Mayor Sam Adams

Up here in Portland we have a mayor that has had some intrigue over some sexual misconduct. It came out that our openly gay mayor had sex with an 18 year old intern.

Immediately, people were calling for his dismissal, and I found myself in a couple of interesting discussions on the morality of a mayor who would have sex with someone that the media referred to as "a teenage boy".

While it's easy for me to say that sex and politics should be separate, I might have a different opinion if our mayor had been some crusty old fat fart who molested a 16 year old girl or boy. But that wasn't the case.

It seems to me that we have some sort of sexual hangups that are impacting our collective judgment toward our good mayor. It is not simply that we want him to behave like a "man of politics" - by now we should be well aware that most politicians behave immorally some way or another. Instead, it is a projection of our own collective values and issues upon our public servants. Do we really want someone who behaves like a priest, or is it that we just don't want to hear about homosexuality openly? I have my own opinions about what we want and don't want, as I'm sure that you do, too.

As a side note, it's interesting that he didn't "break the law", but if he had decided to marry the young man (who is old enough to die for his country but not old enough to have sex with a mayor), he wouldn't be able to because the state and nation don't recognize gay marriage.

Catch 22


-bk

a further clarification

My friend Dennis posted the entry below this one, and while I agree with the majority of his claims, it must be stated that the majority of Americans would never want to be categorized without their explicit input. That being said, as far as a top-down view of the world, it would behoove us to know where we all stand. Not that this debate is getting complicated or anything, but it must be said that the internet age is going to lend us into a new way of thinking. Network thinking, swarm theory, all that shit. In order to understand and effectively apply this knowledge, we must be able to do our own part efficiently. That's where the color coding comes in. 'Nuff said.

-bk

color coding of Americans

White, black, red, blue, redcoat, browncoat, it seems like we like to put some sort of easily definable color coding on each one of our categorized groups of cultures. Perhaps it's an American thing; I don't know. I do know that it could be dangerous to us as a people to section ourselves off from one another in order to easily identify our friends. But the more I thought about it, the more it seems to be a natural outgrowth of our ever expanding group consciousness. Think about it. Don Beck and his Spiral Dynamics easily put people into several groups based on their unfolding levels of evolutionary psychology. At first this seems to be destructive to us as a people. However, by doing so, we are able to see the strengths and weaknesses of each other and how we can relate to and rely on each other for specific reasons. If you are some sort of quasi-Darwinian purist, this is basically some form of natural selection stage where diversification of the species is readily needed in order to properly network and divide our energies to more effectively tackle certain goals. I like to think of myself as a reformed Darwinian, now struggling with spiritual humanist tendencies, but see the diversification and categorization, not as a preordained step in evolution, but as a natural occurrence in the chaotic and methodical unfolding of spirit in ourselves. While this does not necessarily facilitate throwing the Bible out the window or condemning Darwin to a fiery stake in the town's center, it does serve a purpose in the networked interwebbed reality that we are all dealing with. Just a thought.

-Dennis Edmons

we're not red or blue; we're purple

With the election looming, the news is going to constantly be talking about red and blue. Don't fall for it. We're actually a mixture. Brothers and sisters, friends and families. We're all Americans.

-bk

effin politics

Just a quick note, friends. Every once in a while, I dive into the political debates streaming around the interweb, and after a while, it turns my stomach. Someone (I have a good idea who) must have hated us a lot to start to divide us into nice little categories that label each other and start to drive a wedge through the middle of America (not physically). I have friends and family that I categorically disagree with. Period. And others who share the same sensibilities as I do. I can't understand why they believe what they believe; even if I agree with them I can't. However I can make a stand and say, "We are not going to let them divide and categorize us!" This is not the Civil War, but sometimes it seems like that is where we are going. Brothers against brothers, fathers against sons, religious against the agno-religious. But I can't stand it anymore. I only want what's best for everybody out there, and I know that endlessly bickering about sound bites and what some ulterior-motive-having-"reporter" has to say about something doesn't mean shit. Unfortunately, though, there are a lot of people out there letting the waves of shit crash over them as they buy into the hype. Seriously. I know who would be better for the world. And you might disagree. Oh well. No biggee. Let's still eat, drink, and be merry. Let's put our money where our mouth is and do something positive in the world. What are the good things about your party (and I don't mean "who gives them money and shapes their opinions")? The good things that are integrally good, up and down the spiral of consciousness. The things that benefit all and not just a few. Those are the things that we should all be doing together.
Maybe then we'll realize that there aren't as many things separating us as they make us believe.


-bk