“Am I my brother’s keeper?” Thus spake the alleged first child of the alleged first couple of the world. Apparently, even then, kids were shitheads. But more to the point at hand, as far back as Christian recorded time goes, we weren’t quite sure how much we owed one another.
The recent healthcare debate has centered around two ideas on which the left and the right disagree. One of them is a matter of difference and one merely of degree. The first is whether one believes more in the power of unrestrained markets or in the power of government. The second is the Cain & Abel problem: am I my brother’s keeper?
Do You Want the Invisible Hand or Big Brother?
As to the first problem: Democrats look at Republicans and think they must be insane to believe that markets can regulate themselves. The idea that for-profit industries could possibly have something in mind other than their stockholders seems odd to them. And, indeed, as we have seen with the Savings and Loan scandal, the housing crash, the banking collapse, and anyone who has ever dealt with a large company’s customer service hotline, unfettered capitalism doesn’t always give people the best bang for their buck. (Though to be fair, uneducated and greedy non-rich people who maxed out their credit cards and bought houses they couldn’t afford do share in the blame for the housing/banking woes.)
Republicans, on the other hand, look at slothful, gargantuan government agencies and see nothing but waste and inefficiencies. Anyone who has ever stepped foot in a DMV or a large city’s post office instantly becomes a bit more Republican. Except Bill Maher who aptly pointed out that he would prefer if the government were in charge of more things because, honestly, who else charges you 42 cents to ship a letter from Bar Harbor, Maine to Los Angeles… and generally gets it there in one piece? (Statistics God Nate Silver also had an interesting take on why conservatives hate government that merits reading. See “Why does a Person Become a Republican?”) By their very public nature, government agencies suffer from the lack of a “fire under the ass” that the cruel but sometimes effective business world can provide. I’m reminded of a story of a beer bottling factory in China, a country where the government has tried to shift its economic model from communist toward capitalist. A Western observer was shocked when he saw bottles going down the production line with leaves inside… and no one cared. When one’s job is guaranteed, obviously there’s little incentive to do one’s job right. If Karl Marx was woefully wrong about anything, he was woefully wrong that in a communist society people would be, to use his words, spontaneously fond of work. Um… yeah. It wasn’t true then, it certainly isn’t true in the Age of Entitlement.
Where the Democrats might hold the upper hand in this argument, in my humble opinion, is that even if government’s slothful heart isn’t in the right place, at least it’s not in the wrong place. I have no doubt that in future centuries, people will look back on a for-profit healthcare system whose obvious goal was to exclude the sick and thereby drive up stock prices and wonder, “WTF were these people thinking?” Bureaucrats undoubtedly suck… but at least they don’t truly want to pull the plug on grandma by denying her care.
“If You Bring Gum to Class, You Must Bring Enough For Everyone.” Um, Why? It's My Gum.
But if the first point (government vs. free market) is the intractable point that separates the two political parties into well-defined camps, then the second point is at least one where people can begin to find common ground: just how much do we owe to our common man?
We see this argument played out in law over the centuries. All law students must learn something called the Rule Against Perpetuities (“RAP”) . RAP, in a nutshell, is a way to make it much harder for people to pass down all their wealth to distant descendants under the theory that people should work for their money and if they’re spoiled rich brats who inherit everything, they won’t work. (Think: Paris Hilton, although I guess she does pull her own weight by doing reality shows and “designing” expensive purses.) RAP, however, is nearly gone. Most states in the U.S. have done away with it (as has the U.K., where it originated). Nowadays we tend to think: if you’ve earned it, you can keep it. Which begs the big question, “What does ‘earned’ mean?”
President Obama got a lot of shit when he was on the campaign trail and used the unfortunate phrase “spread the wealth” around. Honestly, at that moment, I thought his goose was cooked. But people tend to forget that taxes—all taxes—are form of wealth redistribution. My grandparents in rural Pennsylvania piss and moan that all the state’s taxes go to Pittsburgh and Philly. “Yes,” I reply, “but that’s where all the money and most of the people are. Are there any people making seven figures in your small town?” They also moan about money going toward public transportation systems since they have cars. Why should they have to pay for someone’s bus? “Yes,” I reply, “but if fewer people in Philly drive and take SEPTA instead, that means fewer cars on those roads. Fewer cars on the roads mean fewer repairs and fewer expansions of Philadelphia-area highways. Less money spent on Philly roads means more money can be spent on your roads in rural PA. Not to mention the valuable time lost in traffic jams that lowers economic productivity and hence lowers tax receipts.” But I digress. All taxes inconvenience some people more than others. Taxes will never be “fair” because we will never all agree on what “fair” means.
If we’re going to “spread the wealth,” how much is too much to spread, without getting into Laffer curves and all that theory? Part of the doctrine of being a conservative is generally to view the status quo as not-so-bad and to view change as scary. Part of the doctrine of being a liberal is to see the inequities in the world (social and financial) and consequently view change as quickly needed. So it makes sense that today—in an era of historically very low tax rates for wealthy people—conservatives tend to think the status quo is the appropriately place to be. But not too very long ago, the wealthy in this country paid over 70% of their money in taxes. The middle class was stronger. And a CEO made roughly 20 times what an average worker in that company made as opposed to the 160+ times the worker’s salary he makes now. To Democrats, this disparity is unacceptable.
