The Ordinary Extraordinary blog

Stay-at-home dads and breadwinner moms

Mon, 20 May 2013 16:26:49 -0700

NPR and its affiliate stations just ran a lovely little story entitled “Stay-At-Home Dads, Breadwinner Moms and Making It All Work.” It was a succinct and smart examination of a growing trend: fathers being the primary caregiver of their children and the mothers growing their careers. It portrayed the choice as often misunderstood in society but showed how it was just another option for how to run a family. Just as monogamy works for some and numerous types of polyamory work for others, there are many options for breadwinning and caregiving. The more people open up to options in life—and to mindfully considering them—the more happiness is the result. Minds open, possibilities open.

Check out the story!

Transcript: http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=180300236

Audio: http://www.npr.org/2013/05/15/180300236/stay-at-home-dads-breadwinner-moms-and-making-it-all-work
(Please note: the text under the “Listen to the Story” bar is not the transcript of the story, but it is related.)

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Love without limits

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 00:53:33 -0700

One of polyamory’s premier (and finest) exponents, Deborah Anapol, has just written “The Truth About Polyamory” for Psychology Today—and it’s one of the best compact treatises on what polyamory is, what it isn’t, and what it offers. In five succinct theses—all of them supported by plain-but-learned examinations—she provides the reader with a short and smart snapshot of what polyamory is and where it currently stands in the social zeitgeist. The work Dr. Anapol has done not only for polyamory but for greater understanding of all things relating to a conscious approach to relationships and sex has been tremendous. She is to be thanked—and read. Below, we reprint the article in full. To view it on the Psychology Today site, click HERE.

“The Truth About Polyamory”

Thirty years ago there was plenty I needed to know about polyamory, but not so many places to learn it. In fact, the word polyamory hadn’t been invented yet so I’d adopted the unwieldy but descriptive term, responsible non-monogamy, when my first book on the topic, Love Without Limits, was published in 1992. By the time my latest book, Polyamory in the 21st Century, was published in 2010 there were nearly two million Google entries for polyamory, not to mention dozens of books in a multitude of languages, hundreds of articles, a little scientific research, and even some reality TV shows. We also have more new language for alternatives to monogamous (or serially monogamous) relating. Consensual non-monogamy is the preferred term in the academic world and New Monogamy is being talked about in the marital therapy world. But whatever it’s called, it adds up to the same thing. Our cultural obsession with monogamy is going the same way as prohibition, slavery, the gold standard, and mandatory military service. In other words, while serial monogamy is more popular than ever, life long monogamy is pretty much obsolete, and for better or worse, polyamory is catching on. Here is the latest information from the relationship frontier.

1. There is no evidence that monogamy is better in terms of relationship longevity, happiness, health, sexual satisfaction, or emotional intimacy. There is also no evidence that polyamory is better. So you may as well go with what feels best to you – and your partner(s).

An article reviewing scientific evidence addressing the question of whether monogamous relationships are superior to other types of relationships has concluded that there is no empirical basis for the common assumptions about the benefits of monogamy. The fact that this article was published in the peer reviewed Personality and Social Psychology Review (Nov 2012), suggests that research and logic are finally influencing scientific thinking on this subject. Of course, there’s not much research being done in this area at all, but the common arguments in favor of monogamy – including the illusion that it offers protection from jealousy, sexually transmitted diseases, and divorce have been shown to be purely speculation, and unfounded speculation at that.

For some individuals, monogamy is a better choice, for others polyamory is probably a better fit. If you’re not sure what would work for you, I suggest you find out -- before you get involved in a committed relationship if at all possible since compatibility is the name of the game.

2. Women are not necessarily in favor of monogamy. They just don’t like being lied to, treated inconsiderately, and expected to go along with a double standard.

Historically, monogamy was imposed upon women by men who wanted to know who should inherit their property and assets. When inheritance of resources passed through the female line (matrilineal) this kind of control was unnecessary as it was perfectly obvious to everyone who the mother was. Later on, it was argued that monogamous marriage “till death do you part” protected women and children financially in an era when women’s employment opportunities and property rights were severely limited. In the 21st Century, most women are more interested in equal rights – to sexual pleasure and personal freedom as well as careers and political power – than in being guaranteed that a man will provide for them and their offspring.

