Never the Twain

As most of my faithful readers will recognize, I have two pet peeves. One is people who talk on cell phones while driving in busy traffic. The other is people who try to inflict on the rest of the public their belief that the book of Genesis contains a factual account of the origin of Earth and its life forms.

For me, what these pet peeves have in common is stupidity (a common tag running through this blog), so along those lines one might assume that I believe teabaggers run a close third. But while I don’t have a very high opinion of these folks, I can understand their frustration and recognize the extent to which they’ve been manipulated. “Only a pawn in their game,” as Dylan once put it. It’s a sad state of affairs.

What’s saddest is the extent to which this country is divided. And while I can’t say I told you so (since probably no one except Beth heard me say it), I did see the potential for it when Obama decided to run for president. He had divisiveness written all over him from jump street, and now the pendulum has swung from a president despised by the left to one despised by the right as Fox pundits pounce on his every word.

Isn’t there anyone who can bring us together?

The irreconcilability of left and right is staggering, and I’ve tried for a long time to wrap my head around whether there’s some underlying cause that explains it. Did it all start in the sixties? Before that it was the Eisenhower era, and the only dissidents were beatniks in Greenwich Village and commies in the woodpile. Then social consciousness arose with the struggle for civil rights and protests against the war in Vietnam, and more and more people began to question the prevailing order. Nothing’s been the same ever since. Now the South votes Republican and the protesters are old white people.

But for all of the political realignments, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s as simple as this: people of the right want what benefits or safeguards themselves and their families, while people of the left want what benefits society.

The health care debate says it all. Liberals want to help their fellow citizens, while conservatives don’t think they should have to pay for strangers. But it extends to other issues as well:

• taxes: conservatives don’t want the government taking their money away; liberals are willing to give up some of their personal wealth to benefit society
• immigration: conservatives feel threatened by outsiders; liberals want to help them
• abortion: conservatives want to safeguard the family by extending protection to the unborn; liberals put a woman’s rights first
• gay rights: conservatives seek to define the family by emulating Adam and Eve; liberals seek equal rights for all
• capital punishment: conservatives fall back on Old Testament morality by calling for an eye for an eye; liberals are...well, more liberal
• guns: conservatives want to protect themselves (especially from those who want to take away their right to protect themselves!); liberals want to make society safer
• foreign wars: conservatives are concerned with protection from global threats; liberals would divert money to domestic agendas
• terrorism: conservatives’ protectionism rears up again; liberals seek to understand enemies’ points of view in pursuit of international accord
• religion in public life: conservatives want their family values to have validation; liberals want to protect non-believers from proselytizing
• evolution: conservatives fear the challenge to their core beliefs; liberals see it as just another brick in the wall of understanding
• climate change: conservatives dispute the need to make sacrifices; liberals are willing to sacrifice for the broader good

The GOP of course exploits these attitudes to advance their pro-business agenda; and since business interests are often at odds with societal interests, it’s only natural for these anti-societal factions to unite. (The “what’s the matter with Kansas” scenario isn’t as much of a mystery seen from this perspective: agrarian heartlanders are by nature more family-oriented, without the diverse societal interactions of city folk.) And it goes a long way toward explaining why the twain shall never meet.

To make matters worse, many people on the right believe there is a liberal elite that looks down their nose at them. And while it’s probably true that the majority of teabaggers are comparatively under-educated, they don’t help matters any: they get their information fed to them by an agenda-driven Fox News; they subscribe to superstitions like creationism; they respond to appeals to their innate jingoism; they hunker down with what they know best, their sense of self-preservation.

(Why are they under-educated? Maybe they did poorly in school because they received no encouragement from under-educated parents. Maybe they couldn’t afford to go to college. Maybe they couldn’t even afford to finish high school because they had to go out and work - because they live in a society not known for fairness, where business interests call the shots and keep the working class at a disadvantage. The same of course could be said for ethnic groups traditionally associated with the left - to be sure, all that keeps family-oriented minorities from joining the fold is that they’re also concerned with overcoming discrimination - but teabaggers think of themselves as real Americans to whom this unfairness has been meted out. And if life isn’t fair to them, why should they be expected to show fairness to gays or immigrants or Muslims?)

