjoyed this show probably since the summer began. The man in the chair at this moment is Pennsylvania’s senatorial representative Rick Santorum (R). Jon is going toe-to-toe with the good senator regarding his recent book, It Takes a Family. The essential gist of this tome as I understood it from the debate and a bit of light research and reading I did online literally an hour ago, is that the only absolute saving grace to modern day society in our country is the absolute restoration and so-called preservation of the text-book nuclear family (i.e. one male parent, one female parent, and the basic one-and-a-half kids, or, if one is more religiously oriented in the classic Judeo-Christian sense, 10-and-a-half.) Rick attempts to assert that the nuclear family has been the societal glue in all great empires and societies throughout human history, and as such, should be supported through government legislation, etc. I had no idea he was a sociologist. Anyway, the real point behind this message is that any sort of law making, any sort of legislation that supports the idea of same-sex marriage should be disallowed. That’s the hidden message. It’s really that simple, but I’m always bemused at how the conservative will take such great strides to subversively state an initiative or agenda such as this one, rather than just being up-front about it. It’s not unlike a small child who asks for a toy or a piece of candy that he or she knows he or she shouldn’t have or has been told not to have, but feels the need to cloak their request or point in some other, seemingly innocent and even righteous motivation. I can’t bring an example right now, but I’m sure in the next few minutes, one of my own children will provide one for me.

Or not.

It’s almost their bed time anyway.

So as I was saying (damn that was a long-ass James Joyce looking paragraph, no?) I’ve got some issues with what Rick had to say. And Jon did as well, and did an excellent job of countering Rick’s ultra-conservative message with grace and civility that far rivals that of any law-maker on the Hill (particularly the hard-line right-wingers) that I’ve seen in many a year. So if you have a chance to check out the episode, please do so. It was really a pretty good interview/debate, as often Jon’s are. But enough props to Jon. What I’m saying is that I totally disagree with elements of Rick Santorum’s viewpoint. But not the whole thing. Just most of it. Check it:

I definitely agree wholeheartedly that children most definitely benefit from a two-parent household. They benefit developmentally, emotionally, intellectually, and so on. And I think in a perfect world, it is very essential for children to have a household in which they have the equal influence and nurturing of both a good mother and a good father. I think we as human beings are anthropologically and maybe even biologically geared toward a situation in which we are raised by a two parent household. And I’m not a sociologist. But in this modern day society, not only do I NOT think that the forced restoration of the classic nuclear family will in turn restore our maimed society. I think that there are, as Jon Stewart pointed out, many situations in which the male/female mother/father type parenting situation is actually quite damaging. Hell, in the past decade or so I have either borne witness personally to or even been a part of situations in which having both parents in the same house exposed children to physical and sexual abuse, emotional abuse, substance abuse, etc. And some of these situations involved conservative, “Christian”, supposedly upstanding “adults” and “parents”. Hypocrites. Whatever.

But there are also situations in which same-sex parent households, be they male or female, provide more love and nurturing to children than more traditional households. And there are some instances in which single-parent households have done the same. I certainly don’t believe that the existence of same-sex marriages and same-sex families with children will contribute to the depravity and perversion (not to sound too preachy) that exists in our society today. I also do not think, nor has it actually been proven, that children coming out of same-sex households are any more likely to be gay than kids coming from single-parent homes that are run well (and that’s the key) are likely to get divorced or even never get married. I feel like I’m stating issues of common sense here. But regardless, I think it is a grievous miss-handling of tax-payers money to allow our legislators to endorse any sort of legislation based on so-called moral ideals, and certainly not religious ones. But having said that, I’ve once again essentially stated that I am fundamentally at odds with the entire Bush administration. Duh.

Anyway, something else comes to mind. It’s often the same ultra-conservative law-makers like Senator Santorum, and family court judges like them, who, although they espouse the virtues of the classic style nuclear family, often assert that it is the mother in this holy pair of parenting power that is the most suitable parent whenever there are cases and separation and divorce. So in cases of divorce, it is almost impossible for any man, good or bad, regardless of situation, to get custody of his kids. It is assumed in family court, by conservative law-making and law enforcing men even (and yes, women too), that all men are bad and should not be allowed to raise their kids. Only to pay for them. And this is a subject that I have much personal experience in. It’s nothing more than gender segregation and the effective penalizing of men for daring to remove them selves from an unhealthy relationship and/or family situation regardless of the reason. Apparently divorce is not Christian, and as such, the courts feel that there has to be a way to punish men, the purveyors of the faith in the family, as it were, for the transgression of divorce . . . even if the split-up isn’t the man’s fault (another stereotype that needs to be put down. Not all break-ups are the man’s fault.) And from my personal experience and observation, and viewing that alongside some of the things being said about same-sex marriage and all, it would seem that law makers and law enforces alike feel that a child is better off with a neglectful drug-addicted, abusive mother who exercises prostitution in the presences of her children to raise money for her drug habit (which, BTW, the bloated child support the children’s father pays also goes toward), than with the father who holds a steady job and has a stable home, or a totally together same-sex couple who give the child all the love and nurturing in the world. That’s the vibe I get. And that last example was not totally from my personal experience. I exaggerated quite a bit. But there have been and are situations in which the circus we call family court has awarded (I love that kind of language) children to mothers that fit the description I provided, for no other reason than political correctness and 1950’s style conservatism. Hey, maybe June Cleaver did a little pill-popping when Ward wasn’t around. It was all the rage amongst the house wives . . . .’scuse me. . . “Stay-at-home moms”, back then. Oh, and there are other biases in family court and in government that still exist surrounding what the idea family is. Don’t even get me started on adoption practices.

Yeah, so check it. Some of ya’ll might be thinking “What the hell is a straight male going on about this for? Why does he seem to be siding with the gay-marriage crowd if he doesn’t smoke pole?” Well, don’t get excited. I’m not about to burst forth from the proverbial closet in my next paragraph. Sorry to disappoint. Although I’m not a knuckle-dragging Budweiser (from the can)-swilling, wife-beating, NFL-watching, ass-crack-showing cretin, I am a STAUNCH heterosexual. In fact, considering my years-long predilection toward women of girth, I actually consider myself hyper-heterosexual. I’m just really polite about it. I only smack that ass if I have explicit, sometimes written permission. But here’s the thing. Not only do I believe in the humanitarian mind-set, but it wasn’t that long ago that gay marriage wasn’t the issue. Interracial and inter-faith marriage was. And it wasn’t that long ago that legislation was in place that effectively prevented it in many States, mostly Southern, and we as a people, as a nation had to fight to abolish such inhuman laws. It wasn’t until the past few decades that interracial and inter-faith couples were treated and viewed in exactly the same fashion that the conservative or “red” populous views gay couples now. So I personally would be a hypocrite if I didn’t take the side that I’m taking, other than the fact that my gut tells me it’s the right thing to do. Oh, and BTW, I’m the proud father in a Mom/Dad/Kids nuclear family. Ironic, isn’t it?

Anyway, nice appearance on the show tonight, Rick Santorum. That was a sharp suite you were wearing.

It’s good to be back, and if anyone has anything to say about anything, whether it be comments, criticisms, etc. regarding this article or any other on the site, or just inadvertent “stuff” about music, art, politics, society, or whatever, well. . .bring it. And if you use Yahoo Messenger, hit me up at zenrks01. I’m on most evenings and if I don’t answer right away, I will get back to ya.

-R.k.S.