Of course women are entirely capable of having secret affairs and shirking their share of domestic responsibilities, and perhaps we will even see more of this as more men adopt the role of “house husband,” and more women out earn their husbands. The bottom line is that everyone wants to be treated with respect and to have their needs honored. Both genders have dysfunctional conditioning to overcome whether they choose monogamy or not. Win-win relationship agreements that are fulfilling to everyone involved and allow for intimacy with multiple partners, are just as appealing to women as to men. In fact, all of the early leaders of the modern polyamory movement were female. For more on what women want, see www.lovewithoutlimits.com/articles.html

3. Gay men are more likely than heterosexual couples, lesbians, or bisexuals to practice consensual non-monogamy – but they still struggle with jealousy.

Numerous surveys have found that gay male couples are less likely than either heterosexual couples or lesbian couples to require monogamy within their partnerships. Nevertheless, most humans, regardless of sexual orientation, are not immune to jealousy. In fact, as it appears to me, the fear of jealousy is the biggest deterrent to polyamory for modern couples who no longer have moral objections to non-monogamy. Often what it boils down to for gay men, as well as heterosexuals, is that the partner who has less opportunity for extradyadic liaisons – whether because of perceived lack of desirability, lack of time, lesser sexual appetite or motivation – is the one who has concerns about being jealous. However, if the relationship is basically healthy and if additional partners are found to enhance, rather than detract from, the satisfaction of all partners, jealousy can usually be managed successfully. For useful tips on how to survive your own or your partners’ jealousy, see my Compersion ebook at www.lovewithoutlimits.com/books.html.

4. Children raised in consensually non-monogamous families have been shown to do at least as well on many measures of health and achievement as children in monogamous (or serially monogamous) families.

It’s not news that many adults project their fears onto their children, and moralistic concerns about polyamory are a good example of just how misguided our imaginings can be. In my book, Polyamory in the 21st Century, I discuss both research and anecdotal reports which indicate that if anything, children in polyamorous families or open marriages do better than children in conventional families. Clients often ask me how much to share with their children about their non-monogamous lifestyle and I always encourage them to respond truthfully in an age appropriate way. Young children really don’t want or need to know much about their parents’ sex lives, but if parents indoctrinate their children with monogamous beliefs, those children are not going to react well when they eventually learn that Mom and Dad are not practicing what they are preaching. Children and teens benefit greatly from loving supportive relationships with a variety of adults, so keeping other partners hidden from children is doing them a disservice.

5. Polyamory is not necessarily easy, especially if family of origin issues and skill deficits are not addressed.

Polyamory isn’t a solution for a floundering relationship, but it can solve problems of unequal or different sexual desire in an otherwise healthy and happy relationship. The tantalizing pleasures of expanded intimacy can also be a great motivator for stepping up to the plate to do your personal work. Polyamory requires emotional literacy, as well as the ability to communicate well, set and respect boundaries, and keep agreements. Beyond these basic skills, polyamory is also a very rich opportunity to address dysfunctional patterns inherited or acquired in childhood. Unlike monogamy which limits your projection opportunities to one partner, polyamory provides opportunities to change patterns of relating with both same gender and opposite gender partners. For example, a man who had to compete with Dad (or a brother) for Mom’s attention is likely to have this old wound resurface if his female partner takes another lover. It may look like his issue is with the woman, but the source of his problem is his competitive stance with other men. Or if he has two women partners who each learned from their mothers that men are unreliable and weak, they may gang up on him and recreate his childhood fear of an angry and rejecting mother.

Few people imagine that they are choosing poly relationships specifically to work out family of origin issues which are less likely to arise in a couple, or to learn how to use jealousy as a path to unconditional love, but the reality is that polyamory can a very effective spiritual path for those who are open to it.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

A many-splendored thing

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:44:25 -0700

More good (and fair!) press for polyamory comes this week from City Living Seattle. On April 19th the paper-and-online publication gave us a piece entitled “A many-splendored thing? The polyamorous family.” The author is very much a newcomer to the idea of polyamory but he manages a non-judgmental, holistic exploration of what poly can entail. He provides both a broad view of polyamory (definitions, history, real-world practitioners) as well as a full portrait of one poly family in southeast Seattle. The article is not without its small flaws but it’s a damn fine introduction for most readers. Check it out HERE. (The image for this blog entry is a drawing from the poly family’s young son: a drawing of his poly family.)

