I conducted a little experiment earlier today. Used my friends. The willing ones. Although they might not have known what they were getting into.
I asked any facebook friends of mine to word associate with the term "socialism." Give me your first thought when you see or hear the word, I asked. And no repeating what the person before you said.
It seemed like a worthwhile little game. After hearing foaming-at-the-mouth politicians / commentators / Fox "News" pundits call out the Obama administration and the president himself for "socialism," always in a tone reserved for war criminals, I decided I should decode what they mean by "socialist." Or should I say, what they want other people to hear when they use the term.
I know what socialism actually signifies in theory - I've done a smattering of research on the topic, and there is the fact that I lived for under a president who belonged to the Socialist Party, under a government headed by a socialist prime minister, and for 10 years at that. (Granted, that was in France. But it counts.) The real definition of the word does not elude me. No, I wanted to know what it means in perception. Which is the only reality that counts, given the way the word has been tossed around in the past year.
Anyway, on with the facebook buddy results.
"control"
"Bread lines"
"De-individualization"
"communism (in drag)"
"Denmark"
"facebook"
"despair"
"healthcare"
"Communally mediocre, shared averageness, mutually middling."
"England... probably due to their socialized healthcare""
"homogeneity, incentiveless, boring, lowest common denominator, unwieldy, inertia, 'for your own good,' involuntary, lazy, shackles, one size fits all"
"dreamslayer, freeloaders, demotivator, entitlement, behemoth, fear, control, bureaucracy, big government, security over potential, lack of competition"
"Capitalism's Yin"
Lots of good stuff there. Let me give out some awards, before I pretend to attach some substance to this post.
Most Ironic
Ryan G. with "facebook"
Most Scenic (tie)
Rob R. for "bread lines"; Amy J. for "communism in drag"
Most In Need of Hug and/or Attention in General
Mason V. for "despair" and assorted other entries
Most Erudite
Kim F. for "mutually middling" and "de-individualization"
Most Continental (tie)
Angie B. and "Denmark"; Christine S. and "England"
Most Timely
Elena S., "healthcare"
Quickest Draw
Noah S. with "control"
Best In Show
Matt L. with "Capitalism's Yin"
The short of it: Socialism appears to get generally a bad rap in the highly representative and oh-so diverse subset of humans known as "John F.'s bored thirtysomething facebook friends of mostly Caucasian descent, many of whom live in one of the reddest states in the union."
So if the cries of "Obama's a socialist!" are aimed exactly at people afraid of socialism creeping into public policy, that sounds like an effective tool. The accuracy of the charge is irrelevant. The tactic appears sound. As long as you're trying to rile up the troops.
(*Tangent Warning* By the way, folks using "socialist" as an insult are of course following in a long tradition of misuse of the word. Who can forget the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? The bad guys from the Cold War get double points for using two misnomers in the name of their country. Republics? Not so much. Socialist? Puh-leeze. They could have done us all a favor and called the whole thing the Flimsy Union of Communist Kremlin Egomaniacal Russian Sociopaths, although that would have looked really bad on their sports uniforms. My real-life favorite: The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.)
Amy J. touches tangentially on this semantic issue with the "in drag" comment. As evidenced by 30 seconds of research, communism and socialism differ substantially, but socialism sounds less threatening, so purportedly Marxist governments embrace it for their public face. It's more benign. Less incendiary. (Unless Sean Hannity is using it.) And while it's true that Chucky Marx himself envisioned socialism as a bridge to communism, which makes it fair to call socialism a kind of communism in disguise, or a communism-lite, that's not the way it's played out historically in Western Europe, where socialist governments have coexisted with capitalistic market forces for decades.
Which brings us to Matt L.'s delectable image of socialism as the Yin to capitalism's Yang. And so it has been in our nation's history. While we let the free market do its thing in many areas, we also have redistributed wealth as long as taxes have existed. Not with the aim of bringing about perfect equality between the rich and the poor, or of ushering in a worker's paradise, but with the notion that government intervention is sometimes necessary to rein in the excesses of unbridled capitalism. I present to you the IRS, Medicare, the coming shape of health care reform and FDR's body of work. Oh, and the FCC, the FEC, the FDA, food stamps, Medicaid, the estate tax, and a gwillion other things.
Just as the Yang would cease to exist without the Yin, and vice versa, our democratic society would come apart at the seams without the key socialistic principle of "public control of productive capital and natural resources." It's imperative that certain amounts of capital and resources be controlled by the government. So they can be managed not for profit, but instead redistributed out of compassion for our poorest and most helpless segments of our population.