To Republicans, income disparity tends to be seen as a function of effort: work more, get paid more. But not even the most diehard conservative can truly believe that preferential tax treatment, inflated wages, and undeserved nepotism don’t have something to do with high wages. Though, still, conservatives do have an excellent point, according to a recent Wall Street Journal piece, that when you raise taxes on the rich, the rich will (1) work less (because they can), (2) evade more (because they can), and (3) move out of the country (because they can). We can see this in states that have high tax rates: rich people leave and go to Texas. Which never made sense to me because you’re rich but then… you fucking live in Texas.
WWJD?
What would Jesus say about all this? What’s “fair”? In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus teaches, “And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, ‘Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.’” Luke 14:1-4.
Jesus also said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s.” Mark 12:17. In other words, pay your damn taxes and then devote your spiritual self to the Lord. Finally, Jesus also said, “Sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven.” Luke 18:22. Greek philosophers (I’m straining to remember which ones) weren’t quite so extreme. They tended to believe one should live simply but still retain enough to get by comfortably. What remains mindboggling to me, however, is that a large portion of conservative voters can attend a rally on Saturday about how they deserve to keep all their money from those evil people in Washington who want to give their money to the poor. And then on Sunday they attend a sermon where the minister quotes verses about living humbly and… giving money to the poor.
What Would the Commonwealth Do?
When does giving more money to others actually help society and, in turn, help you? I, after all, attended two state universities. My education was subsidized by the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and Ohio. We have state universities because we generally believe that a more educated citizen will be a more productive member of society (and a higher earning taxpayer). Most people seem to agree that that expense is worthwhile, though when times get tough, state money for those pesky kids always seems to be first on the chopping block because we forget its long-term taxable value.
Virtue Itself Turns Vice Being Misapplied, and Vice--By Its Action--Sometimes Dignified
But what about more controversial government programs? What about needle exchanges for heroin addicts? The city of Vancouver runs a needle exchange program where addicts can not only go to a government building, not only get a clean needle, but there’s also a nurse there to watch them shoot up and make sure they don’t die. Amazingly to many Americans, even the local police force in Vancouver favors the program. While it’s easy to think such a program is a horrible waste of money because people shouldn’t be doing heroin anyway (or, if you’re a bit more—shall we say, opinionated—heroin addicts don’t deserve to live because they’re not contributing anything to society), the counterargument is persuasive too: at least they’re not getting dirty needles, getting AIDS, infecting others, and dying in the streets. Garbage men dislike collecting corpses, I’m told.
What about giving prisoners access to education? I used to be vehemently against this. Hell, I pay for my education (well, most of it), why should lawbreakers get it for free? But then I learned about recidivism rates and how they are tied to the ability of ex-prisoners to return to the workforce upon release. Honestly, we have these people locked up with nothing to do, we might as well get them some books and some teachers so they believe that they have choices other than a life of crime when they get out of the clink. If it keeps them from coming back and turns them into taxpaying citizens, it was money well spent. And, forgive me for being a tad cheesy here, but… it shows them that someone cared.
I Keep Bleeding, Keep Keep Bleeding Love
Maybe this is where the “bleeding heart” liberal moniker comes from. But I’ve known some downtrodden people in my life. And many of them didn’t want a handout… but they needed a handout. Even a small one. A little unemployment. A smile. A mentor. Maybe even a little healthcare.
It’s remarkable that when you ask most non-poor people what is important in their lives, they rattle off the predictable list: education, money, wife/husband, kids, nice house, a car or three… but so few ever say “health.” Why? Because health is a given. It’s expected for so many people. But when you don’t have it, nothing else matters. Companies don’t hire sick people. Sick people don’t get out of bed to put on a suit for an interview. Sick people rack up medical bills instead of working and paying taxes. Yes, I know I’m overgeneralizing here, but you see my point: if someone doesn’t have his health, he’s got nothing. The least we can do as a society is to help give someone that without which they can do nothing else.
But Does the Fat, Smoking Baby Mama Really Deserve My Money?
“But it’s not my problem he smoked two packs a day!” the response will come. Well, no, it’s not. And this is a problem for which I do not think anyone has a good answer. We can discourage bad behaviors, like taxing the shit out of cigarettes and soda. We could ban things entirely like illegal drugs if we think they’re really harmful. And we can tell people to use condoms. But if someone gets HIV, do we tell her that it’s her fault and she’s on her own? What if she was raped? Can she get government-sporsored treatment then? Do we need to set up rape panels to determine who was innocent and therefore “deserving” of life-saving medications? Who sits on the panels? A good mixture of left and right, Christian and athiest? Do we need an economist on there to see if she could really afford to raise the child?...
Putting aside the religious part of the “I don’t want to pay for your abortion with my federal tax dollars” argument, look at the other part of that sentiment that’s often bubbling with venom underneath: “You slut, you should have known better.” Should we make someone have a child that she cannot support? As the book Freakonomics teaches us, women who tend to have abortions are women who would tend to have the types of children that grow up to be lawbreakers and end up in jail: single, poor, uneducated. That’s certainly not a moral argument for abortion because I do realize how powerful the religious objection is, but it is, at least, an economic argument. And no matter how strong your religious hatred for abortion, an unwanted child punishes not only the mother, but more importantly, that poor child suffers. That’s not love.
Greed: Among the Gravest of Sins
The Bible lists greed among the gravest of sins. Mark 7:22; I Cor. 6:10. I recall a story a few years ago about a bitter fight between Taco Bell and the providers of its tomatoes. The migrant farmers wanted a penny-per-pound raise because, well, they were paid like shit and their working conditions sucked. (Side note: does it astonish anyone else that one of the very few exceptions to the minimum wage laws are seasonal farm workers? The people who do the hardest, backbreaking work can be paid less than a kid selling V-necks in an air-conditioned Abercrombie?) Anyway, back to the story. Taco Bell resisted the meager raise. It was only after Taco Bell got negative press and some groups began to boycott them, that they relented. You see the problem with ruthless capitalism is simple: It’s all about the stockholders… until you piss people off so royally that the customers stop coming in, and then that affects your bottom line and you have to behave like humans instead of board members.
