Gay Scientologists

S.B. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty,

I am torn. Part of me wants to lend actor John Travolta my heartfelt support in coming out of the closet. This part is, of course, at war with the part of me that wants to mock him out for belonging to the Church of Scientology. Which part should win?

S.B.

Mockery. Mockery always wins.

See, the thing is, I'm not terribly versed in the tenants of Scientology, but from what I can tell, homosexuality is not really, um, celebrated within the Church. So if a gay man chooses to believe in Xenu over allowing himself to be who he is...well, I'm not really in a position to judge anyone, but that sounds kind of unhealthy to me. And/or, if a person feels the need to repress such an integral part of his own personality so that he will be accepted by a bunch of people who are happy to take his money as long as he insists that he likes banging women...again, I'm not one to judge. And/or if a person subscribes to a belief system that does not allow him to be who he is...I think you get my point.

Now, there are, apparently, some gay Scientologists who say L. Ron didn't really mean it when he called homosexuals "sexual perverts," "skulking coward[s]," "far from normal and extremely dangerous to society," and "quite physically ill," or that those terms were taken out of context, or that the Church has eased up on the whole homosexuality debate since L. Ron wrote "Dianetics" in 1950. But really, you have to wonder about homosexuals who find themselves drawn to a way of life that so obviously hates them. Do they hate themselves that much? That makes me sad.

I do understand the desire to support someone's decision to come out, though. I think everyone should be able to come out in the manner of his or her own choosing when the time is right. But you and I are not therapists, counselors, or psychoanalysts. And near as I can tell, neither of us is personally involved with John Travolta, so as much as we might like to say, "Hey, John, we'll still love you if you come out (as long as you never make another movie like Battleship Earth)," I don't know that it is really our place to do that. Perhaps we are best served by mocking him for denying who he is so he can get regular thetan level readings because when one is so far removed from the subject, sometimes the only way one's voice can be heard is through mockery. And through mockery, perhaps we can help him see the contradictions in his life that need straightening out. And then, once he has come out, we can applaud him for his brave choice.

And then continue to mock him for keeping 700 copies of "Dianetics" lying around his house...

Thank you, S.B. for your question. Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Christmas Gifts

M.C. asks, "Dear Miss Kitty

What was the worst Christmas gift you ever received?"

This is actually a really tough question to answer because most of the Christmas presents I've been given have been spot on. Usually because I ask for stuff and people get it for me. And it's also hard for me to say a gift is "bad" because someone took the time to buy me a gift in the first place, which was really sweet and I have to applaud the effort. I did get a book once, though, that was just WAY off base. It was about how feminism was just sort of a fad and isn't it nice that we're moving back towards a society wherein women like to stay home and cook and clean and take care of the family? I think. I didn't read the thing. And I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being a stay at home mom. When I have kids, if it financially viable, I may choose to do just that because how awesome would it be to get to see your kids grow up every day? But that's just it - I may choose to stay home. I would not stay home because society told me I should. Which is kind of what feminism is about. Which means feminism is alive and well and it rocks, baby!

Oh! And another time, a co-worker (boss-type) of mine who lives in Europe brought me this nice little box of European chocolates for Christmas. None of which were vegan (which I am). On the up side, I got to give those away to the rest of the people in the office, so at least somebody got to enjoy them.

I used to have these sort of nightmares (not really nightmares, but awful thoughts) that someday, when I'm rich and famous, my fabulous rich and famous boyfriend (or boss, or co-star or someone) would buy me a fur coat as a gift (not that any of those people would, I just wanted to add some links to this post). I honestly don't know what I would do. I wouldn't take it, first of all, but I would probably then have to question our whole relationship. So thank goodness I'm not rich and famous and I don't have any rich and famous friends/coworkers/costars!