On the other hand, clearly the state may not control all capital, unless that government's goal is to enrich its leaders while paving the way for an economic meltdown.
We've come to the time for a brief definition of socialism, so I visited that Wiktionary place, whose definition neatly mirrors the Webster's one, and happens to be the clearest one I could drudge up: "Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources." Terrifying stuff. Economic security for all citizens. Power not concentrated among the few, but spread among the many. Safeguards in place to prevent the rape of the environment. Gotta steer clear from that anti-American madness.
I'm all out of sarcasm. So I'll leave you with this bonus fun fact: Bernie Sanders, the independent junior senator from Vermont, describes himself as a democratic socialist.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Bumper Stinker & Wishful Thinking / 10-19-09
I know this is not going to elevate public discourse.
And I know the person who put this on their 11-mpg "car" was merely trying to be cute.
I also know better than to debate a frakking bumper sticker.
But still...
"It's God's Job To Judge The Terrorists
It's Our Job To Facilitate The Meeting"
Anyone else seen this one? I glimpsed it for the first time today. And of course, I was suckered into taking it as a serious statement, which it isn't. I mean, the driver just wants to express her/his dislike of dislikable people. And while "Sure Hate International Terrorism" might make a great acronym, it isn't nearly snappy enough. Also falling flat: "I Disapprove Heavily of Terror-Based Violent Activity" or "Suicide Bombers Are Mean Bullies."
How are we supposed to be "the good guys" if we relinquish the moral high ground? And in this case, the moral high ground is, don't treat humans like disposable waste or expendable political statements. I can hear the driver right now: "But they don't deserve to live." And there goes your moral high ground. Fell right out of your gas-guzzler and cracked its head open on the pavement.
Which goes right to the point I've been making since before the Iraq invasion, to all three people who have to listen to me on a consistent basis. You can't defeat violence with violence.
The link here, from the Washington Post, tells the story of how Iraqi deaths, due to violence or combat, through 2007, were estimated at 600,000, then revised to 150,000, give or take 50,000. I quote the larger figure first, just to see if the smaller figure is comforting. It is not.
Responding to 9/11 with a military operation that has claimed uncertain numbers of lives was exactly the wrong message to send, if your message was that we are morally superior to the terrorists. (Now if your intention was to seize the moment to make an oil grab for you and your buddies, under the pretense of overthrowing a dangerous dictator, then this was your golden opportunity. Nicely done.)
But if your intention had been to smoke out and/or fight those directly responsible for 9/11, you could have done that far more surgically AND spent a trillion dollars in the Middle East on improving access to education for all, developing mutually beneficial trade agreements, building hospitals and bridges and making lots and lots of microloans. Who knows? By doing so, you might even have begun to win that so-called "war on terror," by fighting it in a way that preserves the moral high ground, the respect and cooperation of our wealthy allies, and your own souls. Also, we might win with that strategy. Hard to tell when we're "winning" and "losing" these days.
You could have even gone ahead and borrowed that trillion dollars from our grandchildren. I don't care, call it an investment in the distant future, whatever. Instead, all you went and did is sank to the terrorists' level. Someday, we're going to pay for that decision, and not just economically.
And I know the person who put this on their 11-mpg "car" was merely trying to be cute.
I also know better than to debate a frakking bumper sticker.
But still...
"It's God's Job To Judge The Terrorists
It's Our Job To Facilitate The Meeting"
Anyone else seen this one? I glimpsed it for the first time today. And of course, I was suckered into taking it as a serious statement, which it isn't. I mean, the driver just wants to express her/his dislike of dislikable people. And while "Sure Hate International Terrorism" might make a great acronym, it isn't nearly snappy enough. Also falling flat: "I Disapprove Heavily of Terror-Based Violent Activity" or "Suicide Bombers Are Mean Bullies."
How are we supposed to be "the good guys" if we relinquish the moral high ground? And in this case, the moral high ground is, don't treat humans like disposable waste or expendable political statements. I can hear the driver right now: "But they don't deserve to live." And there goes your moral high ground. Fell right out of your gas-guzzler and cracked its head open on the pavement.
Which goes right to the point I've been making since before the Iraq invasion, to all three people who have to listen to me on a consistent basis. You can't defeat violence with violence.
