"trust"

Encountering a recent Brewster Rockit strip reminded me of my thoughts on first encountering mention of this trust building exercise.

Thank god they weren't into that sort of team building stuff when I last worked.

That whole "fall backwards and trust a co-worker to catch you" thing is just a major "no fucking way thing.


I *do* have trust issues. And if I'd been dragged into one of those team building things and they told me to do that I'd have told them "No. I'm not doing that. Period. I do not trust *anybody* that much, nor should I be expected to trust a mere co-worker that much."

And if they'd threatened my job, I'd tell them that they are threatening my physical safety and they'd wind up in court if they continued.

Those exercises are an unacceptable risk of physical harm. Even if the "partner" is trustworthy, that doesn't mean they can actually catch you safely And if they don't you can get hurt badly. Especially if you are my size.

Besides, being able to trust someone with your physical safety to *that* extent is far beyond the amount of trust that's needed for most jobs. You have only to trust them to carry out their parts of the groups tasks.

Medic Alert

It looks like I will have a stable income soon. Not going into more details until I have the papers (and money) in my hot little hands.

But with that, I was reminded that I could now afford Medic Alert if I want to. And with my various medical conditions, it's a good idea.

I've got two issues to deal with. One is that I'll be talking to my doctor about making sure significant stuff is listed (the diabetes and sleep apnea are gimmeees, but othere things may need to be listed as well).

The other is whether I should get the bracelet or the necklace ("dogtags")

Anybody out there have any relevant experience to offer advice from?

A theory regarding anti-gay marriage arguments.

One of the really common arguments you'll hear is that it is necessary to ban same-sex marriage to "protect" "traditional marriage".

This argument has been demolished again and again. Heck, in the Prop 8 trial in CA, their own expert witnesses couldn't come up with evidence that stopping gays from marrying would have any effect on whether or not non-gays would marry.

Yet they continue to assert this is every state that they are fighting the issue.

But just a bit ago, something reminded me of this argument and something clicked.

The argument against them is flawed because of a basic premise, a fundamental postulate if you will, that differs between them and us.

Quite simply, we assume that if you aren't attracted to the opposite sex, there's no sensible reason for you to marry one.

But to *them* men and women *need* to be married. Men need to have a wife and women need to have husbands. It's both a "personal" issue and a *social* one.

Besides the idea of women needing a man to "guide" (read: "control") it also reinforces their desired social order in many ways.

Add in the fact that many of them *still* believe that gays can be "cured" and they definitely have reason to think that it's better for a gay man or women to be in a loveless marriage with a member of the opposite sex, than for them to be single, much less married to a member of their own sex, and their arguments make sense.

Alas, no court is going to be able to allow those arguments because they are either based on "facts" that science has disproven ("gays can be cured") or they are based on religious/cultural beliefs that run counter to things like equality for women.

This means that they are going to get a lot more desperate and a lot shriller as they keep losing and any victories they get are going to be short lived unless they get really lucky.

And since they are "right" anybody opposing them must be being deliberately evil.

So expect things to get a lot uglier as they lose ground.