I'm not the first person in the world to propose something like this.
But for the love of Tao, my fellow Americans, isn't a college football playoff system the most overdue thing in all of the sporting world? (Well, besides a championship for any Seattle team.)
So, because I'm smarter than every other sports philosopher who's preceded me, here is my suggestion and it is flawless and airtight and neat and swell and tidy and clever, and no, what do you mean, of course I'm not biased.
Just think - we could use the existing infrastructure to organize a 10-team playoff over three weekends, culminating in a delayed title game, selecting teams in this way (pay attention):
There are six major conferences in which the quality of football played is understood to be vastly superior. (The SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, Big 10, ACC and Big East.) Each of these conference champions earns a playoff ticket. No questions asked. Each receives a first-round bye - straight to the quarterfinals, with only two caveats: unless one such team has three or more losses, or is outranked by five places in the final BCS standings by an unbeaten, untied team from a non-major conference.
Because, yo, let's face it, there are good teams outside of those conferences. Sometimes there are great teams. (Boise State 2006-2007 springs to mind. The dudes who "upset" Oklahoma in that Fiesta Bowl three years ago. Those types of teams should be in, no questions asked.) At the very least, two of these teams, year in, year out, deserve a shot at the national championship. So between two and four playoff berths would be reserved for non-major conference teams who a) won their conference title and b) had one or fewer losses and c) finished in the BCS top 20.
This year, those teams would be BSU and TCU.
There are great teams who fail to win their major conference championships. At least one a year. Sometimes (and by that I mean "often") two.
This year, that team is Florida.
Following a formula such as that outlined above will usually result in finding the 10 best teams in the country. Or at least the 10 most deserving teams. Each one earned a stab at the national title with its performance; none are unworthy.
But people will ask: What about the next best team? What about the ACC's really good runners-up? The Pac-10's next best team? What about Nos. 11 and 12 in the standings?
Answer: Those schools should have won their conference championship this time around, then. Or had a better year than the Gators. Or not lost that crucial league game early on. Or been one of the top 10 in the final BCS standings. How can you claim to be No. 1 in the country at the end of a year when you were never even the best team in your conference at any point of the season?
The calendar would work ideally. The four at-large teams, whose seeds are determined by the BCS formula, would seek to advance by playing in early December, seeds 7 vs. 10 and seeds 8 vs. 9, at the home of the highest-ranked team. The winners would proceed to the quarters around Dec. 20 and then to the semis right after Christmas.
Those quarterfinals would be held at four of the six sites of the Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Orange, Sugar and Peach Bowls. The semis could be held at a brand-spanking new site (sunny San Diego?) and another of the six. The title game could be held at the last of those six and rotate from bowl to bowl, as it currently does. (The current system actually is kind of smart that way. Accidentally intelligent, to be sure, but that counts too.)
And incidentally, the losers of the at-large round could even play a consolation game somewhere, just for kicks and pride. And cash. Since we're just making it up as we go along.
The title game could be played right around when it is conducted now, between the 4th and the 10th of January.
This year, you'd get a playoff slate consisting of:
Dec. 19, 9 a.m. EDT
At Miami
(3) Cincinnati vs. (6) TCU
Dec. 19, 1 p.m. EDT
At Dallas
(2) Texas vs. winner of (7) Georgia Tech - (10) Iowa
Dec. 19, 5 p.m. EDT
At Pasadena
(4) Oregon vs. (5) Ohio State
Dec. 19, 9 p.m. EDT
At New Orleans
(1) Alabama vs. winner of (8) Florida - (9) Boise State
Dec. 26, 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. EDT
At San Diego and Atlanta
Semifinal winners
Jan. 7, 8 p.m. EDT
At Tempe
Title game
The mind drools.