Can Ruthless Enforcement Be Common Ground?
I don’t want lazy pieces of shit taking my tax dollars either. And, recall, the poor were already taken care of via Medicaid. Thus, the benefits of the new healthcare law accrue mainly to the middle class. But in the end, I don’t mind if the single mother of three who suddenly finds herself unemployed gets some of my tax money. Many conservatives I’ve spoken with in the past few days seem to agree. It seems, then, that the left and the right are truly arguing over a matter of degree: who is deserving, and how much do they deserve? One way to meet on this issue would be to combat fraud.
Medicaid—I think we all can agree—is a horribly monitored fraud. I once saw a woman wearing a fur coat use food stamps at a grocery store and then hop into a waiting Lexus in the parking lot. These are the stories Republicans like to focus on when they decry the government taking “your” money, while Democrats focus on that single mother who lost her job. The truth is, of course, that both types exist in our system. Why not spend more money—a lot more money—rooting out fraud? Every dollar spent on an investigator could save untold money over the lifetime of a fraudulent recipient. And why not stiffen penalties? If you’re caught committing fraud when receiving access to any government program, you lose all assistance… forever. Might that send a chill down the spine of anyone wanting to fleece the government? I’d sure think so.
Republicans and Democrats may never see eye-to-eye on the government vs. unregulated markets theories of enterprise, but we can at least come together to agree that some people sometimes need help. I think both sides should push for more enforcement and Draconian punishments for those who abuse the systems. I’d love for such a program to be so effective that one day a far, far right politician will attempt to use a story about some lowlife who defrauded the system… and he will be laughed at. Because fraud will have been eliminated and the idea of pulling a fast one on the government will be laughable. Wishful thinking, I know, but an admirable goal to aspire toward.
Ask Not For Whom the Bell Tolls. It Tolls For Thee. Eventually.
The press reported this week that if you make more than a million dollars a year, your taxes might go up $46,000 to help pay for healthcare. Stop and think about that. And your response will say a lot about yourself. I hope to make more than a million per year eventually. And to me, if I’m making that much, if I must pay an “extra” $46,000 in taxes so that someone who can’t see a doctor can get healthy on my dime, well, that’s OK with me. But if you think the millionaire “earned” all of that money fair and square, and you view those trying to take it away from him as freeloading sloths, then you’d naturally be up in arms about this new healthcare law.
One of President Kennedy’s many memorable quotations is “For those to whom much is given, much is required.” And when you’re middle class and struggling to make ends meet, it might not seem like you have very much. And I get that. I’ve been there. Hell, I’m there now. My student loans cost more than the value of my parents’ house. (My five pounds of grey matter costs more than a three-bedroom ranch in economically depressed Pennsylvania!) But if you’re reading this, you have a computer and Internet access, and that means you have more than a lot of people. Take a minute and truly think about that before you gripe about your taxes the next time: “For those to whom much is given, much is required.” Somber words. And they ring just as true today as when Kennedy spoke them. And just as true when Kennedy spoke them as when the original speaker first uttered them two thousand years prior. Jesus. Luke 12:48.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sinning with a Mouse Click
My mom sent me an e-mail forward today and asked if it was true. She does this often. On one hand, I think it's kind of cute that she thinks I'm the expert on everything. On the other hand, I wish she'd spend a few minutes on Google and figure out that a handful of her friends are mildly retarded and shouldn't be allowed within 15 feet of a computer.
Below is the forward she sent me, followed by my response. The original forward was drafted in multiple colors, multiple font sizes, random CAPITAL letters, and--of course--in that dreadful curvy font that you'd use on your five year-old's birthday invitation. You know--the same way scholarly journals are drafted, right? :-/ I won't attempt to recreate the crappy font choices, as I do not want to assault your senses.
----------------
Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.
The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
--Snip--
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...!
--------------------
My response to mom:
Mom,
Admittedly I don't know enough about Sharia law to answer this completely definitively, but whenever someone makes such sweeping accusations, it should cause you to raise an eyebrow. Here is a website purporting to debunk most of that forward's claims: http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2009/08/nonie-darwish-hate-monger.html.
If you Google the author, the first hit you receive is the Wikipedia page about her. (Remember, Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than encyclopedias in print form because it is edited by the world and then fact-checked by the rest of the world.) Here is the Wikipedia page on Nonie Darwish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish. You can see that Nonie used to be a Muslim and converted to Christianity. She also founded "Arabs for Israel." She is not a religious scholar. She clearly has a bit of an axe to grind, which doesn't discredit her outright, but let's just keep that in mind.
So let's pick apart the email a bit, shall we?
1. First, forwards that are drafted in curvy fonts, different colors, different text sizes, which conclude in CAPS, and which issue a warning about the ACLU repressing your speech are never true. Never. Such forwards are about as useless as tits on a nun.
2. Islam is not uniform... nor is Christianity. There are radicals in every group. That's not to say that some sects of Islam don't have some serious, serious problems. A sizable chunk of Muslim men in places like Saudi Arabia still beat the crap out of their wives. But on the flip side, you wouldn't want your church associated with the lunatics who bomb abortion clinics, would you? It's fair to criticize another's religion--and we should be pointing out human rights abuses and never excusing them under the guise of religion--but it's always important to separate what really is "the religion" from what is some radical sect that is using a religious text to do things that rational people would never consider holy.
