A Time and a Place

There's a debate going on these days that deals with appearance; everything from clothing to jewelry, and one side of this argument seemingly contends that just about anything goes and that people should not be subject to things like dress codes and that we (both genders, but aimed more at men) should not engage in slut shaming.  I could be wrong, but it seems to me that some people are suggesting that the whole concept of provocative appearance exists only in the eyes of the beholder.  In terms of male-female social interaction, I get the distinct impression they are suggesting that a woman should be free to wear whatever she likes and that if a man dares to suggest that a particular mode of dress is particularly alluring, seductive or erotic, that this notion is totally in the head of the man in question; essentially reducing him and his reaction to some kind of drooling, staring Chester Molester.

I've got a one-word response to that:  bullshit.

Let's begin with young ladies.  Students.  Now, if you're in school - specifically middle or high school - this is of course a time when everybody is supposed to be studying, getting the best grades they can, preparing themselves for adulthood.  And of course, it's the time when hormones (male and female) are running wild.  But that's not the central theme of this blog.  Students need to be concentrating on their academics, on whatever it is the instructor is talking about at the moment - not who is the latest fab music celebrity or what is the latest fashion trend.  There's a time and place for that, and school isn't it.

So schools (most of them from what I can determine) enact dress codes.  In some school districts a big part of that concerns the wearing of gang colors and symbols.  Totally understandable.  And then there's the goth couture; the wearing of spikes, chains, leather, piercings, mohawks, etc.  I don't think anyone would really debate what this particular fashion entails.  Most of the parents I know wouldn't have any issues with banning this kind of dress from a school environment.

But - forgive the expression - some people really start getting their panties in a knot when you start talking about what constitutes provocative clothing for young girls.  May it please the court, I offer you exhibits A, B, and C.  The first two pairs of fabric are hi-rise shorts from a major young people's source of fashion, Abercrombie & Fitch.  They can be found in most major malls.  And exhibit C is from a popular Seventeen, the largest monthly teen magazine.

I could pretty much guarantee you that 90% of the middle and high schools in the country would send home any young girl who wore this stuff to class.

Whether or not you consider any of these items provocative is your own preference.  I'm just telling you they wouldn't fly in most schools.

And if you do think they're appropriate, then YOU'RE part of the problem.

Does the fashion world (meaning everything from Seventeen magazine to Versace) promote anorexic women, revealing clothing and fashion that is designed to draw attention to women's bodies?  Absolutely. 

But here's the rub (no pun intended).  If you're under 18, you're not an adult.  You do what adults tell you to do.  Especially in school, much less at home.

And if you're a parent that's comfortable with letting your daughter out of the house in leggings that might as well be painted-on, well then, you can't really complain if down the road she decides to get a part-time job dancing on a pole.

You can contend till you're blue in the face that every person should be free to express themselves (specifically in mode of dress) but people do not dress just to express themselves; they dress to attract attention.  If you disagree with that, don't bother reading any further.  I have nothing more to say to you.

Now, about piercings and tattoos.  For decades the only body part that people got pierced was their earlobe.  I'm not talking about native tribes; just your average industrialized society.  And for the most part it was women.  And somewhere along the line - I'll say the 60's - ear piercing became more popular with men.  Not all men.  You first began to see it in the west coast cultures.  San Francisco. Woodstock.  That sort of thing.

Tattoos were for the most part something you saw on merchant mariners and young men who did military service; especially those who served anywhere in the Pacific rim area.  And then it was bikers, a culture that really took off after WWll.  These days, just about everyone has at least a small tat, somewhere on their body.