So it’s become to the advantage of the Republicans to cultivate this segment of the electorate, to convince them that the Democrats want to chip away at the defenses they’ve erected against everyone they think is out to get them, to win votes by promising to uphold “family values” so that once elected they can pursue their real goal of protecting business interests. As long as this segment of the electorate remains under-educated, they’re not going to know any better and continue to be suckered into supporting the party that supports the interests that help keep them down. And as long as they identify an educated liberal elite as their enemy, they’re going to take pride in their own under-education and resign their children to the same fate.

We read reports all the time about how American education is lagging behind the rest of the world. Meanwhile, Texas subjects its schoolchildren to right-wing distortions of reality and Arizona bans “ethnic studies” and Christians everywhere support home-schooling to guarantee their children’s indoctrination. Is it any wonder that the dichotomy in this country exists? Is there any reason to hope it will heal?

There have been studies that suggest liberal and conservative leanings have a genetic basis, and I suspect this may be true. The protectionist attitude that runs through most conservative policy stances seems like an animal instinct (and Sarah Palin now likens herself to a mama grizzly) while the liberal attitude reflects a recessive gene for cooperation (found in critters less worthy of emulation like bugs and birds). If that’s the case, there doesn’t seem to be much hope for reconciliation, at least not in our lifetime – and my hunch is that natural selection will work in favor of the protectionists. The outcome? Most likely some form of annihilation, after which the whole evolutionary cycle can start all over again. (And I suspect that, above the bacterial level, only those nasty but cooperative bugs will have survived.)

Stupidity like phoning while driving shows lack of common sense; confront people with the empirical evidence of accidents and maybe (a big maybe) they’ll see how dangerous it is and change their behavior, if only in the interest of self-preservation. Stupidity like creationism reflects a shackled mind that’s been discouraged from questioning established beliefs; educate people to weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions and maybe they’ll recognize folklore for what it is. But behavior is easier to change than belief, especially if that belief is the very foundation of your instincts for self-preservation.

As long as the under-educated segment of society watchdogs the education process, nothing will change. Just as a country like North Korea, where education is controlled from the top, teaches its children to adore their leader and view all outsiders with suspicion, America, where school districts call the shots and are subject to takeover by anyone who wants to control young minds, inculcates its own brand of blind obedience and paranoia. Meanwhile, countries in western Europe, where education is probably left to actual educators, have societies far less religious than ours. Our own democratic approach to schooling is undermining our children and our future. (But that’s just my liberal-elite p.o.v. Others no doubt applaud the propagation of American values in the face of threats from all fronts.)

And so I’m forced once more to conclude that, when considering America’s political circus of red versus blue, never the twain shall meet. And no politician will arise to unite us, because on these many issues we cannot be united. Not because of what we’ve become; just because of what we are.

Defending Liberty Yet Again

I’ve posted here before about living in a conservative state. That’s the way it is; I can live with it, I guess. And I ought to show a little appreciation for how our state legislators defend my basic rights.

The recent news is, the Arizona legislature failed once again to pass a law banning texting while driving. Why? Because they oppose “unnecessary government restrictions.”

“Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, called the legislation a ‘nanny bill’ and ‘feel-good legislation’ that would have banned a practice already covered under current laws against reckless driving. Why not also ban drinking from a Big Gulp or eating a burrito while driving, he asked.”

Even cell phone companies supported this bill, but it was opposed by the Arizona Citizens Defense League – an organization that, according to their website, lobbies “for legislation that improves the rights of honest citizens, and against legislation that demeans or diminishes those rights” – and particularly “against bills that constitute a direct or indirect impairment on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” So apparently the right to bear cell phones and text while driving deserves 2nd Amendment protection. After all, it’s a slippery slope: today no texting, tomorrow they come after your assault rifles.

Now, I don’t like to think of myself as a mean-spirited person. But I would truly glee in the news that Ron Gould was run into by someone texting. Nothing life-threatening, you understand, just enough in the way of damage to his vehicle to clear the cobwebs out of his brain. And make him spill his Big Gulp.

So while we’re at it, let’s repeal all unnecessary traffic laws that impinge upon our freedom and allow everything to be covered by “reckless driving.” I ought to be able to ignore a red light as long as I don’t do it recklessly. And speed limits? Just be careful, that’s all. Even in a school zone, it’s style that counts.