The link here, from the Washington Post, tells the story of how Iraqi deaths, due to violence or combat, through 2007, were estimated at 600,000, then revised to 150,000, give or take 50,000. I quote the larger figure first, just to see if the smaller figure is comforting. It is not.
Responding to 9/11 with a military operation that has claimed uncertain numbers of lives was exactly the wrong message to send, if your message was that we are morally superior to the terrorists. (Now if your intention was to seize the moment to make an oil grab for you and your buddies, under the pretense of overthrowing a dangerous dictator, then this was your golden opportunity. Nicely done.)
But if your intention had been to smoke out and/or fight those directly responsible for 9/11, you could have done that far more surgically AND spent a trillion dollars in the Middle East on improving access to education for all, developing mutually beneficial trade agreements, building hospitals and bridges and making lots and lots of microloans. Who knows? By doing so, you might even have begun to win that so-called "war on terror," by fighting it in a way that preserves the moral high ground, the respect and cooperation of our wealthy allies, and your own souls. Also, we might win with that strategy. Hard to tell when we're "winning" and "losing" these days.
You could have even gone ahead and borrowed that trillion dollars from our grandchildren. I don't care, call it an investment in the distant future, whatever. Instead, all you went and did is sank to the terrorists' level. Someday, we're going to pay for that decision, and not just economically.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
What the Heaven? / 10-18-09
Four times, I've been involved in an event that had a chance to end my life.
Once, during a perilous landing on an otherwise ho-hum airplane flight. Once, in a car wreck. Once, when I collapsed climbing out of my hospital bed following surgery. Once, three weeks ago, when my internal defibrillator fired an electrical shock designed to reset my heart rate to normal levels.
But in none of those cases did I find myself sad, darkly reflective, excited, suddenly penitent, or even regretful. Instead, I was strangely calm. Unworried. If anything, curious. Slightly expectant, maybe. Even a few days or weeks after each event, I did not find myself examining my life for improvements I could make, now that I'd dodged the Grim Reaper again. I did not cope with the aftermath by making new resolutions to live life to the fullest, to cherish each day as a blessing, to soak up idyllic family moments...
Don't get me wrong. I have no death wish. I want to see my boys grow up and start families of my own. I want my (presently unwrinkly) wrinkly wife to receive the unparalleled privilege of changing my big-boy diaper, several times at least. I want to eventually not be carded for wine purchases. (You laugh, but I had to break out the ID tonight again.)
Surely you've gathered by now that I'm not going anywhere political with this one. Unless you consider the afterlife political.
Welcome to Heaven
(a subsidiary of God, LLC)
- Green Party members only* -
All others KEEP OUT
*some restrictions apply
The idea you can secure a happier, more comfy, more pleasant, less fire-slash-brimstone-heavy residence to hang out in after you buy the farm, based on your lifetime performance, that idea is nonsensical to me. To imply that we have any control over whatever part of us survives this body... that just screams "delusional" to me. I intend no offense. I just don't get it anymore.
Granted, something's going to happen after my last breath. Not only can I not really picture what that might be, I can't even picture if I will be able to experience it at all, let alone as "myself," whatever that means.
Some of you have close relatives who've died. Moms, dads, siblings, maybe even kids. That's bound to color your idea of the afterlife. I confess I've had no such experience. Which makes me no expert. Let me defer, then, to people smarter than me.
"Since life and death are each other's companions, why worry about them? All beings are one."
"The true men of old did not know what it was to love life or to hate death. They did not rejoice in birth, nor strive to put off dissolution. Unconcerned they came and unconcerned they went. That was all. They did not forget whence it was they had sprung, neither did they seek to inquire their return thither."
Both quotations are from the Chuang Tzu, another "scripture" of Taoism thought purportedly collected by a thinker of the same name. Both passages are instructing the same thing: Live life and let the afterlife sort itself out. You're not exactly in charge of it anyway.
You can argue whether this is comforting or disquieting. To me, it just rings true.
Once, during a perilous landing on an otherwise ho-hum airplane flight. Once, in a car wreck. Once, when I collapsed climbing out of my hospital bed following surgery. Once, three weeks ago, when my internal defibrillator fired an electrical shock designed to reset my heart rate to normal levels.
But in none of those cases did I find myself sad, darkly reflective, excited, suddenly penitent, or even regretful. Instead, I was strangely calm. Unworried. If anything, curious. Slightly expectant, maybe. Even a few days or weeks after each event, I did not find myself examining my life for improvements I could make, now that I'd dodged the Grim Reaper again. I did not cope with the aftermath by making new resolutions to live life to the fullest, to cherish each day as a blessing, to soak up idyllic family moments...