But the issue of piercings and tats - at least as far as the business world is concerned - is not so much the extent of the work, but where it's located.  In other words, as long as your face doesn't look like you fell down the stairs with a tackle box or like you're on display in a carnival tent, most employers don't have a problem.  If you're just working in say, a machine shop environment, as long as you keep long hair tied up and you're not wearing hardware that can become entangled in a machine - as long as you're not a safety risk - you're cool.  It's when you're dealing with the public - the customer - that it becomes an issue.  An employer is usually totally within their legal rights to specify what they think is an appropriate mode of appearance for (at least some) employees.  How about this young lady:

Do I find her appearance attractive?  Not particularly.  Do I find it offensive or off-putting?  No.  But that's just me.  If this is how you want to look, I guess it's your choice.  As long as you're over 18.  If you're an adult, you can express your inner freak any way you like.  But many employers might have a problem if you were applying for the job of front desk receptionist or salesperson.

And then there's the ever-so-popular butt crack.  Do we really have a debate on this one?  What's the deal with this girl?  Does she NOT know the degree of her display?  If she does, what's the point?  Does that make her a whore?  Of course not.  It makes her look rather stupid.  It says something about how she chooses to present herself to the world.  Now, you can debate what that something is all you want, but I'm saying that she IS making a statement. 

Here's another garden variety example.  Not really what I'd call blatant exposure, but…is this particularly attractive or appropriate for being out in public?  I dunno.  Maybe.  If you on the boardwalk at Venice Beach or on the strip in Vegas.  AND you have the cheeks to pull it off.  She doesn't.  Is that chauvinistic?  Is that objectification?  Sorry.

Then there's this babe.  Again, extreme?  I dunno.  Apparently not in this day and age.  Is she a stripper?  I dunno.  Could be.  Might be.  Is she making some kind of statement?  You bet your ass she is.  Is that an invitation to be rude or crude to her?  Absolutely not.  But she's making a fashion statement as much as if she were wearing a Halloween costume.

Here's a classic male version of butt crack.  Makes me want to slap a trowel of spackle on it.  Dufus.  Dude probably drinks Bud Lite.  Just sayin'.

That's all I got time for, today.  I got shit to do.  And it doesn't involve mooning people at Walmart or anywhere else in public.

I'm thinking about talking to three women in my life - my mother, my wife and one of my best friends.  All of them extremely successful as parents and professionals in the business world.  All of them open-minded but also painfully logical.  If any one of them gave me the stink-eye at something I did or wore, I would definitely think twice about it.  I'll get back to ya about what they have to say on these issues.

Shame - One Side of the Coin

In Jeb's defense (and that's sarcasm), the book in which he touts slut shaming was written 20 years ago, but this man who would be king has said little to nothing to disassociate himself from those sentiments.

Washington Post writer, Catherine Rampell says,"If only we as a populace were a bit more judgmental, the poor would stop being so poor, the promiscuous would learn restraint, deadbeats would pay their bills, criminals would keep to the straight and narrow, school shooters would lay down their arms…"

"Yes, and I have an amulet that keeps away tigers."

Bush would have you believe that the main reason people are broke, unmarried , in prison or unemployed is because it's all just too much gosh-darn fun.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that a healthy sense of shame is not a bad thing per se.  There's someone in my own family that would definitely benefit from a sense of shame, but why is it that men like Jeb Bush seem to think that only wrong-doers at the bottom of the economic pile will benefit from this?

Sorry, Jeb, but this is pretty simplistic thinking, not to mention pretty one-sided. Unless you've got the integrity and balls to stand up and admit that your older brother should be shamed for lying to get us into the Iraq War…that our government should be ashamed of its opposition to universal healthcare in light of the relative success of Canada's system…that we should be ashamed of our naive beliefs about sex education in light of the success of the Netherland's educational programs…that Fox News should be ashamed for all of its lying…unless and until you can admit to that, you do not deserve to be leader of the free world.

And instead of a scarlet letter "A," you can just have a large "L" embroidered on your suits for "Loser."

Blackhawk to Wyalusing State Park

It is roughly 83 miles from the Blackhawk landing to the Mississippi River, and another 3.5 miles to the Wyalusing landing.