It’s only a matter of time before these nuts propose a constitutional amendment: Congress shall make no law abridging the right to be stupid. The irony is, the increased accident rate will mean we’re all going to need more health care. Who says this ain’t a wonderful country?

Teatime for Democracy, Part II

The NYT ran a lengthy front-page feature story today on the Tea Party movement, and it has to make you stop and think. Many of the participants are past 60 and getting politically involved for the first time in their lives, which makes me wonder what sidelines they were standing on back in the sixties. They’re obviously sincere and concerned, however wacky they may seem to those of us on the left. But their problem, it strikes me, is that they’re running off half-cocked with scattershot paranoia, due mostly to their willingness to take anything that Glenn Beck – today’s answer to “Lonesome” Rhodes – says at face value.

They’re railing against big government, bailouts, and the sellout of both parties to special interests, and quite rightly so. But just consider some of their extraneous talking points:

• Obama is a socialist. (The guy is now seen as hopelessly centrist by the left.) Or a Nazi. (Pick one, wouldja?) A tyrant at any rate. (Uh, excuse me, but where were you during W’s expansion of presidential power?) This is so ludicrous it defies belief and just points to their susceptibility to Fox brainwashing.
• The “birther” argument. Come on, get a life.
• Obama will take our guns away. Face it, the NRA has conditioned these folks to believe this will be the case with any Democrat, so save your paranoia for somebody who actually advocates it.
• Along with the 2nd Amendment argument: Prepare for violence in the streets. Okay, so we lefties felt the same back in the sixties, but it’s no more likely now than it was then.
• The Democratic administration is to blame for the deficit. Another attempt to rewrite history.
• Any regulation of health care is socialism and therefore evil. Presumably they’ve never been denied coverage and/or are content with government sponsoring Medicare and VA benefits. (BTW, the Daily Show’s take on health care in Hawaii, where the RNC was meeting, is particularly priceless.)
• Sarah Palin is America’s savior. This is the scariest bit, succumbing to the folksy appeal of a half-educated bimbo who winked her way into the base’s favor, you betcha.

And along with these talking points inevitably comes the conservative fall-back on family values that spells disregard for minority or gay rights – as well as for such libertarian principles as decriminalizing drugs, separation of church and state, support for reproductive rights, and generally keeping government out of the bedroom.

If these teabaggers would just focus on the main issues – valid debates over the role and size of government, our ineffectual Congress, the insidious power of big banks – they might find more Americans willing to take them seriously. But by echoing Beck’s rantings and staking out these other claims, they’re proving themselves to be nothing more than raving loonies. We of the sixties at least left a legacy of music; this crowd will only leave a trail of Metamucil.

A couple of quick updates...

1. It seems that Palin’s poll numbers have taken a tumble. Could it be that most Americans weren’t impressed with her “hillbilly palm pilot”?

2. Muslim scholars have declared that full-body scanners at airports violate their religion’s insistence on modesty. So may I modestly suggest: YOU DON’T FLY! (Just like Palin’s candidacy!)

Now here’s a solution to both situations. In lieu of the body scan, make Muslims take the GOP “purity test” in order to be allowed on airplanes. And have Palin submit to a brain scan, just to see if she has one. That way, a negative reading will confirm she’s a safe bet for the GOP – and she’ll have a choice of running mates to balance the ticket.

3. Students Schools continue to major in be a venue for 2nd Amendment rights.

4. I still have not heard Lady Gaga.

A Big Hand for the Little Lady

After the recent brouhaha, I have to wonder if the 53% of Republicans who believe Sarah Palin is better qualified to be president than Barack Obama are people who write their shopping lists on their hands when they go to the market.

But here’s what I really think. Those hand notes were so totally obvious, I suspect her handlers not only put her up to it but also made her make sure it was as conspicuous as it was – so that she would become a target of ridicule from the liberal elites and earn her even more points with the common folk. You know, the ones who write their shopping lists on their hands when they go to the market.

I’ve gotta hand it to her. I mean, could anybody really be that stupid? 
 

Y'All Won't Believe This...

But then maybe you will. A recent poll of Republicans shows that 63% believe Barack Obama is a socialist; 53% believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President; 77% oppose same-sex marriage, with smaller majorities opposing benefits for gay couples and not wanting to see gays teach in public schools or serve in the military; 77% (perhaps the same bunch) believe that the biblical creation story should be taught in public schools; and 76% view abortion as murder while an additional 15% support the death penalty.