Thank you, M.C. for your question! Keep 'em coming guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com

Books vs. Technology

J.C. asks, "Hello great and powerful Miss Kitty

My dad's wife L. loves "reading" on her kindle. I love books, like the old fashioned analog kind, especially if borrowed from a public library. L. knows that I am suspicious of technology. (For example, I do not have a cell phone because I don't like them enough to own one.) And she knows that I would prefer not to continue destroying our planet's environment. So when she was telling us about her kindle, she mentioned that it could "...save a few trees." I nodded and smiled blankly as I am wont to do when listening to L. Later I thought that it probably takes a lot of non-renewable resources to manufacture a kindle and when its useful life is over, it will be garbage. However, I am not sure about this and I am certainly biased. I even work at a public library for heavens sake!
So my question, Miss Kitty, is this: Which is better for the world: books or a kindle for all?

-JC (not Jesus Christ)

ps. Kitty you are friggin awesome!"

Hi, J.C. Thank you! You are friggin' awesome, too, and I know this because I've met you. On several occasions. And I hope to visit again soon. I'm diggin' the "great and powerful MissKitty" thing. It almost makes me feel like I need to have a giant hologram of my head made so I can blow smoke and shoot flames in front of it, while hiding behind a flimsy curtain off to the side. You know what? If y'all want to picture me answering questions that way, go for it. That would be fun.

Though shooting flames anywhere near books would probably be a bad idea, which brings us around to books versus technology. I have to admit, I'm biased, too. I prefer books. When MTV Cribs toured Moby's place, they were shocked to find that he had books. None of the other places they had featured yet had books. Which instantly gave everyone the impression that he is smart. Which he is. And cute. And talented. But I digress. The point is, having books around makes people think you are smart. Having a Kindle around makes people think you are...um, tech-savvy?

When I go to someone's house for the first time, I love looking at what books and movies they own. I honestly think you can tell a lot about a person by what books and movies they own. These are not necessarily all of the books a person has read in his or her life, but they are the ones that said person thought highly enough of to want to own them, so maybe they can read them again someday. If someone owns a Kindle, you can't browse what books they have downloaded without it looking like a pretty severe invasion of one's privacy. This is books keeping people apart as opposed to books bringing people together - it's hard to start a conversation with, "Oh, I read 'Curious George Goes to the Zoo,' recently myself. How do you think it compares to the rest of the series?" if you don't see a copy of "Curious George Goes to the Zoo" on the bookshelf.

I can see the tree argument. Paper comes from trees, so the more books you print, the more trees you have to cut down. Except, there are billions of books that have already been printed. BILLIONS. One could probably build a very impressive collection of used books that would not involve the death of a single new tree. Not to mention the fact that the recycling industry could probably use a little help, too. Since there has been this whole "recession" thing going on, not as many people are buying things, and the recycling industry has had some trouble, well, recycling. Yes, they continue to collect paper and cardboard and plastic and aluminum, but if nobody is buying the televisions that come in boxes, the recycling industry can't reuse the cardboard they collected to make new boxes. So if we made a slight adjustment to the book publishing industry to include more post-consumer waste content in the new books being printed, we'd not only be saving trees, but saving the recycling industry and our economy as well.

And you're right about Kindles - they contain the same electronic components that our other gadgets contain which require the same manufacturing processes and materials. And I've seen ads now for the 4G Kindle, which means that people who already have one may now chuck it in favor of the newer, fancier one. And when the Kindle dies, sure you can dispose of it responsibly, but you're still disposing of it. Books don't die. The batteries don't crap out on you, and they never need to be recharged. You just have to remember to keep them away from fire and water. Which probably holds true for Kindles, as well.

So yeah, I'm with you on the book thing. They smell better, they feel better to hold, and it is much more effective to throw a book at someone as opposed to throwing a Kindle. Throwing a Kindle does probably more damage to the Kindle than to the target, whereas books can be hurled again and again and they always come back for another read.

Yay books!

Thank you, J.C. for your question (which was slightly modified to protect the innocent)! Keep 'em coming, guys! askmisskittyanything@gmail.com