(Notice how I placed the highest-ranked conference champion in a favorable venue. Remember my above-average smarts I told you about? Notice how Florida is severely penalized for losing its conference title game, but gets a chance at redemption IF it can get past disrespected BSU? Notice how long-undefeated Iowa is punished for that late loss, and faces a daunting challenge, but gets its reward for a terrific season anyway? Notice how TCU leapfrogs ACC champ Ga. Tech because of its sparkling record and No. 4 BCS position? Notice how all FIVE undefeated teams qualified? Notice the Pac-10 vs. Big 10 pairing that dropped into the Rose Bowl's lap?)
All right, clean it up, so I can conclude. The beauties of this system:
1. EVERY team can win the national title at the beginning of the year. That is not true now. A Nevada team that began the season unranked, then went 11-1 and won the WAC would never reach the BCS title game. Not in a million polls. But it could finish 10th in the BCS and earn an at-large bid, thus standing a slim chance under this setup.
2. Bowls can survive - and thrive. The big'uns have to BE the quarterfinal and semifinal games. But the rest will live on unchanged, because they will remain a big deal for each school involved. And the Rose, Orange and others would not lose notoriety for being part of a playoff - they'd still serve as massive rewards for truly outstanding teams each year; their winners would still retain bragging rights; their losers would still claim prestige for having participated in them; and one of them could even BE the title game on a rotating basis. The TV rights would escalate, if anything, and it's not like the games would ever fail to sell out.
3. The regular season continues to mean something. Unlike the NBA, the NHL and yes, college basketball, the pressure to win every week will remain intense. The consequences of a single ill-timed loss will be catastrophic. Borderline teams will be in playoff mode from October on. It's one of the best parts of college football: you have to be outstanding ALL YEAR LONG, and that requirement should persist.
4. The NCAA and the TV stations make incalculable gobs of dough. More than they presently do.
5. The major conferences keep their privileged status. Conference champions are automatically eligible to win the national title; lesser conferences have barricades in place and are limited to four at-large berths - and even then, realistically, it'd be the rare year when three
6. Silly controversy over whether 2009 TCU or 2006 BSU deserves a title shot would disappear and be replaced with good controversy, like whether the ACC was really a "major" conference this year.
I rest my case.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
How Long / 12-15-09
I promise, this post is tangentially connected to politics, so it's not off-topic.
Because breaking my own self-imposed rules would be rude. To me.
Below lies a list of institutions present in our society. Next to each rests two figures; the first one is that institution's age, while the second is the percentage of the lifetime of our nation that the institution has existed. Finally, I post a bit of trivia about each item.
(I count the "birth" of the nation as the moment all 13 states ratified the U.S. Constitution. That was in May 1790, 209.5 years ago.
Enjoy!
Google / 11.25 yrs / 5.4 percent
"Originally the search engine used the Stanford website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. They formally incorporated their company, Google Inc., on September 4, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California." (Culled that from wikipedia. Didn't google it.)
Twitter / 2.67 yrs / 1.3 percent
"The [company's] projections for the end of 2013 were $1.54 billion in revenue, $111 million in net earnings, and 1 billion users." (OK, again from that wikiplace, gotta find a new source.)
Ratification in Mississippi of the 19th Amendment, allowing women to vote / 25.67 years / 12.7 percent
Text of the highly objectionable amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." (Hey, that's the actual text of the amendment, NOT from wikiwiki.) Oh, incidentally, Mississippi legislators also generously made some time to ratify the amendment declaring slavery illegal... in 1995.
50 U.S. States / 50.33 yrs / 24 percent
Hawaii's state flag includes a Union Jack in the upper left corner.
"The Simpsons" / 20 yrs / 9.6 percent
The first episode aired 12-17-89 and was named "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire."
"The Price is Right" / 53.5 years / 25.5 percent
More than 7,000 episodes have aired.
High Fructose Corn Syrup / 44.67 yrs / 21.3 percent
"The average American consumed approximately 28.4 kg (63 lb) of HFCS in 2005." (Yes, wikipedia, you got me.)
Social Security / 74.33 years / 35.5 percent
The program has collecting its own check for a little more than nine years now!