The demographics say a lot about those who hold these opinions: the largest age group is over 60, and 42% of those polled live in the South – which may skew the statistics, but has a lot to say about the South today. While it may seem unfair to stereotype an entire region, it’s pretty obvious that the South is crawling with wingnuts. During the presidential race, the NYT reported on how Southerners perceived Obama – which by and large was with suspicion – and that perception doesn’t seem to have changed. Did anyone expect it to? Just because some C&W singers wear their hair longer than used to be seen on the Grand Ole Opry doesn’t make the place any less scary for outsiders with inappropriate worldviews than Easy Rider depicted it.

I don’t begrudge people their opinions, but misperceptions of a president’s politics and a wannabe’s qualifications – not to mention defending creationism – speak to lack of knowledge more than anything. W, himself a Southerner, touted “No Child Left Behind”; maybe he should have been more supportive of adult education.

All in favor, raise your cold, dead hands...

It was almost too good to be true – not “good” good, just yummy blog fodder. Seems an Arizona state legislator from Mesa (the wackiest ones we’ve got out here) was sponsoring a bill to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. It’s already okay to take a gun into a bar, so why not up the ante?

Even the right-leaning Courier editorialized against it, but that didn’t stop some readers from chiming in with knee-jerk defenses of the 2nd Amendment. The very first person to post a response claimed, “If it requires a permit, it is not a Right. A permit, by definition, is ‘permission’. You do not need ‘permission’ to excercise a Right.” But in defense of the paper’s stand, another person observed that said amendment does provide for a “well-regulated” militia.

Now, regardless of how this bill turns out, the fact remains that there are people who believe gun ownership should be a no-holds-barred proposition. The operative sentiment seems to be, bad guys will get guns without permits anyway, so why should honest citizens have to jump through hoops? This either/or mentality is crazy-making – the same line of thinking that views the world as us and them, and we all know where that gets us.

But the shades of the spectrum between bad guys and honest citizens is so varied that it also takes in crazies who go on rampages in workplaces, schools, restaurants, military bases, and even churches. And don’t forget the iconic postal worker. (Hello, Newman...) And how about that guy who just pulled up next to you at the stoplight, the one who’s been tailgating you for the past two miles?...

The NRA’s answer to increased gun violence, even massacres like Virginia Tech? More guns for everybody! That’s because this gang o’ loonies has its members indoctrinated into this all-or-nothing attitude wherein any attempt at regulation triggers a red flag. And we all know what regulation means: no more hunting Bambi’s mom with assault rifles.

Does anyone seriously think the Framers had this in mind when they put their muskets back on the wall after defeating the Redcoats? Or that they opened the amendment with the words “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” just because they wanted to pad it out a bit? The complete wording even hits you in the face when you go to the NRA website, but you have to think they’re speed-reading past that first clause. And somehow I can’t envision Wayne LaPierre as a colonial militiaman. (Maybe in a Napoleon hat and a straightjacket, though.)

I don’t think gun ownership is the real issue here. The real issue is why such issues have to be black and white, no shades of gray allowed. Sure, let’s provide for that “militia,” but let’s keep it well regulated as was intended. I won’t deny there’s some sense to the motto “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”; but if guns aren’t regulated, don’t press your luck at stoplights.

More than a hole in your underwear?

Wasn’t the underwear bomber enough of a warning? Now airline passengers are stuffing lizards into their shorts. It’s clear that we need to initiate more intensive screening before boarding or there’s going to be more extensive screaming afterward. Snakes on a plane are just the tip of the iceberg, there’s no telling what people will be trying to sneak past security. What about small rodents like mice or gerbils or lemmings? How many ferrets can fit in a pair of boxers? And is that a Komodo dragon on your head or just an unusual hat? We’re also going to have to start worrying about scary multi-legged creatures like spiders, scorpions, and centipedes. Any of these varmints can be secreted in clothing and won’t trip the metal detector. And bees in a rubber-stoppered glass vial should breeze right through. Why is the person going thru security in front of you twitching so much? Does he have ants in his pants? Does he literally have ants in his pants? Those little bitey red ants? Is he going to set them loose in the plane? For the love of god, isn’t somebody going to do something????