Don't get me wrong. I have no death wish. I want to see my boys grow up and start families of my own. I want my (presently unwrinkly) wrinkly wife to receive the unparalleled privilege of changing my big-boy diaper, several times at least. I want to eventually not be carded for wine purchases. (You laugh, but I had to break out the ID tonight again.)
Surely you've gathered by now that I'm not going anywhere political with this one. Unless you consider the afterlife political.
Welcome to Heaven
(a subsidiary of God, LLC)
- Green Party members only* -
All others KEEP OUT
*some restrictions apply
The idea you can secure a happier, more comfy, more pleasant, less fire-slash-brimstone-heavy residence to hang out in after you buy the farm, based on your lifetime performance, that idea is nonsensical to me. To imply that we have any control over whatever part of us survives this body... that just screams "delusional" to me. I intend no offense. I just don't get it anymore.
Granted, something's going to happen after my last breath. Not only can I not really picture what that might be, I can't even picture if I will be able to experience it at all, let alone as "myself," whatever that means.
Some of you have close relatives who've died. Moms, dads, siblings, maybe even kids. That's bound to color your idea of the afterlife. I confess I've had no such experience. Which makes me no expert. Let me defer, then, to people smarter than me.
"Since life and death are each other's companions, why worry about them? All beings are one."
"The true men of old did not know what it was to love life or to hate death. They did not rejoice in birth, nor strive to put off dissolution. Unconcerned they came and unconcerned they went. That was all. They did not forget whence it was they had sprung, neither did they seek to inquire their return thither."
Both quotations are from the Chuang Tzu, another "scripture" of Taoism thought purportedly collected by a thinker of the same name. Both passages are instructing the same thing: Live life and let the afterlife sort itself out. You're not exactly in charge of it anyway.
You can argue whether this is comforting or disquieting. To me, it just rings true.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
The Decepticons / 10-11-09
Nothing to do with Transformers. I'll explain the headline at the end.
I went and forced myself to click on the "Reject R-71" web page, just to see what the gay-bashers are up to. All right, look, I'm sorry. But I did not visit said site in an effort to increase site traffic and enhance legitimacy of said site. I will not even link to it. That would make my fingers explode with shame, which is a nonsensical image, but hey, it's my blog.
(Quick recap: To reject R-71 would remove civil rights from senior domestic partners and gay couples. Approving R-71 is the way to affirm the WA Legislature did the right thing earlier this year when it extended privileges like business succession rights, workers' compensation coverage, visitation rights, custody rights and insurance rights to ALL its citizens in committed relationships, not just the married ones.)
So anyway, over at the site that makes my soul feel unclean, there's a page dedicated to "Talking Points." Apparently, if you want to rationalize and defend your bashing of gays, these talking points are designed to be useful tools in that struggle. Or if you've been ordered to reject R-71 but you don't know why, you could just read the talking points, memorize them, and leave your brain in park, as you've been doing for your whole life.
I know this will come as a heart-stopping surprise, faithful readers, but each talking point is deceptive and/or misleading.
(And by the way, what does it say about your organization when its officially sanctioned talking points contain layers of deception?)
So I thought it would make me feel better to list each talking point and identify the deceptive or misleading content. It's more mature than yelling "YOU LIE!" in a public gathering. Although I've heard that also makes people feel better. But still, on with the show.
Talking Point 1) "Senate Bill 5688 includes the phrase, 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered Domestic Partnerships' over a hundred times."
All righty then. To verify this claim, I went and read the bill. (What a concept.) Turns out, that phrase is indeed all over the text, yes, dozens of times. Only EVERY time it appears, it's as a part of the following: "references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved or invalidated." Every time. Which is clearly not at all what the anti-gay crowd is implying with TP 1).
Oh, and two can play at this game. Let's take a little something Jesus said. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you." That's Matthew 18:34-35, New International Version, with all the words in perfect sequence, I didn't even have to mess with them or begin mid-sentence. Context sure can be a real bitch, huh.
TP 2) "Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as gender neutral. The wording in the bill says, "Where necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."
All right. I have a hard time understanding why this talking point makes the cut, although I'm not completely dense, and I do suspect it has something to do with officially replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Still, someone is going to have to explain to me what makes this such a great TP. Obviously, if the bill's intent is to allow for unmarried cohabitating straight seniors or gay partners to have their domestic partnerships, then the language of "husband" and "wife" is no longer super-useful to describe the partners. You need those terms to be more flexible, so making them neutral is just good legislation. I may not be very misled or deceived here, but I sure am cornfused. Should I be angry? Relieved? What?