Actually, the exact distance from Blackhawk to the Mississippi might be closer to 90 miles, only because of all the criss-crossing you have to do on the Wisconsin, paddling around islands, sandbars, and trying to stay in water deep enough to float your boat.

And, while it is possible to access the Wyalusing landing by going through a dense backwater slough area, if any of the guide signs were down, it's extremely easy to get lost and confused in these sloughs.  We just prefer the clearer route of going down the Mississippi and backtracking up along the railroad tracks to the landing.

Now, all that said, this is not a trip I would recommend to anyone that does not consider themselves a strong paddler.  We're not necessarily talking speed as much as endurance.  We've done this trip twice already, and on our next one (hopefully this summer) we're planning on 4 days and 5 nights.  That means paddling about 21 miles a day, which is really not that bad; it's about 5 hours of paddling a day.  We prefer to use fingerless bicycling gloves to pad our hands.

But here's the catch (there's always a catch, you know that):  the Wisconsin River runs basically east-west, and even on a good day, a slight westerly breeze starts to pick up mid-morning.  Even though the river flows at a steady 3 mph and even mild paddling will get you moving at 4-5 mph, you're usually bucking a breeze, and hopefully it's just a breeze.  Bucking anything like a 10 mph wind is not fun.

So, what that means is, ideally one should break camp by 7-8 AM and get going.  You don't have to pound it, but it's best if don't dally, because you're going to take at least a couple breaks along the way and you still want to pick out a good camp site before dusk.  That way, you've got plenty of time to relax and play at the end of the day, scrounge firewood, wind down, and rest.  Also, as you approach the end of the Wisconsin River, the water level comes up a bit due to meeting with the Mississippi, and there are considerably less camping spots.  Plenty of islands, yes, but they have no open sand areas and plenty of bugs and poison ivy.

And, on any kind of group trip, it's usually best if you keep the group together, just in case there are any kind of problems….and trust me, on an 80-90 mile journey, you can count on SOMETHING not going according to plan.

The good news is, we know where all the usual good camping spots are, plus all the supply stops, if anyone needs anything.

This is a great trip.  The scenery is beautiful and there's very little development along the river.  But again, I would not recommend it as a first time trip.

Right-Wing Religious Hypocrisy

The rhetoric of religious freedom and the war on Christianity has nothing to do with religion or faith.  While painted to look like an argument for freedom of conscience, it is a poor attempt to assert control.  

In their constant mention of the Bible, right-wing talking heads conveniently ignore the fact that Jesus ate with prostitutes, lepers and sinners.  He said those who suffer and are downtrodden would be welcomed into the kingdom of God.  He said to obey the Ten Commandments, but that the complicated Mosaic laws were not relevant to worshiping God.  And despite what little the Bible has to say about homosexuality, none of it came from Jesus.

People like Santorum and Huckabee want to cherry-pick Old Testament scriptures while ignoring prohibitions like eating shellfish and getting tattoos.

Arguing that you're loving a gay person by praying for them is passive-aggressive and condescending.

And as regards the Duggars, no one is infringing on their right to worship or free speech.  Politicians use the Duggar's fame for expanding their platform, instead of drawing attention to our broken foster care and adoption systems, or the suffering of starving children here and abroad.  You know…things Jesus might actually have cared about.

Men like Santorum and Huckabee exploit the ignorance of their audience - people who may not even know any gay people and whose opinions may be shaped by plutocrats like Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter.  They encourage their followers to vote for empty suits who cut taxes on rich people and corporations, but cut nutrition programs for poor children and identify themselves as people of faith.

They like to admonish liberals for not protecting the sanctity of life, but they're pretty indifferent to the struggles of real people living real lives here and now.  They're not particularly concerned with poverty or inequality or torture or war crimes or a hundred other ethical issues.

We know that banning abortions doesn't decrease the number of abortions.  Sex education, contraception and access to proper health care - these are the things that reduce abortions, and the very thing they oppose at every turn.

