Friday, Senate Republicans once again demonstrated tremendous foresight by blocking a bill that would have required fairly major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They did so with a filibuster, the very thing that just a few years ago they called a threat to our Democracy because when they were in the majority it was used so effectively to prevent them from doing whatever they wanted. However, the tables have turned and now the filibuster doesn't seem like such a bad thing, so they pulled it out of retirement to delay our already lagging action on global climate change until next year when the Democrats may have an even larger majority and will certainly have a more receptive Executive.
Why, though, does such a large contingent of the Republican Party, and a few Democrats, drag their feet on such an important issue? A simplistic view would be that these restrictions would raise the cost of business for companies that donate money to the campaigns of many Republicans. As satisfying as that might be to think, it is not accurate or at least not complete. This party which often espouses the superiority of the free market is sadly behind the curve here. Many of the largest corporations in the United States are already investing in so-called "green" technologies and strategies, and benefiting from them.
Toyota, a company that at one time was a joke in America next to the behemoth of General Motors, has seen its market share and reputation shoot to the top thanks in large part to their Prius and other hybrid vehicles, while GM and other American companies are falling behind worldwide because their vehicles can't meet the tighter emissions restrictions of foreign countries. At a time when gas prices are doubling, then doubling again, energy efficiency is not merely trendy, it is financially necessary. This week, Chevy announced its official plans to release the Chevy Volt electric vehicle in 2010, just a little over a decade after GM sabotaged its first electric car.
At the recent Wakefern biennial, the keynote speaker addressed the crowd of executives from ShopRite and Wakefern's other properties about the financial benefits of "going green" to great applause. The often attacked giant WalMart lowered its energy costs in some stores with as little investment as adding doors to their refrigerated displays of milk and dairy. New architecture takes greater advantage of natural light where possible and water reclamation to cut costs to the companies occupying those buildings, sometimes by as much as half.
The economic benefits of using less carbon are clear. If you want to look at the big picture, combating global warming will save us future health care costs and increased food prices as more droughts occur. For once, though, social responsibility and selfishness can come together. Using less energy means less carbon into the atmosphere, but it also means less money spent on energy. Creating eco-friendly products can cost more to produce, but the "green" label can justify a premium price which increasingly eco-conscious consumers will pay for. Multi-billion dollar companies have already discovered that doing right by the environment will also increase their profits and cut their overall costs.
So, again, why do many Republicans fight it? The free market is already rewarding companies that cut their carbon emissions voluntarily, and mandatory regulations could create long-term savings for the companies that are more reluctant to undertake such an effort. The problem is that our stock-ticker corporate culture places a premium on the here-and-now; on what the stock price is today and not what it will be in a year. No matter how much it may save later, many companies don't want to spend money now to change the way they do business, especially when a sudden change in economic fortunes could wipe out their market share. It is not enough for them to remain profitable. They want to maximize profits, which includes not spending money on carbon reclamation efforts. With these maximized profits, they have money and influence to throw around in Washington and elsewhere.
Public perception of this issue has already turned, in large part thanks to the efforts of notable celebrities, responsible companies, and Al Gore whose unlikely documentary became a box-office success. The average person, and especially the well-informed, recognize the danger posed by climate change. More to the point, though, people realize that whether or not this is caused by man or poses an immediate danger, that being environmentally responsible has real benefits not just to polar bears and the rainforest, but to us. The estimated 5-year cost for gasoline for a Hummer or similar vehicle is now equal to or greater than the initial cost of the car itself, and that's based at today's gasoline prices which will surely only go up. Farmers who rent out unused land for to energy companies to build wind turbines can get upwards of $20,000 a year in return. Homeowners who place solar panels on their roof can now sell the excess energy they collect but don't use back to the power company. Carbon-based energy becomes more expensive by the day. Renewable energy is a pay-day to anyone willing to take it.
This bill that was prevented from coming to a vote would have cut greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Most international scientists agree that we have to cut our emissions in half by 2050 to prevent irreversible damage to the environment. Had we passed this bill, it would have shown that the United States was a leader on this issue, that we were serious about combating a problem that we are largely responsible for, and it would have made us economically competitive with the rest of the world in new sustainable technologies. Instead, the buck has been passed to another Congress, another term, another election year.