The Federal Income Tax / 96.83 years / 46.2 percent
I know, sometimes it feels like 46.2 percent. But from 1952-53, if you made more than $400,000, your tax rate was... wait for it... oh yeah... 92 percent. Good times. (Incoming President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, predictably lowered it to 91 percent through 1960. Tax cuts. Sheesh.)
Because breaking my own self-imposed rules would be rude. To me.
Below lies a list of institutions present in our society. Next to each rests two figures; the first one is that institution's age, while the second is the percentage of the lifetime of our nation that the institution has existed. Finally, I post a bit of trivia about each item.
(I count the "birth" of the nation as the moment all 13 states ratified the U.S. Constitution. That was in May 1790, 209.5 years ago.
Enjoy!
Google / 11.25 yrs / 5.4 percent
"Originally the search engine used the Stanford website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. They formally incorporated their company, Google Inc., on September 4, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California." (Culled that from wikipedia. Didn't google it.)
Twitter / 2.67 yrs / 1.3 percent
"The [company's] projections for the end of 2013 were $1.54 billion in revenue, $111 million in net earnings, and 1 billion users." (OK, again from that wikiplace, gotta find a new source.)
Ratification in Mississippi of the 19th Amendment, allowing women to vote / 25.67 years / 12.7 percent
Text of the highly objectionable amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." (Hey, that's the actual text of the amendment, NOT from wikiwiki.) Oh, incidentally, Mississippi legislators also generously made some time to ratify the amendment declaring slavery illegal... in 1995.
50 U.S. States / 50.33 yrs / 24 percent
Hawaii's state flag includes a Union Jack in the upper left corner.
"The Simpsons" / 20 yrs / 9.6 percent
The first episode aired 12-17-89 and was named "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire."
"The Price is Right" / 53.5 years / 25.5 percent
More than 7,000 episodes have aired.
High Fructose Corn Syrup / 44.67 yrs / 21.3 percent
"The average American consumed approximately 28.4 kg (63 lb) of HFCS in 2005." (Yes, wikipedia, you got me.)
Social Security / 74.33 years / 35.5 percent
The program has collecting its own check for a little more than nine years now!
The Federal Income Tax / 96.83 years / 46.2 percent
I know, sometimes it feels like 46.2 percent. But from 1952-53, if you made more than $400,000, your tax rate was... wait for it... oh yeah... 92 percent. Good times. (Incoming President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, predictably lowered it to 91 percent through 1960. Tax cuts. Sheesh.)
Monday, December 7, 2009
Take 5 / 12-07-09
(First things first: Apologies to Dave Brubeck for the headline.)
Here are five quick takes on the three topics that are legal to discuss on this blog. By the way, that holy trinity is comprised of politics, sports and spirituality. In case you hadn't noticed.
I. Health care reform
A bill reforming health care will clear the Senate. Sometime this month or next. It may or may not be a good bill. What's a good bill, you ask? Something that addresses the unethical number of uninsured Americans and something that provides for an avenue for certain folks to purchase government-issued health insurance in certain states; in other words, something that brings down long-term costs to society by accomplishing those two goals.
A great bill would be Medicare For Everyone. That's not on the table, sadly. But with incremental progress, we can get there, and this bill would appear to represent incremental progress in that direction. Just because it doesn't go far enough doesn't make it a bad bill, just a placeholder.
The opposition will not muster the 41 votes necessary to filibuster the bill, whatever form it takes. Filibustering, for the political novices out there, is the act of NOT ending debate on a bill. Debate must end, by a 60-40 or greater vote, for a piece of legislation to be considered for passage. (Even more parenthetically, it is FALSE and UNTRUE and INACCURATE that a bill must receive 60 votes to clear the Senate and head to President Obama's desk. It only needs a simple majority of 51 votes, or failing that, 50 plus Vice President Biden's.) So a very determined group of 40 or more Senators can keep legislation from ever COMING to a vote by filibustering it, but it takes 51 to vote it down once it clears that hurdle. Yes, I'm done with caps lock for a few paragraphs.