Countries like the Netherlands are literally kicking our ass when it comes to reducing teenage pregnancy, but let's just continue to turn a blind eye to all that, and keep promoting stuff like abstinence programs.  Interesting, isn't it, that people who are all about the bottom line don't like to talk about numbers like these?

No, guys like Santorum and Huckabee aren't about religion;  they're carnival barkers for their own personal form of theocracy.

As George Carlin said, they're all about protecting life until it's out of the womb; then you're on your own, kid.  No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no SNAP, no welfare, nothing.

Faith

No, I'm not here to sell you anything; not any Jesus, any Mohammed.  No pamphlets. No snake oil. But I submit to you that each and every one of us engages in various acts of faith on not only a daily but almost a constant basis.

First, let's get our definitions straight.  At the core, faith is basically just a strong belief.  We're not even talking about anything mystical or magical.  Yet. Only a vague but strong sense of trust that something will occur or continue to occur. Let's start out with some very common basics.

Electricity.  It's normally invisible, until generated at higher voltages.  Then we can see it in the form of arc welding, lightning or a Jacob's Ladder.  Nothing unusual.  Simple science.  But my point is, we have faith - we trust - that it will continue to behave as it is supposed to; in a manner we have become accustomed to.  We plug a vacuum cleaner into the wall socket - or any other common electrical device or tool - and we click a switch and expect a certain desired result.  But there are any number of factors that could - and do - change that outcome.  Bad or faulty wiring, for example.  Surges in the transmission lines.  Basically, we take for granted that things will behave and perform the way they're supposed to.  If that were not so, if the odds were 90% or less of this happening, we would be taking all sorts of precautions and tests before using simple, everyday appliances.  We be checking voltage levels and ground potentials.  Things that professional electricians do regularly because it can be fatal if they don't.  We've just gotten used to things working the way we expect them to.

Domestic water supplies.  We turn on the cold faucet and expect cold water.  And hot water from the other tap.  We don't expect to be scalded.  But it can, and does happen.  A clogged water filter on a well system can result in uneven water pressure between the cold line and the hot.  We expect domestic city water to be clean and safe.  But it can easily be otherwise.  We don't normally perform basic lab tests before we bring a glass of water to our lips.

Automobiles are a huge source of malfunctions; especially now that so many solid state computer modules are part of their operating system.  But we don't plug them into a diagnostic machine before getting in and turning the key…and go rolling down the highway at 60 mph or faster.  We trust that the wheel bearings won't heat up and seize.  We trust that the tires will not shred apart.  We trust that other motorists will stay on their side of the median line.

There are thousands of things and systems that are a part of our daily lives that we simply take for granted.

Then, there are personal relationships that involve faith.  If we're in a relationship with another person, that means we've placed trust/faith in them; that they will be there when we wake up in the morning.  That they won't freak out on us and cause physical harm.  That they won't give us an STD.  And yes, too often that trust can be broken.  That's the way life goes.  But we trust, anyway.  

Oh, you can say,"but it's not blind trust."  Isn't it?  Oh, but you know that person.  You've lived with them for a while.  Maybe a long while.  But it is the nature of Man (and Woman) to extend trust.  Eventually.  It doesn't come right away.  People have to earn your trust.  It's like credit.  And so you extend it.

And sometimes you're rewarded.  And sometimes you lose.

But that doesn't stop you from doing it again.  People that experience failed relationships usually, eventually, get into another one.  Whether they're using what you'd call good judgement or bad, they do it anyway.  Yes, some do give up on relationships, but not most.  It's like a street corner game of 3 card monty.  You believe you can win.  And it's that belief - or faith - that keeps you going.

If you really, truly believed that there was only a 50-50 chance of things happening around you the way they should, you probably wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.  Or, if you did, you probably wouldn't go too far out the front door.  Because you'd be scared shitless that something is bound to go wrong.