The public wants change. Many companies are already making a change. When legislators block such progress, they cease to be leaders and become mere obstacles. The public is leading, and it's time that the Republican Party catch up.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Feminist Dilemma
Certainly it was about time. This year marked the first time that a female politician had been a serious challenger for the Presidency of the United States. Certainly, other women had run in the past with varying degrees of success. In the case of Hillary Clinton, however, there was not merely strong support for her candidacy, but for a time it was considered a foregone conclusion that she would be the Democratic candidate and very likely would be elected. It was a momentous event, a triumph of progressive values, and, many would say, about time.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
For all of the United States' reputation as a land of opportunity, long established but oft-embellished, we were late to this party. Many other Democracies around the world have already elected women to the highest offices in the land, including roughly a dozen presently serving in such posts, and there have historically been many successful female sovereigns. What took us so long?
There have been many hindrances to the advancement of women politically, from the historical to the religious to the biological. Slowly but surely, however, women have made greater advancements socially than politically. There was a time when women were thought not to have the constitution to lead, at least not outside the home or over men. Time and time again, though, women demonstrated that not only could they take charge but that they did so quite successfully. Presidents and Kings were aided by wives who often showed greater sense than they, and while some men went to war or to find their fortune, women handled everything from the education of children to running the finances of family businesses. Long before they had the right to vote, women were an active part of the political process and often essential in helping men to be elected.
While the men made themselves kings, women made inroads everywhere. Finding employment, gaining position in social organizations, building communities. Despite lingering inequities, women make up the majority of students at many Universities, they are CEOs of companies, and are Senators and Governors. Still, though, despite all evidence to the contrary, many people of both genders thought that the idea of a woman as President was nice but unsound.
Yet, when Hillary Clinton first campaigned for a seat in the United States Senate, people spoke about it being a first step towards a Presidential run with hardly a consideration of her gender. People spoke about her qualifications, her drive, her political machinations, but not her gender. She was berated for being too liberal by pundits and being too calculating by liberals, but by and large the talk was not about whether a woman should be President. It was an inevitability that had not merely come but was, in fact, overdue.
Had it been any other year and any other slate of candidates, it would have been a done deal. Frustration with the political establishment, specifically the Republican party and the Bush administration, however had left the populace not merely hungry but desperate for change. This was a year where people were willing to reach far to the other end of the spectrum for something new, something drastic, and that would have been a great time for a woman running for President, but this time another political underclass was being represented. No argument can be made about who's more oppressed or more deserving culturally, but as the son of a black father, Barack Obama was also a milestone candidate. Add to that his eloquence, ability to build a grassroots organization from the ground up, and the fact that he was not considered part of the "establishment" like a Clinton would be, and suddenly her forgone conclusion was a jumping of the gun.
It would be cynical to think that people based their primary votes entirely on her gender and his race, but all other things being equal, it was certainly a factor for everyone including African-Americans and women. That being said, no one thought that their candidate should be chosen because it was time that we had either a black or female president. However, as the campaigns waged and waned, and as the optimism of the spirited debate turned to the diatribes of punditry, the idea of "sexism" came into the conversation.
Racism and sexism both still exist in our society, arguably in a more subtle way that we are often not conscious of, but in this race a vote for one candidate came to symbolize a rejection of either women or black people. With the tide turning against her, Hillary Clinton often commented that the attacks against her by the media or by other politicians were sexist. While this was certainly sometimes true, it demonstrated a certain unintended consequence. Mud is always slung in Presidential races, especially by 24 hour news channels looking to fill time, but since all of the candidates tended to be men, there could be no bias of gender. With Hillary, a conundrum existed; to treat her harshly could be sexist, to treat her more lightly would also be.
Feminism is rooted in the idea that women should be empowered, with the idea that as the equals of men they should not be ashamed to act it. Hillary certainly fit this ideal, and always acted the equal of men. While some of the barbs thrown at her might have contained language against her gender, the question remains of whether it was unequal to the kind of assaults launched at male candidates. More importantly, though, by saying that she was losing because some voters are sexist is, in itself, sexist. In essence, she is saying that her gender is her defining characteristic, so a rejection of her as a candidate must be a rejection of her gender as a candidate.
All, however, is semantic. Even Hillary Clinton knows that her success or victory cannot fall squarely on whether Americans remain more sexist or more racist. This election has demonstrated that a tipping point has been reached where inequality is not the guaranteed state of affairs. Though it may often occur, black people and women are not necessarily always discriminated against, and in fact may be treated equally in the majority of cases. As such, proclamations that it's time a woman be President then become sexist, because it assumes that gender is more important in the decision than character. Many Clinton supporters have lamented that they won't be witness to the first woman in the Presidency, but it betrays that feminist ideal of true equality to think that a woman in the office should be rated differently than a man. Though it may in fact be a milestone, the truly feminist argument would be that the best candidate should win, regardless of gender, so that therefore it shouldn't matter whether the President-to-be should be a man or a woman. To treat it as a special event, or one that should be fought for above alternatives because the candidate is a woman, disregards that ideal in favor of symbolism.