Okay, calm down. Full-body scans should take care of the problem – after all, something actively squirming isn’t going to escape detection. Even if the perpetrator sedates the critters first, the presence of a ferret or two in the x-ray is going to arouse some suspicion. (Isn’t it?) But if something else is squirming, I don’t think that guy should be let on the plane either.

Let’s face it, we’re not gonna feel safe(r) until those f-b scans are in place and in use at every airport. (“Excuse me, sir, is that a ferret in your shorts or are you just happy to be here?”) And you can carp about invasion of privacy all you want, it’s not like the TSA crew is gonna be gathered around the screen cracking wise about everyone who goes thru. (Okay, maybe about the people who need to pay for two seats.) The novelty will wear off after about, oh, half an hour, and the constant stream of boobs and peckers will become a disgusting blur. Besides, you think you have a constitutional right to get on an airplane? Don’t like it? An erosion of liberty? Take the train. (Joe Biden does.)

WWBD?

Was streaming last nite’s Daily Show, muting the commercials as usual, when I noticed an unusual one: a cartoon depicting a Tibetan Buddhist scenario in support of Red Bull energy drink:



Now I have nothing against poking fun at religion but I thought this was pretty outrageous, because you know darn well they wouldn’t have dared depict an audience with the Pope. Or even have used Pat Robertson (but then that would present a conflict with his “diet shake”). If the theme is “gives you wings,” wouldn’t angels at the Pearly Gates be more appropriate? But messing with the religious imagery of your demographic is suicide – that of another culture is always fair game. Kinda reminds me of the “crucified Santa” Christmas card that came out of Japan several years back:
 

 
Let’s level the playing field. What I’d really like to see around Easter is a McDonald’s happy meal replicating the Last Supper – just a little bread & wine for the kiddies – with maybe actions figures of the disciples. (The Judas figure comes with 30 pieces of silver, so kids will be fighting over that one.) For dessert, the apple pie will have a bite out of it, reminder of Eve’s original sin. And for the duration of the promotion, a plastic crown of thorns with every fish sandwich. Okay, who’s hungry?

I used to be disgusted...

...and I try to be amused. Really I do. But between bestiality on the local front and beastly voter behavior on the national, sometimes it ain't easy.

A Salute

When I saw the headline that GM is suspending production of Hummers, I gave a cheer. But unfortunately, it’s only a temporary measure pending sale of the brand to a Chinese company. It’s bad enough that General Motors built these gas-guzzlers – and the fact that people actually bought them was even more alarming; the prospect of their continuing existence is dumbfounding.

The first Hummer I ever saw, roaming the Tucson foothills, was pre-GM, a military leftover that looked like it had to be about 10 feet wide. At first I thought, okay, whatever turns you on. But when GM decided to turn it into a family vehicle for the conspicuous-consumption crowd, I became a diehard Hummer hater. I won’t deny that people have a right to do whatever they please as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else, but these monstrosities pushed the envelope – because the fact that they waste non-renewable resources does hurt everyone else. And you wouldn’t want to be rear-ended by one.

And so every time I saw a Hummer approaching on the road, down went my window and up went my middle finger. It was the least I could do. Beth tried to reason with me, pointing out that anybody so oblivious to social norms could possibly have a gun on board, and eventually I vowed to be less confrontational. And I have to admit, on one occasion I saw in my rear view mirror that the target of my mid-digit salute had pulled off to the shoulder as if to contemplate giving chase. Either that or he was weeping over the disrespect his foolish purchase had brought him.

The Hummer debate did become a bit of a standoff. The on-line Daily Sun in Flagstaff once carried a rather heated exchange of posts between Hummer detractors and defenders. (The Sun recently revamped its web site and cleared out all this old dialogue, but you can get a small taste of it here.) It all started when some liberal type berated a Hummer owner in a parking lot in front of his little boy. Some readers said it was mean-spirited, but I say if you’re willing to make that kind of statement to society, you’ve got to be prepared to take the heat. So it became an unresolvable dispute between those readers preaching conscientiousness and those defending personal rights. Just like health care!

I recognize that there are other vehicles on the road whose mileage is just as ghastly; and the times are even a-changin’, because the other day I noticed a large van with decals announcing that it was a hybrid. But the Hummer was so in-your-face about it, it deserved the bad rap. Now that it’s going to China, aficionados will presumably still be able to get one if they have a yen for it. But it’ll serve them right if it falls apart.