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

The love calculator

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:27:10 -0700

The standard thought when a person begins dating and dreaming of a future love connection is that they’ll find their mate and share a 50/50 love for the remainder of their lives. But if polyamory is considered, if the possibility of a triad comes along, the individual will often do this bit of specious math: if a couple is 50/50, then a triad will be 33/33/33. And if the individual is joining an established couple? Then the math becomes somewhat embittered: “they’ll probably each be a 40 and I’ll be a 20.” None of this is true or correct.

Let’s first recognize that a couple is not 50/50. It’s a 100% person living his or her life with another 100% person. And a triad is made up of three 100% people. (This doesn’t make a triad more “valuable” than a couple, but neither does having fewer people in the relationship make each one more valuable.) None of this is some trick of logic; it’s simply the truth of people. A couple can be a family. A mother and child can be a family. A couple and a child can be a family. A couple and four children can be a family. A triad and x number of children can be a family. Any combination of loving individuals can constitute a family. Don’t let anyone—or any tradition—lead you into thinking that sharing your love with more people makes that love less valuable. Love your lovers, love your children. And if your love can thrive within a situation you didn’t expect, one that confounds those expectations of what you expected from life, why turn away from that situation? All that happened was that you discovered that love can come in forms you hadn’t expected. And isn’t that a sweet discovery?

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

A good article on the same-sex marriage “slippery slope” leading to poly marriage

Thu, 4 Apr 2013 15:03:24 -0700

On the Role/Reboot website, Angi Becker Stevens has published an article where she asks “Many polyamorous partnerships are deeply intimate, loving, meaningful relationships, so why aren’t they included in the marriage rights discussion?” This question has been circling the poly community for a long time but has amplified with the widespread support gay marriage has been garnering recently. While we, Alan and Anna, are neither proponents nor opponents to the idea of plural marriage, we welcome the discussion.

We recommend giving Ms. Stevens’ short article a read. You’ll find it HERE -- as well as being reproduced in full below. Enjoy!

The full article:

At this point in the same-sex marriage debate, everyone is familiar with the “slippery slope” argument relied on so often by conservatives: If we allow gay marriage, then soon we’ll be allowing groups of three or more people to get married, next we’ll be allowing people to marry children and chairs and dogs. As the Supreme Court prepares to rule on DOMA and Proposition 8, these arguments can be found on virtually every conservative talk show or website.

Of course, I understand the anger people feel about comparing same-sex relationships to pedophilia and bestiality. But as a polyamorous woman, who honestly would like to one day have the right to legally marry both of my partners, it's disheartening when same-sex marriage advocates respond to this rhetoric by invalidating the idea of multi-partner marriage, insisting that it is nothing at all like same-sex marriage and will never, ever happen.

I do believe that there are some practical reasons why legal same-sex marriage cannot immediately lead to legal multi-partner marriage. The legal framework of two-party marriage already exists, and it is a simple process to apply the same rights and regulations to same-sex couples. Legally defining multi-partner marriage would be a much more complex process with regard to things like taxes, property rights, and child custody. I don’t object to this necessary legislative process being pointed out as a reason why multi-partner marriage will not simply happen overnight once same-sex marriage is federally recognized. But I do object to ethical arguments against multi-partner marriage, which respond to “slippery slope” arguments by essentially throwing polyamorous folks under the bus.

One of the arguments frequently given by same-sex marriage supporters against multi-partner marriage hinges on what we know of people currently practicing polygamy in a religious context. Polygamy is patriarchal and abusive, the argument says, and frequently involves underage women being taken as wives. It’s certainly true that such fundamentalist, patriarchal polygamy exists. But this brand of polygamy does not resemble my polyamorous relationship any more than a fundamentalist, traditionally-gendered, monogamous marriage resembles a marriage that is progressive and egalitarian in nature.