Hillary Clinton's political career is certainly not over, and she very well may one day be in this position again, and make it to the White House. Hopefully, in that time, the focus will not be on whether she is the best woman to be the first female President, but whether she is the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Life is Weird, etc, etc.
Despite being a reasonable person, I still am often optimistic beyond reasonable expectations, which probably explains why I thought that John Kerry would win in the last Presidential election. "Certainly," I said, "President Bush's remarkably low approval rating will encourage voters to pick the other guy." "And of course," I continued, "all of those kids who go to those war protests and write angry blogs will be motivated and turn out record numbers of young people to vote for John Kerry." "And really," I concluded, "you couldn't possibly vote for a silver-spoon duty-dodger over a thrice-medaled war veteran and honest-to-god hero!"
Of course, on all of those counts, I was wrong. I didn't take into account the fact that while people love to complain, very few people ever do anything about it. I also negelected to imagine the sheer number of wild smear campaigns that Bush supporters would enact against John Kerry, most notably the swift-boat bs, nor did I realize how many people would fall for something so stupid and factually inaccurate. And I didn't take into account the voter fraud and irregularities that would occur in swing states like Ohio. Oh, and I nearly forgot, people care more about abortions and gay marriage - which the Republicans love to talk about but never want to act on for fear of losing the issue and because the majority of Americans are on the other side of those issues - than about the safety of our country or the health of our economy for the common person.
It is this same unthinking optimism that has me believing that not only can Barack Obama beat a Clinton - second only to the Bush's as far as modern political dynasties go - but that an African-American son of an immigrant and product of an inter-racial marriage who spent much of his youth outside of the continental United States and has an unusual name that reminds people of villians...will become our next President. It makes perfect sense to me that he will win. Why wouldn't he? He's on the right side of all the issues. He has integrity. He's honest. He inspires with his words and impresses with his dignity. He appeals to our better angels and not our basest fears. Not to mention, he's just plain cool. You'll never catch him doing a tap dance on the steps of the White House like George Bush, or doing some terrible Sopranos spoof like Hillary Clinton. Why wouldn't people vote for him?
Of course, if I can tap into future Chris' consciousness...for the same reasons they never vote for the good guy. Because, in this coming year, and starting already, people will convince them of things that aren't true simply by saying them. Fox News says he went to a Muslim school. It doesn't matter that within a half-hour every news source in the world, Fox News included, debunked that story. People heard it, and they only remember the first part, not the retraction. The majority of voters in the south believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why? I don't even think there was ever a news story claiming it was true, not even from Fox Noise (thanks, Keith). But they heard he's got a funny name and collectively all decided he was probably a Muslim. Not that it should matter, either, but it's ridiculous since the same people who won't vote for him because they think he's a Muslim are the ones that would vote exclusively for him for being a devout Christian, which he is.
And I'm sure that come election time there will be rumors and allegations of shady business dealings or marital indescretions or secret drug problems, none of which will be true, and no one will remember that the same rumors dogged George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and that it didn't stop them from voting for those guys.
So, I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic that the right man, at the right time, for the right reasons will be elected President. I'm optimistic that it will mean something to our spirit here in America and will repair our reputation worldwide. I'm optimistic that the environment will get safer and the air cleaner. I'm optimistic that good shows will be renewed and that, eventually, people will stop watching that crazy lie-detector show. I'm optimistic that I'll be appreciated and that jerks will suffer.
But hey, who knows.
Of course, on all of those counts, I was wrong. I didn't take into account the fact that while people love to complain, very few people ever do anything about it. I also negelected to imagine the sheer number of wild smear campaigns that Bush supporters would enact against John Kerry, most notably the swift-boat bs, nor did I realize how many people would fall for something so stupid and factually inaccurate. And I didn't take into account the voter fraud and irregularities that would occur in swing states like Ohio. Oh, and I nearly forgot, people care more about abortions and gay marriage - which the Republicans love to talk about but never want to act on for fear of losing the issue and because the majority of Americans are on the other side of those issues - than about the safety of our country or the health of our economy for the common person.