3. The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. They protect people from religion just as they protect people's right to practice religion. When a town tries to put a cross on public land--such as the courthouse lawn--the ACLU sues because that's a government endorsement of religion. (I know some people won't like that, but that's what living in a country that respects the separation of Church and State is all about: it doesn't mean we suppress your Christianity, it just means you don't get to force your Christianity upon anyone else. Live and let live.) But the ACLU also sticks up for people when their religious rights are trampled. Check out this long list of pro-religious court cases the ACLU has recently brought on behalf of religious people and groups: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression.
Recall that Rush Limbaugh hates the ACLU. But when Rush got in trouble for illegally "doctor shopping" and getting multiple prescriptions for pain killers, who came to his defense? The ACLU. Why? Because the prosecutor was trying to illegally publish parts of Limbaugh's medical records, and the ACLU knew this violated his right to medical privacy.
4. The number of U.S. Muslims is impossible to pin down, but reputable organizations put the estimates between 2.5 million and 7 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States). The current U.S. population is over 307 million people. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). Assuming that different groups of people vote in roughly the same percentages, we'll even take the high number and divide: so 7 million Muslims divided by 307 million people in America is 2.28% of the population.
Will someone please, please explain to me how in just twenty years' time, 2.28% of the population (and that's using the high estimate) will produce enough children to elect a president that will impose Sharia law upon the U.S.? Are all Muslim women going to start having 100 babies a piece starting today? Because, remember, the kids can't vote until they're 18, and it takes 9 months for a baby to gestate, so that's almost 19 years right there. Are all non-Muslim women in the U.S. going to stop having children? The whole thing idea that Muslims will be a majority soon and will be able to elect a president is retarded--even with immigration and converts. Not gonna happen. Period.
Furthermore, the idea that a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia law could even do so without overturning the constitution we've had for over 200 years is even more retarded and shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding how our government really works. (Are two-thirds of Congress going to go along with this? Are three-fourths of all the state legislatures, as is required for amendments? Would the Supreme Court even allow the First Amendment to be stricken, as would have to happen for Sharia law to replace freedom of religion? Is the author of this forward smoking crack, and, if so, where can I get some?) Anyone who forwards such numerical nonsense should be ashamed of their math skills, their U.S. history skills, and their inability to spend two minutes on Google.
5. Finally, remember that your son worked at Target in college. There is an old e-mail forward that still circulates asking people to protest Target because it's allegedly anti-veteran and French-owned. Aunt Jackie even forwarded it to you, as I recall. In truth, Target is neither anti-veteran nor foreign-owned. The truth may be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp.
Think about the consequences of sending the Target forward. I only got to work when Target needed me. Target needed me when the store sold enough merchandise to justify giving me more hours. So for each idiot that sends that forward and stops coming to Target, Target loses business, and I don't work. My life is therefore harmed not by anything bad that Target actually did, but by the harmful, childish, unintelligent lies that some half-wit has spread from the comfort of his or her computer chair.
And make no mistake about it: it's a lie. A lie is something that is not the truth; we all know this, but somehow when it's just something we shuffle along with a few mouse clicks it seems less offensive. But it isn't less of a lie because you sent the e-mail along not knowing if it was true or not. Gossiping--if untrue--is still lying.
If your religion holds that all sins are equal (or at least all sins besides blaspheming God), then lying is as bad as rape. If lying is as bad as rape, then the person who sent you this ridiculous e-mail is as bad as the Muslim man who just brutally raped his wife. Think about that: by clicking "send," your friend just committed the sinful equivalent of rape. Gee, all the sudden sending this crap over the Internet doesn't seem so Christian, does it?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your friend should think of whom she is hurting when she sends out lies. Think of the poor, peaceful Muslim immigrant who moves into her neighborhood. If all her other neighbors got this e-mail, how do you think they would treat that immigrant? (Again, this isn't to say that some Muslims aren't violent. That's a national conversation we need to have: how to allow religious freedom while at the same time protecting against terrorists and extremists. But there is a difference between Islamic terrorists and the little old lady named Fatima who moved here so she and her family could have a better life.) Better yet, turn the tables: if you suddenly had to relocate to Indonesia and were the only Christian in the neighborhood, how would you feel about someone who was spreading lies about Christianity in your new village?
Sending forwards like this without fact checking is cruel, it's immature, and it's woefully un-Christian.
But if you remember nothing else, remember this: whenever you see forwards written in crazy colors, different sized fonts, and with the word "ACLU" thrown in... it's gonna be bullshit. Every time.
Love - your liberally educated devil child,
Paul
Below is the forward she sent me, followed by my response. The original forward was drafted in multiple colors, multiple font sizes, random CAPITAL letters, and--of course--in that dreadful curvy font that you'd use on your five year-old's birthday invitation. You know--the same way scholarly journals are drafted, right? :-/ I won't attempt to recreate the crappy font choices, as I do not want to assault your senses.
----------------
Joys of Muslim Women by Nonie Darwish
In the Muslim faith a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old and have sexual intimacy with this child. Consummating the marriage by 9.
The dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman (who becomes his slave) and for the purchase of the private parts of the woman, to use her as a toy.
Even though a woman is abused she can not obtain a divorce.
To prove rape, the woman must have (4) male witnesses.
Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
Husbands can beat their wives 'at will' and he does not have to say why he has beaten her.
The husband is permitted to have (4 wives) and a temporary wife for an hour (prostitute) at his discretion.
The Shariah Muslim law controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.