In short, not that I have any brevity-ability whatsoever, too many individual Democrats have too much to lose, and by "too much" I mean any position of privilege or leadership or committee chairmanship, by filibustering a bill brought to the floor by their own party. A number of D's may elect to vote against the bill after it clears the filibuster, but they will not commit political suicide by snubbing their self-interested noses at the party leaders. And if one of them does (yes, I'm glaring at you, Joe L.), Obama will pick off one of the Maine Republicans to break ranks.
II. TARP refund
Apparently, of the approximately $97,245 quopthrillion earmarked last year for the bailing out of financial institutions, the government will receive a refund of $200 billion. (Yes, the first figure is a slight slight slight tiny little tiny exaggeration. The second number is accuratish. Truthy, even.)
Early speculation had Obama laundering that money into a jobs bill. Because there seems to be a rumor out there that unemployment is high. Well, BHO said today he's gonna use a chunk of it to pay down the projected budget deficit instead.
This move is either shrewd, concessionary (not an actual word), morally responsible, or a combination of all three. (Always my favorite. The large supreme sans olives.)
Shrewd because it appeals to independents for whom the mounting deficit is alarming. Concessionary because Republicans have hypocritically been clamoring for excess funds to be applied to the gaping budget hole. (This despite the fact that their presidents practically invented the deficit.) And morally responsible because a good way to screw our kids and grandkids over is to leave them with a crippling national debt. We should be teaching them loads and loads of Mandarin, by the way. Just in case.
All three of the above, in 40-25-35 proportions, seems about right.
III. Merriners ad newe thurd basemen
Seeattle whill sine thurd basemen Chone (prunounced "Schawn") Figgins tuah 4-yeer, $36-miliun kontrakt tudde'.
Two out of the last 20 words are spelled right... Yes, Mr. Figgins spells his name so it'll rhyme with scone, just not the way you're necessarily used to saying "scone" unless you're from London, Manchester, Sydney, or North Uppitycrust. Parents are interesting people sometimes.
Anyway. Figgins is awesome. Ichiro-lite with the bat, only with more walks, and a good defender to boot. The M's will annoy their way to many wins this season with those two dudes at the top of the lineup. I look forward to many 32-pitch first innings from the opposing pitcher. Hee hee.
IV. Tiger
Newsflash: Tiger Woods has a penis.
V. Copin' Hagglin'
(One of my best/worst recent puns. Admire it.)
Obama hosted Al Gore in the Oval Office as worldwide climate change talks in Denmark began. Other than providing Fox "News" with a chance to put two of their favorite villians (where was Hillary!?) in the same picture without having to use Photoshop, the meeting was uneventful... except to remind us that for all of Obama's compromising with Republicans, he is committed to addressing climate change from an orthodoxically liberal point of view.
To clarify that hideous sentence, he might ditch the public option, he might work a bunch of tax cuts into a stimulus bill, he might drag his feet on closing the Guantanamo prison, but he's holding the line on climate change. 17 percent cuts in CO2 by 2020 is his short-term goal; that climbs to 83 percent cuts by 2050. This is another reason he has a chance to be the most important/successful President in recent history.
P.S. I had fun with some of the links. Enjoy. Also, I'll try to not go a month between posts again. But no guarantees.
Here are five quick takes on the three topics that are legal to discuss on this blog. By the way, that holy trinity is comprised of politics, sports and spirituality. In case you hadn't noticed.
I. Health care reform
A bill reforming health care will clear the Senate. Sometime this month or next. It may or may not be a good bill. What's a good bill, you ask? Something that addresses the unethical number of uninsured Americans and something that provides for an avenue for certain folks to purchase government-issued health insurance in certain states; in other words, something that brings down long-term costs to society by accomplishing those two goals.