Horrible abuse and misogyny happens all the time in monogamous marriages in the name of religion and tradition; this is not given as a reason to put an end to the institution of marriage all together. The abuses of women and girls that frequently take place within religious polygamous sects are illegal; we do not need to criminalize the structure of the relationship in order to be able to target and prosecute such abuses. And if anything, the criminalization of polygamy might make women more reluctant to come forward for help when they are being abused, out of fear that they will be punished for practicing polygamy. Keeping polygamy illegal does not protect women, it only forces their lives into a far more dangerous state of secrecy.

Even when thinking about modern, non-fundamentalist polyamorous relationships, many defenders of same-sex marriage have a knee-jerk response against the notion of multi-partner marriage. On Tuesday, a caller challenged Rush Limbaugh on the issue of same-sex marriage, and Limbaugh responded with the classic slippery slope rhetoric, asking the caller why multi-partner marriage would be any different. When asked if he “would deny those people their love,” the caller responded: “Yeah, I would. I would oppose that…'Cause I think that, in general, two people are necessary to raise a family unit. You need two parents.”

Obviously, Limbaugh was attempting to make same-sex marriage look bad by comparing it to multi-partner marriage, not attempting to make a pro-polyamory statement. But I am frequently surprised and discouraged by the frequency with which arguments against polyamorous marriage—made by supporters of same-sex marriage—resemble classic arguments against gay marriage. I have heard many times, for example, that polyamory is a “lifestyle choice,” and therefore deserves no legal rights or protections. And I have also heard, more times than I can count, the argument that polyamory is not love, merely a sexual practice. Of all people, gay men and women should understand how hurtful it is to have your meaningful, intimate, loving relationships reduced to no more than a deviant sexual proclivity. But while there are certainly plenty of advocates for polyamory within LGBTQ communities, many folks simply do not see the similarities, or the irony of their arguments.

Before simply responding in a reactionary way to conservatives’ “slippery slope” arguments, I’d like it if same-sex marriage advocates could really stop and think about whether they can make a strong ethical argument against the future possibility of multi-partner marriage. Unlike bestiality or pedophilia, polyamory—like same-sex marriage—is about relationships between consenting adults. Like gay and lesbian couples, our relationships are not merely a sexual practice; we form families, share our homes and lives with one another, and raise children. Yes, marriage is traditionally between two people. But it’s also traditionally between a man and a woman, and the majority of us have already realized how restrictive and unjust that tradition is.

Many people don’t understand why we desire this form of relationship, and don’t see our love for one another as legitimate. But this is true of conservative views on same-sex relationships as well, and our response to opponents of same-sex marriage is that they don’t need to understand it or even like it in order to accept it as a human right. If the argument for same-sex marriage is that people who love differently than the norm deserve the same rights and protections as those who follow a traditional path, is there really a solid argument against extending that same concept to people who love more than one? Can we really reasonably say “Love makes a family…as long as that family only includes two adults?”

At the moment, few polyamorous people are really interested in fighting seriously for marriage rights. Though many of us agree that it’s something we’d love to see someday, we realize we’re very far away from a time when we’d stand a chance at winning legal recognition. Right now, we’re more concerned with achieving basic awareness of and respect for our relationships. We would be happy just to see our loves and our families treated as valid by a decent portion of society. But every time a supposedly progressive, “open-minded” person supports same-sex marriage by arguing that such marriage has nothing at all in common with the sexual deviancy of polyamory, we are moved further away from that validation. Polyamorous people are often told not to make any comparisons between our relationships and same-sex relationships, because we will make gay and lesbian folks look bad. But does anyone consider how insulting it is to be told that your most intimate, meaningful relationships are so illegitimate, it is an insult to compare them to the meaningful relationships of others?