Say It Ain't So, Pat

That wild & crazy Pat Robertson is at it again, claiming that Haiti’s devastating earthquake is a result of that country having made a pact with the Devil. Where do you come up with these great one-liners, Pat? That may be about the best one since proclaiming that feminism is “a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Or since you and Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way – all of them who have tried to secularize America.” (What a great team – too bad God had to break it up.) For more wit & wisdom, click here, here, here, or here.
 
I dunno, though – he’s a hoot, but he has a way to go to top Robert Tilton. I think it’s time to invoke the spirit of Frank Zappa again...

Where There's Smoke

The debate over health care ultimately comes down to one over the proper role of government.

Take fire protection. As in most civilized countries, we have fire companies, supported by taxes, that come and put out the flames if our houses catch fire. I think nearly everybody would agree that this is a good arrangement. We don’t have a “right” to fire protection any more than we do to, say, having our streets plowed when it snows. But we’ve come to accept that these services are sensible, and we consent to be taxed in order to have them.

Protecting our health isn’t a whole lot different. People can take precautions to make sure they don’t get sick, just as they can to prevent fires. But accidents happen, and folks need access to health care just like they do to fire protection, or else risk tremendous loss.

Now suppose that fire companies could pick and chose whom they serve. Shake roof? Sorry, it’ll have to burn. Had a fire before? We won’t come next time. Isn’t that essentially what’s happened with health insurance? But while the agencies that provide fire protection are public services that answer to their municipalities and taxpayers, those that provide health insurance are profit-making corporations answerable to their boards of directors and stockholders. And as they have seen their product become less of an option and more of a necessity, they have come to have control over people’s very lives. Is any fire company in that position? If a fire razes my house, that’s a great loss; but if I carry fire insurance, I can rebuild. If sickness ravages my body and I’m unable to afford health insurance, I may not receive the treatment I need and could possibly die. So I take W’s advice and go to the emergency room and wait five hours for treatment – and if I can’t pay even for that, the hospital has to absorb the expense and health costs continue to escalate.

When lives are at stake, we the people – in the form of our government – can exercise the power that the Founders set out in the Constitution to provide for “the general welfare” (Article I, Section 8). And those of us in the liberal camp believe that the proper role of government includes providing health care just as much as providing fire companies. I recognize that in terms of dollars it’s a big leap from tax-supported fire protection at the local level to tax-supported health care at the national, but we need to shift spending priorities – cut out pork, discontinue farm subsidies, stop being cops to the world – in order to make it work.

We have already adopted – and accept – public health practices like garbage pick-up, vaccination clinics, and pest control. Why is providing security in the face of devastating medical bills branded “socialism” when spraying for mosquitoes that carry the West Nile virus is simply common sense? Conservatives’ fear of government-supported health care is so knee-jerk it’s almost comical and harks back to commie-in-the-woodpile paranoia. There’s no reason why what is already provided to the elderly, veterans, and civil servants can’t be provided to all.

This past Sunday’s NYT Magazine profiles Florida conservative Marco Rubio, who’s challenging Republican Governor Charlie Crist for a Senate seat. Rubio hit the nail on the head: “We are not debating stimulus bills or tax codes. We are debating the essence of what government should be and what role it should play.” And never the twain shall meet. It all comes down to winning over a majority of the electorate to determine which direction we take.

Health insurance may not be a right, any more than fire protection. But we can decide that all of our citizens are as entitled to good health as they are to having firemen on call – or to a financial safety net in old age or in periods of unemployment. It’s time to put out the fire that is our national health crisis. We can join the other industrialized nations as a more civilized people. And a more compassionate people as well.

The Ties That Bind

With New Jersey’s senate set to vote tomorrow on same-sex marriage, it’s time your faithful blogger weighed in on this. Because it’s an issue drenched in faux sanctimoniousness that’s annoyed the hell out of me for some time.

We all recognize the need for many of the laws that govern society. If murder, rape, robbery, and similar offenses against persons and property were not designated as crimes and went unpunished, we would feel insecure about the possibility of being threatened by people who did not live by the Golden Rule. This of course presumes that law is a deterrent, but it’s the best we can hope for.