TP 3) "If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose 'same-sex marriage' (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November."
This litigation of DOMA you fear: It's going to happen regardless of the result next month on R-71. And the litigants will win a case someday, for the same legal reasons they won in California. You can't stop it. And even if you could, this referendum isn't the way to stop it, since even if you win this time around, the legislature will pass a SB 5688 clone next session.
Also, you're just guessing. Unless you plan to file the lawsuit yourself. (As Jon Stewart might say: "Duuuuu-bi-oussssssssssssssssss.")
TP 4) "Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family."
OK, let's skip past the circular logic of the first sentence and tackle the second sentence. I will bet my house, and maybe yours too, that the vast, vast, vast majority of these "thousands of studies" are focused on children raised in single-parent homes vs. those raised in two-parent homes. And I'm not going to pretend that a single parent can, IN GENERAL, do a better job of fulfilling the emotional, physical, and financial needs of a child or children than two parents can. That's just common sense. (Did I say, "In general" loud enough?) Which is what a study will invariably conclude, time after time after thousandth time.
But how many studies compare the emotional/physical health of kids raised in same-sex marriages with that of kids raised in straight marriages? That's the info that might be pertinent here; not the "non-traditional family" mountain of evidence. Very impressive bit of misleading there, gay-haters.
TP 5) "Criminalization of free speech and 'anti-bullying' laws follow the legalization of same-sex 'marriage'. In a few short months after legalizing same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!"
First of all, next time, lose the exclamation point. It's juvenile. Second of all, don't use the example of a foreign country's free speech legislation to illustrate what might happen here. Canada's free speech laws don't apply south of their border... OR DO THEY??!! Come on. Misleading, with a side serving of scare tactics thrown in.
(Oh, I GET to use exclamation points. In an ironic way.)
TP 6) "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex 'marriage' and homosexuality are perfectly normal."
They may well be "forced" to teach that being gay no longer automatically exempts you from certain rights, especially in civics classes or American politics or social studies or something along those lines. But as long as same-sex marriage remains illegal in Washington, and it still will be against the law a month from now after the election, I doubt the public school system will deem SSM normal. The schools don't make a habit of endorsing illegal behavior. Except for that smoke-in last week in my first-grader's classroom. That was fun. Good weed, too.
But the real deception here is the none-too-subtle implication that kindergartners or early elementary students are going to be discussing those topics. Not really in the curriculum for that age group, people. But thanks for the "Our teachers are going to turn all our 5-year-olds into gay America-haters" scare tactic.
TP 7) "Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!"
Again with the punctuation thing? Whatever. But if you're going to fight against the right of homosexuals to live as they choose, to attain the same set of rights straight people have access to, you should not begin your final talking point with the opposite of what you believe.
In that case, you're just engaging in some pretty heavy self-deception.
Done with that. I DO feel better. Oh wait, yeah, I promised an explanation of the headline. Well, the Reject R-71 crowd is made up of mainly conservatives. Or "cons" for short. The talking points are deceptive. Surely you get it now.
I went and forced myself to click on the "Reject R-71" web page, just to see what the gay-bashers are up to. All right, look, I'm sorry. But I did not visit said site in an effort to increase site traffic and enhance legitimacy of said site. I will not even link to it. That would make my fingers explode with shame, which is a nonsensical image, but hey, it's my blog.
(Quick recap: To reject R-71 would remove civil rights from senior domestic partners and gay couples. Approving R-71 is the way to affirm the WA Legislature did the right thing earlier this year when it extended privileges like business succession rights, workers' compensation coverage, visitation rights, custody rights and insurance rights to ALL its citizens in committed relationships, not just the married ones.)
So anyway, over at the site that makes my soul feel unclean, there's a page dedicated to "Talking Points." Apparently, if you want to rationalize and defend your bashing of gays, these talking points are designed to be useful tools in that struggle. Or if you've been ordered to reject R-71 but you don't know why, you could just read the talking points, memorize them, and leave your brain in park, as you've been doing for your whole life.
I know this will come as a heart-stopping surprise, faithful readers, but each talking point is deceptive and/or misleading.
(And by the way, what does it say about your organization when its officially sanctioned talking points contain layers of deception?)