What we need is solidarity between all people who are oppressed and marginalized as a result of who they love and how they form families. So what if the “slippery slope” is actually true, and expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples does in fact logically lead to validating polyamory? The notion that granting rights to one group of people might someday lead to granting rights to even more people should not be seen as a downside. After all, every gain in social justice throughout history could be called a “slippery slope” toward the next. This is what we call “progress,” and it should be celebrated, not feared.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Ellen Degeneres and her public

Wed, 3 Apr 2013 00:37:21 -0700

A week ago, NPR ran a short piece entitled “How Ellen Degeneres Helped Change the Conversation About Gays”—and it was quite excellent. It covers, in a quick, concise manner, Degeneres’ early public persona, her coming out on her sitcom “Ellen,” her marriage to Portia de Rossi, and her daytime talk show. It discusses how Ellen has acted as a sort of mirror for the public perception (and growing acceptance) of gays—and by extension, through the opening of minds, of other lifestyles. The piece is a snappy (and hopeful) look at how far the general public has come and how Ellen, as a person and as a symbol, helped it get there.

Check it out: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175265720/how-ellen-degeneres-helped-change-the-conversation-about-gays

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

When garbage turns into something useful

Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:55:47 -0700

We keep our eyes open and our ears to the ground, on the alert for any depictions of polyamory high and low. Sometimes it’s a major event, like Lisa Ling’s recent poly documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Network. Sometimes it’s a small article in a college newspaper. We look at how polyamory’s being depicted, we gauge the possible advances to a wider understanding of what polyamory is, we consider whether the depiction is fair and openhearted. And then sometimes we hear that something’s coming and our first thought is “Oh please no.” This happened when we heard that ABC, on its execrable “Wife Swap” program, would be swapping a polyamorous woman with a Tea Party woman. High concept, indeed.

The show: all drama, all the time. The upstate New York poly woman departs her home—husband, girlfriend, four kids—to swap with the conservative, religious woman in San Diego. The San Diego wife has a right-wing radio talk show, a husband who’s a former state senator from Missouri, and five kids. Drama comes—and drama does not abate. Scuffles over politics, religion, diet. Usual stuff for the glory of reality television.

But here’s the thing. Each wife has problems with her adoptive family—but the poly woman tries to connect with the kids whereas the religious one pretty much just preaches. Each husband is an annoyance (the poly guy comes across rather misogynistic, the religious guy preaches)—but when each defends his family, the poly guy is defending the love they share whereas the religious guy talks in terms of “dark forces” and the inerrancy of the Bible.

Near the end of each woman’s two weeks with the opposite family, the religious woman leaves. Unusual. Then, far more unusual, the religious family refuses to participate in the show’s customary round table round-up of the experience (this declaration is delivered through their attorney). This, the show informs us, is the first time this has happened in the many seasons of the show. So we’re left with only the poly family at the round table. They discuss how awfully things went and how disrespectful the San Diego husband and wife were (the kids were, on the whole, much more pleasant). The poly family is overjoyed at being back together, in their happy home. Last, a follow-up comes six weeks later. The poly family continue as a happy, loving family (and it seems that the husband, half a douche, may have learned some good lessons). The religious family, the show informs us, continues to refuse any further contact.

The show typically has about five million viewers. It’s a garbage show, sure, but most any viewer of this episode would have to come away from it with a finer appreciation of what a polyamorous family is, or can be. And yes, sometimes there’s a less-than-enlightened member of a poly family: just like in non-poly families. But is it a safe home and a happy family? That’s what counts.

You’ll find the full episode HERE.

P.S. For those a bit unclear: the major television network program “Wife Swap” has nothing to do with “wife swapping” as practiced by swingers. The brain trust at ABC just thought the tongue-in-cheek title was catchy.

P.P.S. For those STILL a bit unclear: “swinging” is not equatable to being polyamorous. Educate yourself.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Lisa Ling's polyamory documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Network

Thu, 7 Mar 2013 16:41:52 -0800

On March 5, the program “Our America with Lisa Ling” (on the Oprah Winfrey Network) devoted the entire hour to profiling three polyamorous families. It was a good-hearted bit of work, with plenty of time given to those within the families to speak for themselves. The show is scheduled to repeat on March 12. At the show’s site, select videos can be viewed. Hopefully the entire episode (“I Love You & You... & You”) will become available online—it was done in an admirable spirit and would be of great help to people understanding what living polyamorously truly constitutes.

Find one of the episode’s video pages HERE (other videos from the show are available under “More Videos”).