We can agree that criminals pose a recognizable threat. But if you object to the notion of same-sex marriage, all I can ask is, “How does it threaten you personally?”

Let’s say, just as a thought experiment, that there was an isolated town a couple of counties over from you in which heinous crimes went unpunished and which consequently became a haven for criminals. If the state found out about this situation, it would be appropriate for it to take action to keep these criminals from posing a threat to neighboring communities. But say there was a town that allowed gays & lesbians to marry. How would that be a threat? And if it were not a threat to have this going on a hundred miles away, how would it be any more of a threat to have it occur in your own community?

If you insist that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, you’re espousing a definition established by your religion. (Other religions might see things differently; one doesn’t have to look any further than nineteenth-century Mormons.) If religions choose to so designate marriage, that’s their prerogative. But in the case of civil unions recognized by government for the purpose of matters like taxation, health care, and visitation rights, marriage is what we define it to be — and those of us who seek a more just society would choose to define it as any union of two consenting adults.

Because the perks of marriage sought by same-sex couples are those granted by civil government, civil laws are the issue here — not religious institutions. If you consider gay marriage a threat, please concede that it is a threat to an institution as defined by your religion, not a threat to you personally. The problem lies in the fact that the institution is recognized by the same designation by both church & state.

It all comes down to word-choice: calling it “marriage.” Church weddings refer to the “bonds of holy matrimony,” and the phrase “holy matrimony” yields more than three times as many Google hits as “holy marriage.” Perhaps we could agree that same-sex couples are as entitled to “marriage” as anyone, but only a man and a woman are entitled to “matrimony”? That way, those of you who insist on continuing to feel threatened can have all the holiness you want. And guess what? We’ll leave “marriage” to those secular sinners; you get MATRIMONY all to yourselves! 

Let’s conclude with another thought experiment: the person to whom you’ve committed your life is in the hospital dying, but you can’t visit because you’re not an “immediate family member.” Don’t take too long to decide how you’d feel.

Life'll Kill Ya

Recent news out of Pakistan isn’t good, especially if you’re a volleyball fan. The death count may even have gone up since I posted this. Muslims killing other Muslims may be dumbfounding, but it’s no different from Christians killing other Christians in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Makes me think of one of my favorite Warren Zevon lyrics:

Don't let us get sick
Don't let us get old
Don't let us get stupid, all right?
Just make us be brave
And make us play nice
And let us be together tonight

Warren’s prayer is charmingly naïve. Unfortunately, people still get stupid and refuse to play nice. The only solution, I think, lies in that equally naïve lyric by John Lennon:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Well, maybe it isn’t hard if you happen to have a vivid imagination. But countries and religion are what people have killed and died for throughout history and there seems no end in sight. Getting stupid isn’t the issue, we’ve been there forever. Ever notice that, in the majority of sci-fi stories, cultures on other worlds are largely homogenous? What’s with Earth? As Frank Zappa observed, we’re dumb all over (and a little ugly on the side). And will probably go on killing one another for these same stupid reasons until the aliens land and force us to unite. Until then, we’re operating by another Zevon lyric:

Send lawyers, guns, and money
The shit has hit the fan

Forward Into the Past!

Having had an inadequate exposure to American history during my school days, I’ve been catching up. The Oxford History of the United States is a particularly enlightening series, and I’m currently reading Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 by Gordon S. Wood. What’s really fascinating about this era is the extent to which factionalism divided the nation so soon after its founding. Political parties hadn’t yet officially formed, but Federalists and Republicans (i.e. Jeffersonian Democrats) took sides in trying to determine how the country should be run. The Alien and Sedition Acts arose out of the Federalists’ fear that the French Revolution would corrupt the new nation, and they can’t help but remind me of today’s GOP paranoia.

The Party of No is sinking to new depths. It’s not enough that they’re in lockstep against any and every Democratic proposal; now they’re yowling because Obama didn’t respond promptly enough to the recent attempted plane bombing or wear a tie when doing so. Never mind the fact that W took days to react to the shoe bomber, that’s gone down the memory hole. Both O and Napolitano are perceived as being too cool on the issue when what we clearly need is alarmism.