In addition to not selling you any religion, I'm also not going to give you a list of facts - of case studies - that demonstrate the power of the placebo.  I don't know what the limits of the human brain are regarding the healing process, but there are thousands of documented cases where people were given placebos and who demonstrated various levels and manifestations of healing/improvement.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission report from 2000 showed that there were 150 electrocutions related to consumer products.  Well, that makes MY odds pretty slim, right?  Yeah, maybe.  But I bet those consumers who got zapped weren't expecting it to happen.  And most likely, it wasn't a case of dropping a hair dryer into a bathtub.  Shit happens.  Doesn't stop us from using microwaves, toasters, etc.

What I'm suggesting is that we all participate in regular, daily instances, events that involve trust/faith, and in view of that fact, it doesn't behoove anyone to feel special or superior to anyone else if that trust/faith involves something spiritually-based.  An extension of trust/expectation/faith has really nothing to do with whether the object of that trust/expectation/faith is something you can touch or hold in your hand.  You are merely transferring your belief onto that object.  Science has nothing to do with it.  It is a choice, a gamble that you make.

What I'm suggesting is that where spiritual faith is concerned, it really doesn't matter if the person in question claims their faith is rock-solid, or whether, like Fox Mulder and aliens, they just choose to suspend their disbelief and keep their options open.

They're not odd, or stupid.

You know, I've been a musical performing artist for almost 50 years.  I've also been a machinist.  I use power tools on a regular basis.  I use chain saws.

But I knew another talented musician who wouldn't even touch a simple drill or skill saw.  Was he exhibiting an extreme fear or mistrust in them?  I don't know that I would say that.  I don't know that I would call him odd for his choices. Or his lack of faith.

People just shouldn't think they're special or look down on anyone else when it comes to the concept of faith.

Because we all participate in the process one way or another.  Toward whatever we extend our psychological faith is irrelevant.



  

Let's Clear The Air

Let's clear the air, here…the air around attaching blame to religious belief systems and how those systems are regularly twisted and bastardized.

Dr. R. Albert Mohler - president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - writes about the infamous Fred Phelps, leader of the Westboro Baptist Church.  Mohler says,"He brought great discredit to the Gospel of Christ because his message was undiluted hatred packaged as the beliefs of a church.  Phelps knew exactly what he was doing.  As The Washington Post reported, he found comfort in being a pariah.  'If I had nobody mad at me, what right would I have to claim that I was preaching the gospel?'

Blogger Pastor Brian Tubbs writes,"There's simply no place in the Bible for the offensive rhetoric of tactics employed by Phelps.  No place for someone cherry-picking a particular sin and going after it with obsessive, ruthless hatred.  There's no place for hatred in general in the Christian community."

Columnist Mark Tooley writes,"Ideally, Phelps and Westoboro would have been ignored as irrelevant and unserious, representing almost no one.  But they were too useful as props in our current culture wars.  To be fair, conservative Christians sometimes highlighted Phelps to burnish their own credentials."

So, it wasn't bad enough that Phelps sowed hatred and discord in the name of religion, but other political hucksters attempted to co-opt Phelps, trying to steal a little of the spotlight for their own agendas.

Theologically speaking, the Gospel of Christ is one of forgiveness, not hatred.  Phelps wasn't just a fraudulent Christian, he was a thug with a personal agenda.

I personally had contact with another "preacher" similar to Phelps; a guy from Wisconsin who had his own little "Christian" cult that made a hobby out of harassing naturists for legally using a small stretch of river for sunbathing and skinny-dipping, suggesting that their motives were all sexually-based.  Like Phelps, this guy basked in the attention of local media cameras, until those media finally decided to quit making him a legitimate news item.  Eventually, the "preacher" took his little traveling hate show elsewhere, to a larger city instead of out in the middle of nowhere; where he could be more visible.

It wasn't about sin; it was all about being hateful and getting media attention.

The Muslim world has clearly and repeatedly denounced ISIS.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation - representing 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries - said ISIS,"…has nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence."  The Muslim Council of Great Britain said,"Violence has no place in religion. Violence has no religion."