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Polyamory on the Professor Blastoff podcast

Tue, 5 Mar 2013 19:32:35 -0800

Tig Notaro, Kyle Dunnigan, and David Huntsberger have a podcast called Professor Blastoff, which we listen to regularly and religiously. On each episode, they focus on a central theme they find interesting. The topics range from scientific to philosophical to metaphysical. This week the topic is polyamory—and while the show is anything but serious, the topic gets a decent airing. Baron Vaughn is their guest for the episode. The group talks about what it means to be polyamorous, how you keep from getting jealous, and some ways in which to explain it to potential partners. While the discussion isn’t without its flaws, it’s helping to get people thinking.

Find the podcast episode here:
http://www.earwolf.com/episode/polyamory/

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Polyamory on "Portlandia"

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:32:24 -0800

This week, IFC’s satirical sketch show “Portlandia,” starring Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein, featured a sequence on polyamory. Granted, the series is quirky, comedic, and anything but serious—but it’s also culturally topical. One storyline in this week’s show concerned Fred and Carrie finding out that each of them has recently been romantically intimate with their roommate Alexandra. But they’re each happy for one another, each of them finding Alexandra charming. With a larky, lighthearted spirit, they agree that it’s no big deal. Cut to a picnic in the country (themed as a French New Wave film) with the three of them larking about, kissing and frolicking. It’s not serious but neither is it dismissive. The polyamory aspect of the situation isn’t played up for laughs—it’s just the context for other comedic vamping. A lovely, enlightened treatment of polyamory.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Poly reports from Brisbane and Oakland

Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:22:19 -0800

Two new articles have appeared that shine a lovely light on polyamory. The first, from January 8, is entitled “The Evolutionary Role of Jealousy in Teen Dating.” It was published simultaneously on the Youth Radio site and on the Huffington Post. In it, Sam Fuller explains how polyamory entered his thinking when a friend of his embarked on a polyamorous relationship. He asks questions of his friend, of himself, of Dossie Easton (co-author of The Ethical Slut), of evolutionary psychologist David Buss, and of his peers. Fuller looks into jealousy and how we learn to participate in it, both evolutionarily and by societal cues. It’s a smart little piece of writing. You’ll find the article at Youth Radio or the Huffington Post.

The other article comes from the Brisbane (Australia) Times and is written by Jacqueline Maley. Published January 19, “The power of three” looks at a few Australian polyamorous romantic arrangements—one’s a triad, one’s a vee, one’s an extended network—as well as taking the longview of polyamory in general. She does a more than decent job of portraying poly in a fair and balanced way. You’ll find the article here.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com

Gun control

Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:50:59 -0800

So you sympathize with the slaughtering of innocent people at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and so many other places—but you just don’t think the government should ban assault rifles, semiautomatic handguns, and the like. Why not? You think the Second Amendment is a bulwark against tyranny, a defense against the government rounding us all up and enslaving us or some such thing. Well, you’re an idiot. You have no historical vision, only fervid paranoia fed by other paranoiacs. We, Alan and Anna, are not against the consideration of conspiracies. We doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. But the tyranny of the American government and the first step is to take our guns away tripe? Inane. Learn your history better. And maybe, just once, ask Why? Why would the government do that? Would it benefit them more than the current system? No it would not, you clueless fools. And you know what? The government is made up of ordinary people, not shadowy cabals. Just as narrow-minded people are less put off by the hazy, worrisome idea of homosexuals once they actually know one, maybe the guns-for-the-revolution schmucks should talk to one of their representatives and get to know him or her. Getting to know former Representative Gabby Giffords seems to have helped some people understand this idea. Once you understand that people—regular, flawed people—comprise the organizations of governments and major corporations just as they comprise the mom-and-pop store on Main Street, the harder it becomes to sustain idiotic fantasies of grand, outsized conspiracies. Corporations exploit, yes. But do they have plans for world domination? No, they just want to make what money they can with the resources available. Politicians exploit, yes. But do they have plans for nationwide tyranny? No, they just want some measure of power. And to claim that any American president has been a tyrant is to further expose yourself as a senseless idiot with no grasp of history. Please educate yourself—and with good sources.

Gun violence is real; the coming revolution is not. We should take care of reality.

Want to comment on this blog entry?
Email us: toe13@mac.com