[An aside, pursuant to my previous “The End is Near” post: My relief that the shoe bomber hadn’t used his jockstrap betrayed my ignorance of the underwear connection in this latest event. Who knows what kind of hoops we’ll have to jump through now. But there are serious gaps in airport screening, and just because wingnuts are advocating racial profiling doesn’t make it a bad idea. Profiling may be offensive, but these are offensive times; if it can save lives, then I say throw political correctness out the window. Because while other groups do commit acts of terror — fundamentalist Christians blow up abortion clinics, radical environmentalists torch new housing developments — it appears to be only Muslim extremists who exhibit a threat to air travel.]

Then of course we have Darth Cheney “swooping around like a dementor from Harry Potter” (per Gail Collins) to squawk at us again with the reminder that we’re at war. I never really bought into this concept. W declared a “war on terror,” which was like some medieval king declaring a war on crossbows. Since Americans had become used to figures of speech like “war on drugs” and “war on poverty” it was an easy sell, even though al Qaeda resembles more than anything else an international crime ring out of James Bond. But we’re not sending our version of 007 to do the job; W preferred to expand executive powers and then start a couple of real wars to justify his actions. Now we conduct extraneous military actions that put our own soldiers in harm’s way while the real-life SPECTRE continues to put operatives on airplanes. What’s wrong with this picture?

So there appear to be a few parallels between the late eighteenth century and the early twenty-first. The Federalists saw society in terms of “us and them” and envisioned the aristocracy leading the way into the future. Today’s Republicans have successfully revived that “us and them” mindset and, with an eye toward the glory days of the Cold War, seem bent on leading us back into the past. After all, there’s nothing like an international conspiracy dedicated to overthrowing our way of life to bring “us” all together — or else be counted as one of “them.”

The End Is Near

Everyone’s saying that we’re approaching the end of the decade, so it must be true. Me, I find it hard to think of the Aughts as a discrete collection of years – aren’t those zeroes just place holders of some sort?

So yes, tongues are wagging and ink is spilling (figuratively in most cases) over 9/11 and Iraq, over real estate and recession, over disputed elections and political defections, over W and O and who gets blamed for what. But when you get down to it, it’s nothing but an excuse to fill time and space in what has become our wretchedly depraved 24-hour news cycle.

Having just returned from a holiday trip, I’m especially unnerved by the brouhaha over the latest attempt to bring down a plane. So the guy was attempting to mix something up out of chemicals taped to his legs in baggies? Swell. The failed shoe bomber led to our having to shed our footwear for security (and we should all be grateful he didn’t hide the explosive in his jockstrap); now I suppose we’ll need to prove there’s nothing up our sleeves or pant legs. The day will come when we’ll have to disrobe completely, hand our garments over for return after the flight, and don paper suits for the plane.

It’s not that this event made me apprehensive about my return flight, it’s the fact that it was on the tube all the time! Although I considered it not worth worrying that such an incident would befall my own flight, one doubt nagged at me. I didn’t fear another jihadist attempting the same action; I was more concerned that some nutcase would attempt a copycat move. And the reason that might happen is that said nutcase would have seen it on the TV news nonstop. If the media would stop acting like a dog with a bone, we’d all be better off. And probably a lot safer.

If the end is near, you’ll find out from CNN or FOX or MSNBC – and they’ll be bringing it to you live, right up to the bitter end. Whether anyone is left to watch or not.

Hang Up and Drive!

I posted a couple of days ago about the conservative streak that runs thru my community. But there are limits. Someone recently wrote a letter to the editor describing nearly getting killed by someone talking on their cell phone while driving, but he rationalized the conclusion that no new laws were needed. Conservatives just hate any restrictions on their personal freedom, even if they make sense. Even if lives are at stake.

Well, I was gratified to see a goodly number of people calling for such regulation. Conservative politically or not, it would appear that many of my fellow Prescottonians are traditionalists first and foremost, and believe that people should not be allowed to get away with putting other folks in jeopardy just because they’re attached to these new-fangled gadgets. Even so, there are still a few lunkheads who insist that this is a slippery slope that will lead to bans on all sorts of activities behind the wheel.

The New York Times has been running an excellent series called “Driven to Distraction” about the dangers of using cell phones while driving. If you have any doubts concerning the scope of this problem, click thru.

The image, by the way, is from an Aussie public awareness campaign to discourage the practice. Says it all, I think. (But this one says a little more....)