Craig Hicks, the Chapel Hill murderer of three people, was profoundly anti-religion.  Does that mean that we should blame his crime on atheism?  Absolutely not.

M. Scott Peck, who served as Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army, calls fundamentalism an "immature stage of spiritual development."  In other words, it's not a matter of whose team you're on, it's whether you're mature enough to evolve past the violent thousands-year-old worldview and act peacefully.

Is there a person alive who has not known and experienced various kinds of drunks?  There's the happy drunk, the angry drunk and (like me), the sleepy drunk.  Remember actor Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic tirade when he was arrested for drunken driving?  The one where he claimed "f*g Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world?"  Then later, he tried to pass it off on the alcohol.  The public didn't buy it.  We knew his anti-Semitic feelings were inside him all along.  The alcohol didn't create them.

Those of us old enough to remember comedian Flip Wilson recall how millions of Americans would gather round the TV set to watch him do his character, Geraldine, whose excuse for any bad behavior was,"The Devil made me do it."
I find that so hilariously ironic in view of all the blame people try to heap on religion.  The Devil never "made anybody" do anything, and most rational people would never grant anyone a pass or an acquittal based on the Devil's influence, but many seem perfectly willing to ascribe same to religion.

Atheistic anti-religious rants are no different than fundamentalist "believers" wanting to impose their hateful anti-gay beliefs on an entire state or ISIS members wanting to create a caliphate.  As Dana Carvey used to say when he did his impression of George Bush Sr. on SNL,"Na gaa happen."

Let's cut the crap and put the blame where it belongs - on the various thugs of this world doing their impressions of devout believers.  They represent neither the Muslims nor the Christians of the world, and their theologies are not the cause of their crimes, but their own personal hatreds and lusts for power.  

"The Slippery Slope"

The "Slippery Slope" fallacy is: If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen, too.  Therefore, A should not happen."

Throughout history, there have been various attempts by "do-gooders" to warn the general public against things that they insisted would lead to addiction, sexual deviance, crime, violence and the downfall of civilization as we know it.  And of course, it wasn't enough for these people to just warn us; in every instance, there were always "movements" to villainize, criminalize, boycott or ban a thing or an action.

The early 1800's saw the beginning of the temperance movement, warning that alcohol was a "slippery slope" to domestic abuse, child abandonment, moral degradation and crime.  It eventually led to Prohibition in 1920, and as we're all aware, the 18th Amendment only succeeded in creating MORE crime, due to simple supply and demand.  Regular, everyday people were unable to purchase alcoholic beverages legally, so organized crime stepped in to fill the need and profited from it.  Some states actually banned possession of alcohol, making the consumer a criminal and subject to arrest.  Even worse, a lot of the illegally produced alcohol was of poor quality.  Many stills used lead coils or lead soldering, which gave off acetate of lead - a dangerous poison.  Some bootleggers used recipes that included iodine, creosote or even embalming fluid.  Amazingly, Prohibition lasted 13 years before it was finally repealed, but contrary to the early temperance warnings, the country did not slip into chaos.

In the late 30's, "reefer madness" was the next "slippery slope," warning that the evil weed would lead children into narcotic use, sexual deviance and prostitution.  And just like Prohibition, the "War on Drugs" led to the imprisonment of otherwise innocent users for mere possession of small amounts of marijuana.  Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million arrests for possession.  This obsession with criminalizing marijuana cost American taxpayers $3.6 billion annually.  And fast-forwarding to the present, 23 states now have legalized either medical or recreational marijuana use/cultivation.  Civilization still intact.

Homophobic and anti-gay people have resisted same-sex couples and unions for decades.  Their bizarre "slippery slope" argument usually goes something like,"If we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars, and even monkeys."   Again, they suggest - mostly through religious objections - that the very fabric of society will be torn asunder if we do not live our lives according to their rigid, conservative world view.  Anita Bryant organized "Save Our Children," a major campaign to oppose gay rights, suggesting that gay people were interested in "recruiting or molesting" children.  Again, fast forward to the present day, and we now have 37 states where gay marriage is legal.