In the West World ( America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shariah Law so the wife can not obtain a divorce and he can have full and complete control of her. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shariah law.
By passing this on, enlightened American women may avoid becoming a slave under Shariah Law.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the President by themselves!
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on! This is your chance to make a difference...!
--------------------
My response to mom:
Mom,
Admittedly I don't know enough about Sharia law to answer this completely definitively, but whenever someone makes such sweeping accusations, it should cause you to raise an eyebrow. Here is a website purporting to debunk most of that forward's claims: http://hatesermons.blogspot.com/2009/08/nonie-darwish-hate-monger.html.
If you Google the author, the first hit you receive is the Wikipedia page about her. (Remember, Wikipedia has been shown to be more accurate than encyclopedias in print form because it is edited by the world and then fact-checked by the rest of the world.) Here is the Wikipedia page on Nonie Darwish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonie_Darwish. You can see that Nonie used to be a Muslim and converted to Christianity. She also founded "Arabs for Israel." She is not a religious scholar. She clearly has a bit of an axe to grind, which doesn't discredit her outright, but let's just keep that in mind.
So let's pick apart the email a bit, shall we?
1. First, forwards that are drafted in curvy fonts, different colors, different text sizes, which conclude in CAPS, and which issue a warning about the ACLU repressing your speech are never true. Never. Such forwards are about as useless as tits on a nun.
2. Islam is not uniform... nor is Christianity. There are radicals in every group. That's not to say that some sects of Islam don't have some serious, serious problems. A sizable chunk of Muslim men in places like Saudi Arabia still beat the crap out of their wives. But on the flip side, you wouldn't want your church associated with the lunatics who bomb abortion clinics, would you? It's fair to criticize another's religion--and we should be pointing out human rights abuses and never excusing them under the guise of religion--but it's always important to separate what really is "the religion" from what is some radical sect that is using a religious text to do things that rational people would never consider holy.
3. The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union. They protect people from religion just as they protect people's right to practice religion. When a town tries to put a cross on public land--such as the courthouse lawn--the ACLU sues because that's a government endorsement of religion. (I know some people won't like that, but that's what living in a country that respects the separation of Church and State is all about: it doesn't mean we suppress your Christianity, it just means you don't get to force your Christianity upon anyone else. Live and let live.) But the ACLU also sticks up for people when their religious rights are trampled. Check out this long list of pro-religious court cases the ACLU has recently brought on behalf of religious people and groups: http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression.
Recall that Rush Limbaugh hates the ACLU. But when Rush got in trouble for illegally "doctor shopping" and getting multiple prescriptions for pain killers, who came to his defense? The ACLU. Why? Because the prosecutor was trying to illegally publish parts of Limbaugh's medical records, and the ACLU knew this violated his right to medical privacy.
4. The number of U.S. Muslims is impossible to pin down, but reputable organizations put the estimates between 2.5 million and 7 million. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States). The current U.S. population is over 307 million people. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html). Assuming that different groups of people vote in roughly the same percentages, we'll even take the high number and divide: so 7 million Muslims divided by 307 million people in America is 2.28% of the population.
Will someone please, please explain to me how in just twenty years' time, 2.28% of the population (and that's using the high estimate) will produce enough children to elect a president that will impose Sharia law upon the U.S.? Are all Muslim women going to start having 100 babies a piece starting today? Because, remember, the kids can't vote until they're 18, and it takes 9 months for a baby to gestate, so that's almost 19 years right there. Are all non-Muslim women in the U.S. going to stop having children? The whole thing idea that Muslims will be a majority soon and will be able to elect a president is retarded--even with immigration and converts. Not gonna happen. Period.
Furthermore, the idea that a Muslim president who wanted to impose Sharia law could even do so without overturning the constitution we've had for over 200 years is even more retarded and shows a complete lack of knowledge regarding how our government really works. (Are two-thirds of Congress going to go along with this? Are three-fourths of all the state legislatures, as is required for amendments? Would the Supreme Court even allow the First Amendment to be stricken, as would have to happen for Sharia law to replace freedom of religion? Is the author of this forward smoking crack, and, if so, where can I get some?) Anyone who forwards such numerical nonsense should be ashamed of their math skills, their U.S. history skills, and their inability to spend two minutes on Google.
5. Finally, remember that your son worked at Target in college. There is an old e-mail forward that still circulates asking people to protest Target because it's allegedly anti-veteran and French-owned. Aunt Jackie even forwarded it to you, as I recall. In truth, Target is neither anti-veteran nor foreign-owned. The truth may be found here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/target.asp.
Think about the consequences of sending the Target forward. I only got to work when Target needed me. Target needed me when the store sold enough merchandise to justify giving me more hours. So for each idiot that sends that forward and stops coming to Target, Target loses business, and I don't work. My life is therefore harmed not by anything bad that Target actually did, but by the harmful, childish, unintelligent lies that some half-wit has spread from the comfort of his or her computer chair.
And make no mistake about it: it's a lie. A lie is something that is not the truth; we all know this, but somehow when it's just something we shuffle along with a few mouse clicks it seems less offensive. But it isn't less of a lie because you sent the e-mail along not knowing if it was true or not. Gossiping--if untrue--is still lying.