So I thought it would make me feel better to list each talking point and identify the deceptive or misleading content. It's more mature than yelling "YOU LIE!" in a public gathering. Although I've heard that also makes people feel better. But still, on with the show.
Talking Point 1) "Senate Bill 5688 includes the phrase, 'marriage shall apply equally to state registered Domestic Partnerships' over a hundred times."
All righty then. To verify this claim, I went and read the bill. (What a concept.) Turns out, that phrase is indeed all over the text, yes, dozens of times. Only EVERY time it appears, it's as a part of the following: "references to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved or invalidated." Every time. Which is clearly not at all what the anti-gay crowd is implying with TP 1).
Oh, and two can play at this game. Let's take a little something Jesus said. "In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you." That's Matthew 18:34-35, New International Version, with all the words in perfect sequence, I didn't even have to mess with them or begin mid-sentence. Context sure can be a real bitch, huh.
TP 2) "Senate Bill 5688 will redefine terms such as 'husband' and 'wife' to be interpreted as gender neutral. The wording in the bill says, "Where necessary to implement this act, gender-specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to individuals in state registered domestic partnerships."
All right. I have a hard time understanding why this talking point makes the cut, although I'm not completely dense, and I do suspect it has something to do with officially replacing gender-specific terms with gender-neutral ones. Still, someone is going to have to explain to me what makes this such a great TP. Obviously, if the bill's intent is to allow for unmarried cohabitating straight seniors or gay partners to have their domestic partnerships, then the language of "husband" and "wife" is no longer super-useful to describe the partners. You need those terms to be more flexible, so making them neutral is just good legislation. I may not be very misled or deceived here, but I sure am cornfused. Should I be angry? Relieved? What?
TP 3) "If Senate Bill 5688 is allowed to stand, Washington will immediately become subject to litigation by same-sex partners demanding the courts overturn our state's Defense of Marriage Act and impose 'same-sex marriage' (as happened in California prior to Proposition 8). Referendum 71 brings this society changing measure before the people of Washington State to let them make this monumental decision in November."
This litigation of DOMA you fear: It's going to happen regardless of the result next month on R-71. And the litigants will win a case someday, for the same legal reasons they won in California. You can't stop it. And even if you could, this referendum isn't the way to stop it, since even if you win this time around, the legislature will pass a SB 5688 clone next session.
Also, you're just guessing. Unless you plan to file the lawsuit yourself. (As Jon Stewart might say: "Duuuuu-bi-oussssssssssssssssss.")
TP 4) "Marriage is between husbands and wives so children can have fathers and mothers. Thousands of studies show that children raised in a family with both a mother and a father are healthier emotionally and physically than those raised in a non-traditional family."
OK, let's skip past the circular logic of the first sentence and tackle the second sentence. I will bet my house, and maybe yours too, that the vast, vast, vast majority of these "thousands of studies" are focused on children raised in single-parent homes vs. those raised in two-parent homes. And I'm not going to pretend that a single parent can, IN GENERAL, do a better job of fulfilling the emotional, physical, and financial needs of a child or children than two parents can. That's just common sense. (Did I say, "In general" loud enough?) Which is what a study will invariably conclude, time after time after thousandth time.
But how many studies compare the emotional/physical health of kids raised in same-sex marriages with that of kids raised in straight marriages? That's the info that might be pertinent here; not the "non-traditional family" mountain of evidence. Very impressive bit of misleading there, gay-haters.
TP 5) "Criminalization of free speech and 'anti-bullying' laws follow the legalization of same-sex 'marriage'. In a few short months after legalizing same-sex 'marriage' in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison!"
First of all, next time, lose the exclamation point. It's juvenile. Second of all, don't use the example of a foreign country's free speech legislation to illustrate what might happen here. Canada's free speech laws don't apply south of their border... OR DO THEY??!! Come on. Misleading, with a side serving of scare tactics thrown in.
(Oh, I GET to use exclamation points. In an ironic way.)
TP 6) "If same-sex marriage becomes the law in Washington, public schools K-12 will likely be forced to teach that same-sex 'marriage' and homosexuality are perfectly normal."
They may well be "forced" to teach that being gay no longer automatically exempts you from certain rights, especially in civics classes or American politics or social studies or something along those lines. But as long as same-sex marriage remains illegal in Washington, and it still will be against the law a month from now after the election, I doubt the public school system will deem SSM normal. The schools don't make a habit of endorsing illegal behavior. Except for that smoke-in last week in my first-grader's classroom. That was fun. Good weed, too.