It is this same unthinking optimism that has me believing that not only can Barack Obama beat a Clinton - second only to the Bush's as far as modern political dynasties go - but that an African-American son of an immigrant and product of an inter-racial marriage who spent much of his youth outside of the continental United States and has an unusual name that reminds people of villians...will become our next President. It makes perfect sense to me that he will win. Why wouldn't he? He's on the right side of all the issues. He has integrity. He's honest. He inspires with his words and impresses with his dignity. He appeals to our better angels and not our basest fears. Not to mention, he's just plain cool. You'll never catch him doing a tap dance on the steps of the White House like George Bush, or doing some terrible Sopranos spoof like Hillary Clinton. Why wouldn't people vote for him?
Of course, if I can tap into future Chris' consciousness...for the same reasons they never vote for the good guy. Because, in this coming year, and starting already, people will convince them of things that aren't true simply by saying them. Fox News says he went to a Muslim school. It doesn't matter that within a half-hour every news source in the world, Fox News included, debunked that story. People heard it, and they only remember the first part, not the retraction. The majority of voters in the south believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Why? I don't even think there was ever a news story claiming it was true, not even from Fox Noise (thanks, Keith). But they heard he's got a funny name and collectively all decided he was probably a Muslim. Not that it should matter, either, but it's ridiculous since the same people who won't vote for him because they think he's a Muslim are the ones that would vote exclusively for him for being a devout Christian, which he is.
And I'm sure that come election time there will be rumors and allegations of shady business dealings or marital indescretions or secret drug problems, none of which will be true, and no one will remember that the same rumors dogged George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and that it didn't stop them from voting for those guys.
So, I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic that the right man, at the right time, for the right reasons will be elected President. I'm optimistic that it will mean something to our spirit here in America and will repair our reputation worldwide. I'm optimistic that the environment will get safer and the air cleaner. I'm optimistic that good shows will be renewed and that, eventually, people will stop watching that crazy lie-detector show. I'm optimistic that I'll be appreciated and that jerks will suffer.
But hey, who knows.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Whole Darn World's Gone Crazy
Janeane Garofalo used to do this comedy routine about the absurd arguments between different religions all based on the word of a book, and how it was as if people had declared "The Bridges of Madison County" sacred ground on which nobody builds. It's disturbing just how accurate an interpretation that is.
CNN's Christiane Amanpour did a three-part special report entitled "God's Warriors" where she looked at extremists in the three major monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The impression you come away with can only be described as appalled disbelief. You normally assume that people turn to religion to find peace and satisfaction. But instead, many of these people couldn't be more miserable. Everything angers them, everything hurts them, and they are constantly dissatisfied with everything. Not only that, but when peace and accomodation become possible, they often provoke conflict where there was none.
It's maddening, and it's enough to make a rational person think that the whole lot of them are completely insane from start to finish. Jewish settlers who are surprised when Arabs are mad that they've been kicked off the land they own, and blame the Arabs for the atrocities of Germans. Muslim women who are angry when Westerners question the fact that they have to be covered head-to-toe, and yet act surprised when they aren't allowed to run for public office in the theocracies they defend so vehemently. And Christians...oh those American Christians.
I can't speak as authoritatively on other religions because while I've read a lot, I've never lived them. Christianity, though...I've had an insiders look, and sometimes it's terrifying. There's a distinct difference between "Christianity": the philosophical belief that promotes charity, humility, love, and moral behavior; and the special brand of Christianity that we think of when we see television evangilists, Republican Senators, and homeschool documentaries. They talk about abortion and gay marriage as though Jesus and Moses had reached down from Heaven and personally written a whole new book of the bible about them. Yet greed and gluttony, which are mentioned in the same book as being worse sins than sleeping with a man, are given a pass. Did they get a special Bible decoder ring that the rest of us didn't, which tells them which sins god really cares about, and which ones he was just kidding about? It's okay to be fat, and materialistic, and step over homeless people on the street...but don't even think about telling someone of the same sex that you love them, cause that's just wrong.
In all the religions, the broader themes of the religions - things like love, good works, introspection, peace - are overlooked in favor of minutae. Things like dress codes, holy sites, and ritual take precedence over actual substance and real character. The worst part is that whole new generations of young people are being privately schooled away from any differing viewpoints, indoctrinated and brainwashed, and left with an even more narrow, watered down, unwaveringly selective view of these faiths. Like the kids in Teen Mania (seriously, that name alone is telling) who blame popular music and Paris Hilton for the fact that their parents abandoned them and that they liked drinking and having sex in high school. If listening to music makes you do bad things, it's not because of the music, it's because you're an idiot. Playing violent video games doesn't make you commit violence - being a poorly raised psychopath who thinks Grand Theft Auto is tame does.