A great bill would be Medicare For Everyone. That's not on the table, sadly. But with incremental progress, we can get there, and this bill would appear to represent incremental progress in that direction. Just because it doesn't go far enough doesn't make it a bad bill, just a placeholder.
The opposition will not muster the 41 votes necessary to filibuster the bill, whatever form it takes. Filibustering, for the political novices out there, is the act of NOT ending debate on a bill. Debate must end, by a 60-40 or greater vote, for a piece of legislation to be considered for passage. (Even more parenthetically, it is FALSE and UNTRUE and INACCURATE that a bill must receive 60 votes to clear the Senate and head to President Obama's desk. It only needs a simple majority of 51 votes, or failing that, 50 plus Vice President Biden's.) So a very determined group of 40 or more Senators can keep legislation from ever COMING to a vote by filibustering it, but it takes 51 to vote it down once it clears that hurdle. Yes, I'm done with caps lock for a few paragraphs.
In short, not that I have any brevity-ability whatsoever, too many individual Democrats have too much to lose, and by "too much" I mean any position of privilege or leadership or committee chairmanship, by filibustering a bill brought to the floor by their own party. A number of D's may elect to vote against the bill after it clears the filibuster, but they will not commit political suicide by snubbing their self-interested noses at the party leaders. And if one of them does (yes, I'm glaring at you, Joe L.), Obama will pick off one of the Maine Republicans to break ranks.
II. TARP refund
Apparently, of the approximately $97,245 quopthrillion earmarked last year for the bailing out of financial institutions, the government will receive a refund of $200 billion. (Yes, the first figure is a slight slight slight tiny little tiny exaggeration. The second number is accuratish. Truthy, even.)
Early speculation had Obama laundering that money into a jobs bill. Because there seems to be a rumor out there that unemployment is high. Well, BHO said today he's gonna use a chunk of it to pay down the projected budget deficit instead.
This move is either shrewd, concessionary (not an actual word), morally responsible, or a combination of all three. (Always my favorite. The large supreme sans olives.)
Shrewd because it appeals to independents for whom the mounting deficit is alarming. Concessionary because Republicans have hypocritically been clamoring for excess funds to be applied to the gaping budget hole. (This despite the fact that their presidents practically invented the deficit.) And morally responsible because a good way to screw our kids and grandkids over is to leave them with a crippling national debt. We should be teaching them loads and loads of Mandarin, by the way. Just in case.
All three of the above, in 40-25-35 proportions, seems about right.
III. Merriners ad newe thurd basemen
Seeattle whill sine thurd basemen Chone (prunounced "Schawn") Figgins tuah 4-yeer, $36-miliun kontrakt tudde'.
Two out of the last 20 words are spelled right... Yes, Mr. Figgins spells his name so it'll rhyme with scone, just not the way you're necessarily used to saying "scone" unless you're from London, Manchester, Sydney, or North Uppitycrust. Parents are interesting people sometimes.
Anyway. Figgins is awesome. Ichiro-lite with the bat, only with more walks, and a good defender to boot. The M's will annoy their way to many wins this season with those two dudes at the top of the lineup. I look forward to many 32-pitch first innings from the opposing pitcher. Hee hee.
IV. Tiger
Newsflash: Tiger Woods has a penis.
V. Copin' Hagglin'
(One of my best/worst recent puns. Admire it.)
Obama hosted Al Gore in the Oval Office as worldwide climate change talks in Denmark began. Other than providing Fox "News" with a chance to put two of their favorite villians (where was Hillary!?) in the same picture without having to use Photoshop, the meeting was uneventful... except to remind us that for all of Obama's compromising with Republicans, he is committed to addressing climate change from an orthodoxically liberal point of view.
To clarify that hideous sentence, he might ditch the public option, he might work a bunch of tax cuts into a stimulus bill, he might drag his feet on closing the Guantanamo prison, but he's holding the line on climate change. 17 percent cuts in CO2 by 2020 is his short-term goal; that climbs to 83 percent cuts by 2050. This is another reason he has a chance to be the most important/successful President in recent history.