But the real deception here is the none-too-subtle implication that kindergartners or early elementary students are going to be discussing those topics. Not really in the curriculum for that age group, people. But thanks for the "Our teachers are going to turn all our 5-year-olds into gay America-haters" scare tactic.
TP 7) "Homosexuals have the right to live as they choose. They do not have a right to redefine marriage for all of us. Marriage is not a special interest!"
Again with the punctuation thing? Whatever. But if you're going to fight against the right of homosexuals to live as they choose, to attain the same set of rights straight people have access to, you should not begin your final talking point with the opposite of what you believe.
In that case, you're just engaging in some pretty heavy self-deception.
Done with that. I DO feel better. Oh wait, yeah, I promised an explanation of the headline. Well, the Reject R-71 crowd is made up of mainly conservatives. Or "cons" for short. The talking points are deceptive. Surely you get it now.
Friday, October 9, 2009
No Bull Peace Prize / 10-9-09
Depending on how much you hate Barack Hussein Obama, you were either stunned, pleased, or disappointed that he won the Nobel Peace prize this morning.
Well, that's not entirely fair. Even though I am an unabashed - or at most minimally abashed - fan of the man, I found myself admitting this morning that he's not the most deserving laureate ever. Then I did some research. (Allah forbid!) I unearthed some interesting finds. Found me some interesting unearthings.
But first, let's hear some hate. Every one of the following comments I culled from my facebook friends and their friends. All statements were posted today. None of them is made up; there's no need to manufacture this kind of contempt for the President. It just naturally bubbles up when given the chance. And it often gets the chance. A lot of people really dislike him a lot.
"I'd like to humbly accept my award for winning "The Biggest Loser" for all of the weight I intend to lose some day."
"I think the prize was awarded just to see if Obama would take it. He knows he hasn't done anything, we know he hasn't done anything, the world knows he hasn't done anything. Some where behind the scenes there's some blond haired Norwegians laughing and poking each other: 'See! I told you Obama and his big ego would accept the award, now pay up!' "
"SOME skepticism? Honestly, wtf did he do to deserve that?"
"it's officall, the world has lost it's mind. How does this guy compare to mother Theressa or Nelson Mandella?"
"At least now I know I have a shot at winning it because I don't do carp either. What has the world come to?"
Now, an assortment of facts, buttressed by opinion. You know, the way reason is supposed to work. And I promise to not do any carp at all. Either.
First, BHO actually meets the criteria the Nobel committee is supposed to follow. The NPP is to be conferred on, and I quote: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
There's an argument that Obama has moved swiftly in these areas, already, although you wouldn't know it from media coverage. Please, whatever you think of the man, acknowledge that Obama is presently using the power of his office to ease tensions in a variety of places around the globe. He's actually aiming to restore peace in actual real-world situations. Right now. I found this buried in the main story at CNN.com:
"The award comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has multiple administration officials dispatched on global peace missions. Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has returned to the region to advocate for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Mitchell met Thursday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. He plans to meet Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before talking with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was starting a six-day trip to Russia and Europe on Friday. On the trip, the secretary will discuss the next steps on Iran and North Korea, and international efforts to have the two countries end their nuclear programs.The centerpiece of the trip will be her visit to Moscow, where she will work toward an agreement to take the place of the Start II arms control pact, which expires December 5."
Granted, it's not immaterial whether Obama meets the criteria the American public has laid out in its collective mind. Clearly he would be viewed more legitimately, and the award would carry more weight, if it were universally agreed that his efforts to bring about peace had already borne some fruit. For example, Jimmy Carter scored himself an NPP in 2002, 21 years after leaving office, for in large part his work in mediating the Israel-Egypt peace talks, and those two nations have now enjoyed cordial, war-free diplomatic relations for 30 years, and everyone pretty much agrees Carter earned that puppy.
And then, we have the little matter of precedent. The Nobel committee has actually conferred a Peace Prize on heads of state for efforts, as of then unfulfilled, to change the world. Mikhail Gorbachev won it in 1990. As it says: for his "role" in the "process." Not for his results, at the time, as of yet unachieved.
Not sure how this fits into my narrative, but I found it at nytimes.com, which quotes John McCain as saying: "Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award. And Nobel Committee, I can’t divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” Take it for what it's worth.