And if your faith makes you want to fight other people, it's not because god wants you to, it's because you're a jerk.
CNN's Christiane Amanpour did a three-part special report entitled "God's Warriors" where she looked at extremists in the three major monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The impression you come away with can only be described as appalled disbelief. You normally assume that people turn to religion to find peace and satisfaction. But instead, many of these people couldn't be more miserable. Everything angers them, everything hurts them, and they are constantly dissatisfied with everything. Not only that, but when peace and accomodation become possible, they often provoke conflict where there was none.
It's maddening, and it's enough to make a rational person think that the whole lot of them are completely insane from start to finish. Jewish settlers who are surprised when Arabs are mad that they've been kicked off the land they own, and blame the Arabs for the atrocities of Germans. Muslim women who are angry when Westerners question the fact that they have to be covered head-to-toe, and yet act surprised when they aren't allowed to run for public office in the theocracies they defend so vehemently. And Christians...oh those American Christians.
I can't speak as authoritatively on other religions because while I've read a lot, I've never lived them. Christianity, though...I've had an insiders look, and sometimes it's terrifying. There's a distinct difference between "Christianity": the philosophical belief that promotes charity, humility, love, and moral behavior; and the special brand of Christianity that we think of when we see television evangilists, Republican Senators, and homeschool documentaries. They talk about abortion and gay marriage as though Jesus and Moses had reached down from Heaven and personally written a whole new book of the bible about them. Yet greed and gluttony, which are mentioned in the same book as being worse sins than sleeping with a man, are given a pass. Did they get a special Bible decoder ring that the rest of us didn't, which tells them which sins god really cares about, and which ones he was just kidding about? It's okay to be fat, and materialistic, and step over homeless people on the street...but don't even think about telling someone of the same sex that you love them, cause that's just wrong.
In all the religions, the broader themes of the religions - things like love, good works, introspection, peace - are overlooked in favor of minutae. Things like dress codes, holy sites, and ritual take precedence over actual substance and real character. The worst part is that whole new generations of young people are being privately schooled away from any differing viewpoints, indoctrinated and brainwashed, and left with an even more narrow, watered down, unwaveringly selective view of these faiths. Like the kids in Teen Mania (seriously, that name alone is telling) who blame popular music and Paris Hilton for the fact that their parents abandoned them and that they liked drinking and having sex in high school. If listening to music makes you do bad things, it's not because of the music, it's because you're an idiot. Playing violent video games doesn't make you commit violence - being a poorly raised psychopath who thinks Grand Theft Auto is tame does.
And if your faith makes you want to fight other people, it's not because god wants you to, it's because you're a jerk.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Life Begins at Contemplation
Anyone who pays attention to politics, or at least the polarizing, media-hyped, red-state/blue-state politics that is trumpeted during any election - or the 2 years leading up to one - are presented with certain bullet points; one being that Republicans hate all non-white people and Democrats want Mexican Islamic terrorists to move into your neighborhood and date your daughter. Another is that Republicans think life begins at the mere thought about having sex with your girlfriend while Democrats think children up to 8 years of age can be murdered as long as it's for "a good reason". Exaggerations? Yes. Far from how it's usually depicted? No. Abortion is a divisive issue for many people which would be perfectly understandable to me except many of those same people don't care so much when it comes to genocide ("That's all the way over on another continent") or the death penalty ("It says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - unless they kind of deserve it").
Here's the dirty little secret though that nobody tells you...
During President Clinton's terms in office, the number of abortions performed nationwide went down each year. During President Bush's terms, those numbers have gone up. Why? Well, it could have something to do with moral leadership, seeing as how Bill Clinton had morals (aside from the whole adultery thing) and George Bush has PR people to say he has morals. But really, it's much colder and simpler. When people have money, jobs, and educational opportunities, they have fewer abortions. See, people with money are more likely to have the baby since they'll actually be able to feed and clothe the baby. People with good jobs will actually have the baby when they're pregnant because they'll have health insurance to take care of it and won't have to be worried about finding someone willing to hire them while they're 6 months pregnant. And people who are educated are smart enough to not spend all of their free time on their back with their drunken paramour and are also wise enough to use contraception. However, when you're the kind of President who tells schools that condoms and sex education are sinful and abstinence is the only thing worth teaching, then when teens eventually do have sex - and they will - then they do it unsafely and before they are intellectually and emotionally prepared. That's what leads to abortions.