The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn.

The movement to villainize or ban adult media is another common "slippery slope" group that has flourished for decades.  When Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer" was published back in 1934, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice wrote that the novel was,"…not a book.  It is a cesspool, an open sewer, a pit of putrefaction, a slimy gathering of all that is rotten in the debris of human depravity."  Copies of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" were regularly confiscated by the Post Office until a 1959 court decision, after which the book promptly sold 6 million copies.

President Reagan went after adult media in the 80's, telling Attorney General Ed Meese to focus on "gay sex, anal sex, and black-white couples."  Bush's DOJ Porno Task Force told the prosecutors to go after X-rated entertainment companies who produced videos and magazines.

Interesting that to this day, it is illegal to sell sex toys in Alabama.  But then, we also realize that Alabama ranks near the bottom of the list in quality of public education; surpassed only by Mississippi and (surprise!) the District of Columbia.

I don't have any current statistics on the adult "industry," but as of 2002, Comcast pulled in $50 million from adult programming, and all the nation's top cable operators - from Time-Warner to Cablevision - distributed explicit video to their subscribers.  Hilton, Marriot, Hyatt, Sheraton and Holiday Inn all offer adult programming in pay-per-view, and they are purchased by 50% of their guests, accounting for 70% of their in-room profits.  Adult DVD sales hit $3.6 billion in 2003.  Current estimates are at $10 billion.

The latest "slippery slope" paranoia seems to revolve around the book,"50 Shades of Grey," a story involving BDSM.  Within a year of its publication, libraries in a Florida country began removing it from their shelves, but that action was reversed due to public demand.

Opponents of the novel insist that it "glorifies" abuse and violence and that it will lead to misunderstanding by younger readers and abuse within relationships.

Novels and movies often cover the fringe, the bad and the ugly, but just because they cover it does not constitute condoning same.  That is where the critics of "50 Shades" go too far.  It is safe to say that author, E.L. James is not encouraging rape, since there is a "safe word" in the book.  Further, James's inclusion of Christian's behavior in the novel does not mean James supports this behavior.  She is merely telling a story.

We don't expect that crime thrillers be 100% faithful to the reality of detective work, or that romances heed the complex nature of real relationships, so WHY should an erotic novel be held to some higher standard??

It's just prejudicial and "slippery slop-ish" to suggest that this book has the power to increase violence against women.  100 million copies sold testifies to the fantasy of some women to be dominated.  Fantasy.  Are we to also boycott women's fantasies?  To tell them that these fantasies are "dangerous" and possibly responsible for domestic violence?

The bottom line to all this "slippery slope" mania is that none of the above activities or objects have led to the general degradation of society, but that will not stop people from trying to villainize objects or ideas.  It's just easier to hate something if you can pin some kind of blame on it, while the rest of society seems to move along just fine in spite of all the warnings and dog whistle blowing.

Do some people have a serious problem with substance abuse?  Yes.  Some people have a Crispy Creme doughnut abuse problem, too.  The rest of us seem capable of moderated consumption without any risk of tobogganing into alcoholism or obesity.

Look…if you don't like alcohol or cannabis, then don't consume them.  If you don't like same-sex couples, then stay hetero.  If you don't like adult sex-based media, then don't watch or read it.  But for crying out loud, stop suggesting that any of it is in-and-of-itself evil.  If you're a parent, then do your damned job and talk to your kids about whatever you're concerned about.  But also realize that eventually, they are going to want to know what all the fuss is about and make their own decisions about all the verboten.

The horse is dead.  Your club is bloody.  Put it down and walk away.  Goodness knows, before too long, there will be some new thing to worry about that will potentially plunge us all into chaos.