And finally, consider that an American President is surely one of the very most powerful people on earth... ah, who are we kidding, surely one of the most powerful men on earth, and most certainly one of the three people with the most power to wreak destruction and annihilation on a worldwide or local level. Who, besides the head of the Communist Party in China and the Russian Prime Minister, has the capacity to kill as many people as our top exec? Ruin as many lives? Snuff out as many nations for political gain?
Therefore, my parting thot is: The fact that we now have a President who uses the office to try and solve conflicts, rather than a careless warmonger who places little value on human life, is cause for celebration. Not ridicule.
Well, that's not entirely fair. Even though I am an unabashed - or at most minimally abashed - fan of the man, I found myself admitting this morning that he's not the most deserving laureate ever. Then I did some research. (Allah forbid!) I unearthed some interesting finds. Found me some interesting unearthings.
But first, let's hear some hate. Every one of the following comments I culled from my facebook friends and their friends. All statements were posted today. None of them is made up; there's no need to manufacture this kind of contempt for the President. It just naturally bubbles up when given the chance. And it often gets the chance. A lot of people really dislike him a lot.
"I'd like to humbly accept my award for winning "The Biggest Loser" for all of the weight I intend to lose some day."
"I think the prize was awarded just to see if Obama would take it. He knows he hasn't done anything, we know he hasn't done anything, the world knows he hasn't done anything. Some where behind the scenes there's some blond haired Norwegians laughing and poking each other: 'See! I told you Obama and his big ego would accept the award, now pay up!' "
"SOME skepticism? Honestly, wtf did he do to deserve that?"
"it's officall, the world has lost it's mind. How does this guy compare to mother Theressa or Nelson Mandella?"
"At least now I know I have a shot at winning it because I don't do carp either. What has the world come to?"
Now, an assortment of facts, buttressed by opinion. You know, the way reason is supposed to work. And I promise to not do any carp at all. Either.
First, BHO actually meets the criteria the Nobel committee is supposed to follow. The NPP is to be conferred on, and I quote: "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
There's an argument that Obama has moved swiftly in these areas, already, although you wouldn't know it from media coverage. Please, whatever you think of the man, acknowledge that Obama is presently using the power of his office to ease tensions in a variety of places around the globe. He's actually aiming to restore peace in actual real-world situations. Right now. I found this buried in the main story at CNN.com:
"The award comes at a crucial time for Obama, who has multiple administration officials dispatched on global peace missions. Obama's envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, has returned to the region to advocate for peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Mitchell met Thursday with Israeli President Shimon Peres. He plans to meet Friday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before talking with Palestinian leaders in the West Bank. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was starting a six-day trip to Russia and Europe on Friday. On the trip, the secretary will discuss the next steps on Iran and North Korea, and international efforts to have the two countries end their nuclear programs.The centerpiece of the trip will be her visit to Moscow, where she will work toward an agreement to take the place of the Start II arms control pact, which expires December 5."
Granted, it's not immaterial whether Obama meets the criteria the American public has laid out in its collective mind. Clearly he would be viewed more legitimately, and the award would carry more weight, if it were universally agreed that his efforts to bring about peace had already borne some fruit. For example, Jimmy Carter scored himself an NPP in 2002, 21 years after leaving office, for in large part his work in mediating the Israel-Egypt peace talks, and those two nations have now enjoyed cordial, war-free diplomatic relations for 30 years, and everyone pretty much agrees Carter earned that puppy.
And then, we have the little matter of precedent. The Nobel committee has actually conferred a Peace Prize on heads of state for efforts, as of then unfulfilled, to change the world. Mikhail Gorbachev won it in 1990. As it says: for his "role" in the "process." Not for his results, at the time, as of yet unachieved.
Not sure how this fits into my narrative, but I found it at nytimes.com, which quotes John McCain as saying: "Oh, I’m sure that the president is very honored to receive this award. And Nobel Committee, I can’t divine all their intentions, but I think part of their decision-making was expectations. And I’m sure the president understands that he now has even more to live up to. But as Americans, we’re proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category.” Take it for what it's worth.
And finally, consider that an American President is surely one of the very most powerful people on earth... ah, who are we kidding, surely one of the most powerful men on earth, and most certainly one of the three people with the most power to wreak destruction and annihilation on a worldwide or local level. Who, besides the head of the Communist Party in China and the Russian Prime Minister, has the capacity to kill as many people as our top exec? Ruin as many lives? Snuff out as many nations for political gain?
Therefore, my parting thot is: The fact that we now have a President who uses the office to try and solve conflicts, rather than a careless warmonger who places little value on human life, is cause for celebration. Not ridicule.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)