If your religion holds that all sins are equal (or at least all sins besides blaspheming God), then lying is as bad as rape. If lying is as bad as rape, then the person who sent you this ridiculous e-mail is as bad as the Muslim man who just brutally raped his wife. Think about that: by clicking "send," your friend just committed the sinful equivalent of rape. Gee, all the sudden sending this crap over the Internet doesn't seem so Christian, does it?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, your friend should think of whom she is hurting when she sends out lies. Think of the poor, peaceful Muslim immigrant who moves into her neighborhood. If all her other neighbors got this e-mail, how do you think they would treat that immigrant? (Again, this isn't to say that some Muslims aren't violent. That's a national conversation we need to have: how to allow religious freedom while at the same time protecting against terrorists and extremists. But there is a difference between Islamic terrorists and the little old lady named Fatima who moved here so she and her family could have a better life.) Better yet, turn the tables: if you suddenly had to relocate to Indonesia and were the only Christian in the neighborhood, how would you feel about someone who was spreading lies about Christianity in your new village?
Sending forwards like this without fact checking is cruel, it's immature, and it's woefully un-Christian.
But if you remember nothing else, remember this: whenever you see forwards written in crazy colors, different sized fonts, and with the word "ACLU" thrown in... it's gonna be bullshit. Every time.
Love - your liberally educated devil child,
Paul
Friday, November 6, 2009
Prostitution... It's All About the Timing
Prostitution should be legalized. Why? Because in most situations, it's already legal... it's just overlooked. (I'll leave others to debate the moral consequences and the subjugation of women issue, which are perfectly valid points. Personally, I think prostitution is a tad creepy for the same reason I find selling one's organs creepy: it's just horrible to think that this is the only way some people think they can make a living.) For my purposes, though, I think a good argument for legalization can be made just for the sake of consistency in the law. Let's be honest about what makes a prostitute a prostitute: it's when you hand over the dough.
If you pick up a hooker on the street, take her back to a hotel, bang her, and give her a few benjamins, she is a prostitute. If you pick her up in a strip club while she's working, take her out to dinner, buy her jewelry, bang her, and marry her, she is Anna Nicole Smith. (Note that just because you're married doesn't mean you're not still a hooker.)
Gay men are no different. If you're a hot, young 20-something and your boyfriend is much older, wealthier, and saggy, spare me the crap about liking older men because they're "mature." Watch the elder's stock options evaporate and see how long Junior sticks around. Junior, you're a prostitute.
So the next time you see the brightly painted women or "women" on Halsted in Chicago or Jarvis in Toronto or wherever hos may be found, before you cast a stone, remember this: just because your "payment" comes in the form of a BMW or a Tiffany's diamond band or even five free drinks at the bar, if you wouldn't have hooked up with the guy without that extra sumthin sumthin, you're doing it for the money. In short, you're a ho.
If you pick up a hooker on the street, take her back to a hotel, bang her, and give her a few benjamins, she is a prostitute. If you pick her up in a strip club while she's working, take her out to dinner, buy her jewelry, bang her, and marry her, she is Anna Nicole Smith. (Note that just because you're married doesn't mean you're not still a hooker.)
Gay men are no different. If you're a hot, young 20-something and your boyfriend is much older, wealthier, and saggy, spare me the crap about liking older men because they're "mature." Watch the elder's stock options evaporate and see how long Junior sticks around. Junior, you're a prostitute.
So the next time you see the brightly painted women or "women" on Halsted in Chicago or Jarvis in Toronto or wherever hos may be found, before you cast a stone, remember this: just because your "payment" comes in the form of a BMW or a Tiffany's diamond band or even five free drinks at the bar, if you wouldn't have hooked up with the guy without that extra sumthin sumthin, you're doing it for the money. In short, you're a ho.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem
Yesterday Maine's citizens prevented their gay neighbors from getting married by blocking the enactment of a law that their representatives had passed which would have provided marriage equality. Also yesterday, Virginia elected a virulently anti-gay governor, and New Jersey chose not to re-elect Democrat Jon Corzine which, had it done so, New Jersey was all but assured marriage equality.
The predictable scenes unfolded: members of black churches high fiving one another like they had just scored a touchdown, cruel Christians grinning from ear to ear at the joy of having shattered their fellow man's dreams. But there was something more disturbing: gay Republicans on Facebook simultaneously reacting with sadness to the Maine results but reacting with utter glee to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial results.
It's easy to lash out at such people as self-loathing homosexuals, but that's both oversimplistic and often wrong. To the extent I hurt anyone's feelings by mocking your god or your conservative credentials (yes, I'm mostly talking to you, Kyle), I apologize. Well, sort of. Because the flip side of the coin is this: if you're attacking my rights with your support of a particular candidate, you are, in no uncertain terms, attacking me personally. The personal is political.
But wait, doesn't that make you a 'single issue voter,' Paul? Not at all. But I struggle to think of anything more important than upholding the basic equality if your fellow man. Why do some of you gays vote Republican? Smaller government? Lower taxes? A more strong-arm (though not necessarily "stronger") national defense? A belief that the stimulus was a tax on our grandkids? (P.S. You're not Paul Krugman. Win a Nobel Prize in Economics then start complaining about government spending in a recession.) Really, what's your reason? And just to anticipate the objection: Yes, I know lately Democrats aren't much better, especially with Obama's slow movement on gay rights. But at least he's done something, and he appointed Justice Sotomayor who is assuredly more of an ally than anyone McCain would have appointed. I, like many attorneys, think this will ultimately be decided by the courts, so we need the best judiciary money can buy!
But again: Why vote for an anti-gay Republican? The issue gets even more perplexing if you claim to be a religious person. Can you really stand before God on Judgment Day and explain to the Almighty that you thought having a few more bucks in your wallet was more important than someone's right to equality, to being allowed to have kids, to being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital? Perhaps you're staunchly anti-abortion. If that's the case, I can begin to see your point, but even still, how does one elevate a potential life above the lives of those people who are living, breathing, and suffering here and now? (More thoughts on abortion and the multitude of ways of looking at it are here.)
