SERIOUSLY, WHAT THE FUCK?

I love being a father, I love kids, and I have fond memories of my childhood and a few defining moments that helped shape a large portion of my behavior. When I was a kid I had a very basic and clear description of the "Don't go there regions." Im certain you are wondering what the hell a " Don't go there region" is, so by all means let me enlighten you. The following list covers some of the major "Don't go there regions" of my youth:

1. Stealing.
2. Raising my voice.
3. Interrupting others.
4. Fighting.
5. Disrespecting my elders.
6. Bullying.
7. Tantrums. 
8. Staying up late.

As I grew each region took on a new dimension but essentially the concept was the same. One thing that I did was test the regions, as it turns out my first test was successful in giving me a clear message that further testing would result in some manner of my own demise.  I will never forget it because it involved 3 regions at once as well as my favorite candy.

I was a five year old and extremely outgoing, I had what some would call a winning personality that captured the heart of many, partly because I was a master at engaging people in conversation. My mom and Step Dad took me to the supermarket after picking me up from school. This particular trip was a welcome change as it meant that I could play both sides against the middle and get a box of Jordan Almonds, my favorite candy. 

I attempted to work my plan when, in unison, my parents said " NO." I could see my hope evaporate, the taste of the sweet shell left as soon as it had arrived. In my young and semi- devious mind I was crushed as well as blinded by my ambition. The 1980's were a decade of greed and I was greedy for my candy. Naturally I did what came natural to a child that age and threw a tantrum, my mother squashed it with something I like to refer to as the eyebrow of death. I wrestled the almonds away from my step dad's hand and darted to the comfort of our car. I thought this was done and over seeing as how possession is nine tenths of the law. I was so mistaken as both my parents spanked me, took the almonds, and proceeded to punish me. 

Now I flash forward thirty years and think of some of the kids I see today. Parents are totally afraid to discipline their kids and the little fuckers know, and often take advantage of the situation. I'm not saying this is the majority of cases or even half but I swear it sickens me. Parents don't need to beat the shit out of their kids but some parameters and a spanking when necessary in order to assert authority works way better than a conversation. Spanking is not abuse, using a belt or going medieval is. What was done to our parents in the 50's and 60's helped spawn peace and love and that's great, but seriously. 

LAUGHTER

I never really stopped to realize that laughter is actually powerful enough to enrich a person's life. As a child my life was pretty rich with laughter that came from fairly simple sources. I used to love watching Looney Tunes every Saturday and Sunday morning and Different Strokes during the week. Those brief minutes of laughter made me feel overjoyed. I had periods when listening to laughter or being the reason for it also made me feel like life was a pretty awesome proposition.

As I grew older laughter became an academic reaction of sorts, like a twitch. I stopped valuing laughter because I slowly realized that laughter can be lined with evil, sarcasm, sadness, frustration and madness. I went from a simplistic child's view to the jaded view of an adult whose life was full of ups and downs. I never realized that those moments of happiness came from allowing myself the chance to laugh freely and without worry.

It took me a while but then as I started to once again watch black and white television I came to the realization that a good laugh can go as far as restoring a period of self confidence that you can lose during the day. It was incredible to think that by laughing at something fairly clean and simple I could actually turn my days around. We take laughter for granted and even call it a waste of time but what we are really saying is that we have forgotten to be free and comfortable during times that call for relaxation and levity. Next time you want to control your laughter think little and let go. Life is too short for us to stay straight faced and unhappy on a consistent basis.

YOU JUST NEVER REALLY KNOW

A long time ago in a black and white galaxy far away a man by the name of Edward R. Murrow was introducing the world to his new and revolutionary show known as Person to Person. The show made Edward R. Murrow the first real celebrity interviewer and added to his already polarizing legend. The show itself employed remote interviews, which at the time were quite rare. It has been nearly 60 years since person to person first aired and now we have social media to give us our own person to person moments with people we don't really know.

With the advent of Twitter, Skype, Facebook, and many others we seem to have the ability for that person to person feel. The truth is that just like the days of Murrow's show we are living in a time when no matter how open we seem to be there are still secrets that lurk deeply in the closet. In a way the show Person to Person laid the groundwork for social media. The show was proof positive that distance between points could be closed. Murrow interviewed everyone from Fidel Castro to JFK to Marilyn Monroe. Today, nearly six decades later, we seem to feel closer to celebrities, leaders, and groups.

While the secrets that we keep only manage to come out either post mortem or in some dramatic way there is something to be said for the fact that social media was a seedling for so long. Perhaps it's a stretch to connect Murrow to social media but if you really study it there is some sense to that. Murrow was on to something and while it may have long been relegated to the status of a valuable relic it's fair to say it had a serious impact. Next time you see something new don't be surprised if it's what manages to spur a big revolution.

THE DEBATE

I finally understand the meaning of the red equality sign. To be honest I think this is a sign of progress in the debate over gay marriage. This entry is not to fight fiercely for gay marriage and certainly not to stand against it. I am a firm believer that things should always be talked out in a civilized manner and that this is the kind of debate that's allowing ignorance to reign supreme. The fact is that you have two sides taking extreme views one way or another with not as many people taking a common sense view.

It doesn't mater if you agree or disagree with gay marriage but it does matter how you defend your view. I can't really support the argument against it because it generally cites the bible as the principal source of moral authority. You can read the bible and quote it as often as you want but, how many members of congress and of the bible belt have been caught violating the very biblical principles that they cite? The fact of the matter is that you cannot use one source as the way to firmly stand against an issue.

Let's really study morality for a second and see what we come up with. If you have a gay couple and they lead a quiet and respectful life, and are upstanding citizens, are they immoral on the basis of being gay? Is it okay to have orgies, threesomes, and sex in public if you are straight? I have heard the whole it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve deal but once more I say let's all look at the facts. Do we really know that the bible story is true? Everyone has their own set of beliefs from Muslims, to Jews, to Christians, to Atheists but said beliefs are somewhat theoretical and based on more assumption of record than proven and verified.

I think it's also fair to ask if people against gay marriage are living under the assumption that you chose to be gay. It has not been proven if being gay is genetic, a choice, or a matter of conditioning in a specific environment. I think it's fair for gays to want a fair shot at legalizing gay marriage but from state to state it's a debate that's going to vary. In a way I find myself agreeing with Bill O'Reilly's sentiments that it's a state matter and it should be decided as such.

Some places are more liberal than others and I understand that making this a federal issue is more about benefits issues for same sex partnerships, going beyond the whole recognition of a person's chose to openly love with someone of their own gender. Gay marriage, equality, and recognition are all a part of the new civil rights debate that much like the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's will rage on for a long time to come.