And oddly enough, the perceived sin of contraception in America also leads to abortions the world over. See, President Reagan in all of his wisdom initiated a policy that prevents the United States from providing aid of any kind to overseas clinics that perform or even inform people about the option of abortion. That aid includes contraceptives. We are so appalled that they are giving abortions to people who are unintentionally pregnant that we are refusing to give them the tools to prevent those people from having more unplanned pregnancies and thus...more abortions. Cause really, if you let it happen once, chances are you may let it happen again.
The House of Representin' just passed a bill that would overturn that policy, and no doubt if it passes the Senate, President Bush will be waiting with his stamp and pen to veto it, but honestly, how irresponsible is that? I can understand if he doesn't want to give them money because that could be used to actually facilitate abortions. But this is just giving them contraceptives...a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. I believe in personal responsibility, and believe that no one should ever have an abortion if only because no one should ever put themselves in a situation to become pregnant when they aren't willing and/or able to take care of that child - though of course that's sometimes unpreventable. So, like most Democrats, I believe the mantra that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare". President Bush however seems to think they should be "illegal, dangerous, and performed often instead of educating people on safe sex, encouraging responsible behavior, and trying to help poor people to a level where they can economically take care of a family" (albeit that is a much less-catchy mantra).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say "How dare you, Republicans, be supporting more abortion! I for one think there should be fewer abortions, and that's why I support this bill!"
That would make an awesome bumper sticker.
Here's the dirty little secret though that nobody tells you...
During President Clinton's terms in office, the number of abortions performed nationwide went down each year. During President Bush's terms, those numbers have gone up. Why? Well, it could have something to do with moral leadership, seeing as how Bill Clinton had morals (aside from the whole adultery thing) and George Bush has PR people to say he has morals. But really, it's much colder and simpler. When people have money, jobs, and educational opportunities, they have fewer abortions. See, people with money are more likely to have the baby since they'll actually be able to feed and clothe the baby. People with good jobs will actually have the baby when they're pregnant because they'll have health insurance to take care of it and won't have to be worried about finding someone willing to hire them while they're 6 months pregnant. And people who are educated are smart enough to not spend all of their free time on their back with their drunken paramour and are also wise enough to use contraception. However, when you're the kind of President who tells schools that condoms and sex education are sinful and abstinence is the only thing worth teaching, then when teens eventually do have sex - and they will - then they do it unsafely and before they are intellectually and emotionally prepared. That's what leads to abortions.
And oddly enough, the perceived sin of contraception in America also leads to abortions the world over. See, President Reagan in all of his wisdom initiated a policy that prevents the United States from providing aid of any kind to overseas clinics that perform or even inform people about the option of abortion. That aid includes contraceptives. We are so appalled that they are giving abortions to people who are unintentionally pregnant that we are refusing to give them the tools to prevent those people from having more unplanned pregnancies and thus...more abortions. Cause really, if you let it happen once, chances are you may let it happen again.
The House of Representin' just passed a bill that would overturn that policy, and no doubt if it passes the Senate, President Bush will be waiting with his stamp and pen to veto it, but honestly, how irresponsible is that? I can understand if he doesn't want to give them money because that could be used to actually facilitate abortions. But this is just giving them contraceptives...a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. I believe in personal responsibility, and believe that no one should ever have an abortion if only because no one should ever put themselves in a situation to become pregnant when they aren't willing and/or able to take care of that child - though of course that's sometimes unpreventable. So, like most Democrats, I believe the mantra that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare". President Bush however seems to think they should be "illegal, dangerous, and performed often instead of educating people on safe sex, encouraging responsible behavior, and trying to help poor people to a level where they can economically take care of a family" (albeit that is a much less-catchy mantra).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say "How dare you, Republicans, be supporting more abortion! I for one think there should be fewer abortions, and that's why I support this bill!"
That would make an awesome bumper sticker.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The First Amendment Extends to High Fives
In fact, I think the original text was "The necessity of demonstrating through physical means the awesomeness of a given event, the right to High Five your bros shall not be infringed". Damn John Adams had to stand in the way, yet again.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
Monday, June 11, 2007
You're Just Never Satisfied
You know what bugs me about modern media? It has become too interactive. You can look up things at your leisure on the internet, or text in your votes with your cell phone, or e-mail the pundits your opinions, or get the DVD with 10 different possible endings because the studio wanted to satisfy every single person in the world. People have so many options, and so much input, that they start to feel like other people owe them; they start to feel like they should have some sort of creative input into everything.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