I know, I know. Just because you vote for the Republican candidate doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. And abstaining is no cop out either: those who don't vote are the ones who allow the victor to win. Which is why it really does come down to that 60s catch phrase: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you voted for a Republican, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. If you put money in the collection plate at the Catholic Church, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. There's no way around that. None. No mental leaps, twists and turns escapes that conclusion. You voted against your fellow man.
What's the big deal about marriage?
I did a speech on gay marriage in college. During my research I uncovered countless heart breaking stories. Due to the time limitations, I only shared two. One involved a lesbian couple who had two children. The children were the biological children of one of the mothers. When the biological mother died, the state took the kids from their other mother and gave them back to their biological father, even though there was evidence that he had been abusive. As they were ripped away from the only family they knew, they cried and screamed for their "mommy." Without marriage rights, the theft of those poor children was perfectly legal. The second story involved a gay couple from Hawaii who had been together over 25 years. One night one of the men had a heart attack. The ambulance whisked him away, his partner not far behind. When the man's partner got to the hospital, he was told he would not be allowed into the room. He wasn't "family," said the hospital. For three (yes, three) days, he and his lawyers fought with the hospital. On the third day, the hospital informed him that he could finally see his partner of 25 years. His beloved partner was--they informed him--in the morgue.
This crap happens. Every. Single. Day.
A conservative friend told me that we don't need marriage to fix this. He worked at a Christian hospital and even they respected the advance directives of gay couples. Well golly gee willikers, how Christian of them! If you're rich enough (or wise enough) to draft advance directives and have them handy when you rush to the hospital in an emergency, you just might be allowed to see your dying partner in the hospital. Are you listening, faggots? For a price, you might get what Britney Spears can get after drunkenly marrying her high school sweetheart in a ultra-brief Vegas wedding. Who needs equality when the alternatives are so, um, appealing?
But why "marriage"? Why not civil unions?
Some argue that civil unions are the way to go, and polls certainly suggest that. Perhaps for now, it is. But ultimately, the fight must be for marriage for two reasons: (1) for clear equal rights and (2) to allow gays to be seen as human. That which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.
First, for clear equal rights. New Jersey had civil unions. Marriage under a different name. All the same rights and responsibilities, or so its residents thought. Then a lesbian UPS employee tried to get benefits for her partner. UPS denied her. Why? It wasn't a "real" marriage. Their contract only covered real marriages. Sorry, dyke. The employee had to get an attorney and sue for what was rightfully hers. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if a straight couple in Jersey had to hire an attorney to prove their marriage was real? Guido would send the mob after you! You see, law is a tricky thing. You change one word and judges get confused. There have been entire Supreme Court cases over the placement of a comma. Words matter. Indeed, in states that have civil unions, state commissions have researched the issue and found civil unions to be lacking the full force of marriage. It's not the same thing.
Second, because we are human. Before you think that's touchy-feely humanist bullcrap, follow me for a second. When African-Americans marched in the 60s, some of them wore giant signs. They read: I Am A Man. Think about that. Think of how profound that four-word sentence is in the context of their battle. Their fight for equality was more than just a fight for legal rights; it was their fight to be seen as men--nothing more, nothing less. Full humans.
When the American military wanted to make it easier for its servicemen to kill Japanese soldiers, what did they do? They produced posters showing the Japanese as animals--as something sub-human. If it's not a person, it's easier to kill him, isn't it? Likewise, Hitler convinced his followers that everyone else was inferior to his Aryan race. It's a tactic as old as time itself: strip someone of their humanity and justify your actions with ease.
There is a reason some thugs feel no remorse for beating and killing gays and lesbians. There is a reason the delinquency rates and runaway rates of gay teenagers are far higher than for straight kids. There is a reason suicide rates are higher among gay people (particularly gay youth). There is a reason people feel justified in firing gays just because they were gay. Because to many people, we aren't seen as real humans... humans who deserve rights... or humans who deserve "real" marriages.
Passing equal rights legislation or enforcing it via the courts isn't a magic bullet. Changing the law won't change millennia of religious-based hatred. And allowing gays to marry won't suddenly make all gay kids into healthy, well-adjusted youths. But it will help. A lot. And it's time we start seeing the connections between the hatred we encounter and the institutionalized discrimination that permits such ways of thinking to flourish.
There's (At Least) Two Sides to Everything
A nice, liberal friend of mine told me yesterday that he didn't think now was a good time to extend marriage benefits to gays because it would be too big of a drain on society, even if it were the right thing to do. My first reaction was to bash my head into a brick wall in frustration. But then I remembered Target Lady.
In college, I worked the Guest Service desk at Target. One day, a very angry woman rolled up to my desk with a problem. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. Visibly furious, she spat at me, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" for full effect. I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman did not have a computer (and apparently didn't know anyone else who had one either or know where her local library was located); therefore, a program that gives customers a 10% online coupon discriminated... against her.
To Target Lady and to my friend, I guess I understand that it's a matter of perception: One man's "right" is another man's "privilege." To my friend, gays were apparently wanting something new, extra, and exotic: equal rights. Equal rights might cost the government some money once preferential tax treatment was extended to same-sex couples. And I get that: the status quo is comfortable; change is unsettling.
But the flip side of the coin makes an awful lot of sense too. And that's simply this: withholding equal rights from gays and lesbians has been, is, and always will be wrong. Changing the law isn't providing anything "extra," it's correcting a deficiency that's always been there. So when we make our case to others, we must always remember that, to some, we homos are just the angry woman at Target without a computer. It's our job to make others see it in--dare I say--the "right" light.