P.S. I had fun with some of the links. Enjoy. Also, I'll try to not go a month between posts again. But no guarantees.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
A Quickie But a Goodie / 11-4-09
Going to let this one incubate for a day or two before a full post comes out. Until then, here's some instant reaction.
I'm relieved AND proud AND ashamed at the preliminary election results this time around.
Relief category: R-71 passed. Gay couples (and let's not forget, senior citizens in heterosexual domestic partnerships, too) get to keep their rights. Fred and Ned may not have a marriage certificate to frame and put up on the wall, but they remain equal to a married couple under the law. That's worth celebrating. We are all freer today as a result. A semi-anonymous poster on a popular website put it like this: "It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists. If one group of people, or even one person is being discriminated against and denied rights, then none of us are truly free."
Relief bonus: While counted ballots gave R-71 only a 51-49 edge at 1 a.m., it's estimated that most of the uncounted votes are from King County, where the ballot measure enjoys a 2-1 advantage in the Yes column. So it's going to pass.
Pride category: I'd just started to read a Danny Westneat column on the historical progression of gay rights when he delivered this nugget: "it appears Washington state will be the first in America to approve a gay-equality measure not by court fiat or legislative action, but by the direct will of the people. It's never happened before. If the slim lead holds for the gay-partnership law Referendum 71, it would be a landmark."
That floors me. Several states permit same-sex marriage. If Dannyboy's research is money, it IS a big deal. I'll work on confirming that.
Shame category: Somewhere along the lines of 49 percent of the electorate opted to REMOVE rights from a set of citizens. I can almost understand why homophobes would vote to not GIVE rights to gay couples. An initiative along the lines of "Should we the people of Washington state extend every right enjoyed by married couples to gay couples?" is going to cause folks to hide their bigotry behind excuses. Lame excuses like "marriage is a privilege, not a right" and "marriage holds the fabric of our society together, its rights are not to be disseminated." People can rationalize anything they set their heart to, provided they have some sort of cover.
But to take away someone's rights... that's hard to pass off as anything but contempt for the basic humanity of the gay man and woman. There's no excuse for that attitude. There's no fancy hiding behind fancy reasoning available there. That kind of hatred is exposed, obvious, naked. And somehow, half of us in this state chose that option. Disgusting.
(I'll weigh in on the rest of the election results later, specifically on how R's need to temper their glee at taking the VA and NJ governorships, and how D's need to not get too worked up about their two wins in House races.)
I'm relieved AND proud AND ashamed at the preliminary election results this time around.
Relief category: R-71 passed. Gay couples (and let's not forget, senior citizens in heterosexual domestic partnerships, too) get to keep their rights. Fred and Ned may not have a marriage certificate to frame and put up on the wall, but they remain equal to a married couple under the law. That's worth celebrating. We are all freer today as a result. A semi-anonymous poster on a popular website put it like this: "It is a travesty that people have to fight for equal rights, when it allegedly already exists. If one group of people, or even one person is being discriminated against and denied rights, then none of us are truly free."
Relief bonus: While counted ballots gave R-71 only a 51-49 edge at 1 a.m., it's estimated that most of the uncounted votes are from King County, where the ballot measure enjoys a 2-1 advantage in the Yes column. So it's going to pass.
Pride category: I'd just started to read a Danny Westneat column on the historical progression of gay rights when he delivered this nugget: "it appears Washington state will be the first in America to approve a gay-equality measure not by court fiat or legislative action, but by the direct will of the people. It's never happened before. If the slim lead holds for the gay-partnership law Referendum 71, it would be a landmark."
That floors me. Several states permit same-sex marriage. If Dannyboy's research is money, it IS a big deal. I'll work on confirming that.
Shame category: Somewhere along the lines of 49 percent of the electorate opted to REMOVE rights from a set of citizens. I can almost understand why homophobes would vote to not GIVE rights to gay couples. An initiative along the lines of "Should we the people of Washington state extend every right enjoyed by married couples to gay couples?" is going to cause folks to hide their bigotry behind excuses. Lame excuses like "marriage is a privilege, not a right" and "marriage holds the fabric of our society together, its rights are not to be disseminated." People can rationalize anything they set their heart to, provided they have some sort of cover.
But to take away someone's rights... that's hard to pass off as anything but contempt for the basic humanity of the gay man and woman. There's no excuse for that attitude. There's no fancy hiding behind fancy reasoning available there. That kind of hatred is exposed, obvious, naked. And somehow, half of us in this state chose that option. Disgusting.
(I'll weigh in on the rest of the election results later, specifically on how R's need to temper their glee at taking the VA and NJ governorships, and how D's need to not get too worked up about their two wins in House races.)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Socialist Networking / 10-29-09
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.
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.
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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Netrality / 9-28-09
More evidence that it matters who occupies the Oval Office.
By and large ignored by the mainstream media is the highly important issue of Net neutrality, or the obligation of an Internet service provider to act as a gateway, not a gatekeeper. In a setback for ISP giants such as Comcast, Verizon and the like, the FCC ruled last week in favor of the little guy, in favor of net neutrality, blocking carriers from interfering with your online experience by selectively slowing traffic or blocking sites.
The new chairman of the FCC is Julius Genachowski, an Obama appointee. (That's part of the perks of being the Chief Exec - you can pick the guy you want to effect the change you want. In this case, Genachowski represents a welcome change from Bush-era big-business-friendly consumer-ignoring policy.)
Predictably, at the increasingly partisan-hacktastic Wall Street Journal, the action was dismissed: "In recent days, more than one has referred to the proposed rules as 'a solution in search of a problem,' " writes blogger Andrew LaVallee. (In a story posted four days ago that has drawn exactly one, yes, one comment.)
I reserve my right to differ.
“These regulations will not significantly change the industry landscape given that wireline providers currently do not block any traffic,” an Oppenheimer Funds analyst is quuted as saying in that same WSJ bit.
He might be right. But what's being done here is preventing the carriers from doing so in the future. And that's how you solve problems, with proactive measures such as this, with clear, sensible regulation AHEAD OF TIME so you don't have to take out a trillion-dollar loan from China to bail out an entire out-of-control industry a few years later. But the lessons of (recent) history are SOOOO hard to learn.
By and large ignored by the mainstream media is the highly important issue of Net neutrality, or the obligation of an Internet service provider to act as a gateway, not a gatekeeper. In a setback for ISP giants such as Comcast, Verizon and the like, the FCC ruled last week in favor of the little guy, in favor of net neutrality, blocking carriers from interfering with your online experience by selectively slowing traffic or blocking sites.
The new chairman of the FCC is Julius Genachowski, an Obama appointee. (That's part of the perks of being the Chief Exec - you can pick the guy you want to effect the change you want. In this case, Genachowski represents a welcome change from Bush-era big-business-friendly consumer-ignoring policy.)
Predictably, at the increasingly partisan-hacktastic Wall Street Journal, the action was dismissed: "In recent days, more than one has referred to the proposed rules as 'a solution in search of a problem,' " writes blogger Andrew LaVallee. (In a story posted four days ago that has drawn exactly one, yes, one comment.)
I reserve my right to differ.
“These regulations will not significantly change the industry landscape given that wireline providers currently do not block any traffic,” an Oppenheimer Funds analyst is quuted as saying in that same WSJ bit.
He might be right. But what's being done here is preventing the carriers from doing so in the future. And that's how you solve problems, with proactive measures such as this, with clear, sensible regulation AHEAD OF TIME so you don't have to take out a trillion-dollar loan from China to bail out an entire out-of-control industry a few years later. But the lessons of (recent) history are SOOOO hard to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)