So I circle back, dear Republican friends. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What issue persuades you so forcefully to vote against the health, happiness, and equal rights of your fellow man such that you would cheer the election of an anti-gay governor? It's a serious question. What do you find more important? Because I want to understand your position. And right now, I just don't. (And I like guns, low taxes, and small government too.)
The predictable scenes unfolded: members of black churches high fiving one another like they had just scored a touchdown, cruel Christians grinning from ear to ear at the joy of having shattered their fellow man's dreams. But there was something more disturbing: gay Republicans on Facebook simultaneously reacting with sadness to the Maine results but reacting with utter glee to the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial results.
It's easy to lash out at such people as self-loathing homosexuals, but that's both oversimplistic and often wrong. To the extent I hurt anyone's feelings by mocking your god or your conservative credentials (yes, I'm mostly talking to you, Kyle), I apologize. Well, sort of. Because the flip side of the coin is this: if you're attacking my rights with your support of a particular candidate, you are, in no uncertain terms, attacking me personally. The personal is political.
But wait, doesn't that make you a 'single issue voter,' Paul? Not at all. But I struggle to think of anything more important than upholding the basic equality if your fellow man. Why do some of you gays vote Republican? Smaller government? Lower taxes? A more strong-arm (though not necessarily "stronger") national defense? A belief that the stimulus was a tax on our grandkids? (P.S. You're not Paul Krugman. Win a Nobel Prize in Economics then start complaining about government spending in a recession.) Really, what's your reason? And just to anticipate the objection: Yes, I know lately Democrats aren't much better, especially with Obama's slow movement on gay rights. But at least he's done something, and he appointed Justice Sotomayor who is assuredly more of an ally than anyone McCain would have appointed. I, like many attorneys, think this will ultimately be decided by the courts, so we need the best judiciary money can buy!
But again: Why vote for an anti-gay Republican? The issue gets even more perplexing if you claim to be a religious person. Can you really stand before God on Judgment Day and explain to the Almighty that you thought having a few more bucks in your wallet was more important than someone's right to equality, to being allowed to have kids, to being able to visit a sick partner in the hospital? Perhaps you're staunchly anti-abortion. If that's the case, I can begin to see your point, but even still, how does one elevate a potential life above the lives of those people who are living, breathing, and suffering here and now? (More thoughts on abortion and the multitude of ways of looking at it are here.)
I know, I know. Just because you vote for the Republican candidate doesn't mean you agree with everything he stands for. And abstaining is no cop out either: those who don't vote are the ones who allow the victor to win. Which is why it really does come down to that 60s catch phrase: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. If you voted for a Republican, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. If you put money in the collection plate at the Catholic Church, accept the fact that you just voted against the fundamental civil rights of your fellow man. There's no way around that. None. No mental leaps, twists and turns escapes that conclusion. You voted against your fellow man.
What's the big deal about marriage?
I did a speech on gay marriage in college. During my research I uncovered countless heart breaking stories. Due to the time limitations, I only shared two. One involved a lesbian couple who had two children. The children were the biological children of one of the mothers. When the biological mother died, the state took the kids from their other mother and gave them back to their biological father, even though there was evidence that he had been abusive. As they were ripped away from the only family they knew, they cried and screamed for their "mommy." Without marriage rights, the theft of those poor children was perfectly legal. The second story involved a gay couple from Hawaii who had been together over 25 years. One night one of the men had a heart attack. The ambulance whisked him away, his partner not far behind. When the man's partner got to the hospital, he was told he would not be allowed into the room. He wasn't "family," said the hospital. For three (yes, three) days, he and his lawyers fought with the hospital. On the third day, the hospital informed him that he could finally see his partner of 25 years. His beloved partner was--they informed him--in the morgue.
This crap happens. Every. Single. Day.
A conservative friend told me that we don't need marriage to fix this. He worked at a Christian hospital and even they respected the advance directives of gay couples. Well golly gee willikers, how Christian of them! If you're rich enough (or wise enough) to draft advance directives and have them handy when you rush to the hospital in an emergency, you just might be allowed to see your dying partner in the hospital. Are you listening, faggots? For a price, you might get what Britney Spears can get after drunkenly marrying her high school sweetheart in a ultra-brief Vegas wedding. Who needs equality when the alternatives are so, um, appealing?
But why "marriage"? Why not civil unions?
Some argue that civil unions are the way to go, and polls certainly suggest that. Perhaps for now, it is. But ultimately, the fight must be for marriage for two reasons: (1) for clear equal rights and (2) to allow gays to be seen as human. That which we call a rose by any other name does not always smell as sweet.
First, for clear equal rights. New Jersey had civil unions. Marriage under a different name. All the same rights and responsibilities, or so its residents thought. Then a lesbian UPS employee tried to get benefits for her partner. UPS denied her. Why? It wasn't a "real" marriage. Their contract only covered real marriages. Sorry, dyke. The employee had to get an attorney and sue for what was rightfully hers. Can you imagine the hell that would break loose if a straight couple in Jersey had to hire an attorney to prove their marriage was real? Guido would send the mob after you! You see, law is a tricky thing. You change one word and judges get confused. There have been entire Supreme Court cases over the placement of a comma. Words matter. Indeed, in states that have civil unions, state commissions have researched the issue and found civil unions to be lacking the full force of marriage. It's not the same thing.
Second, because we are human. Before you think that's touchy-feely humanist bullcrap, follow me for a second. When African-Americans marched in the 60s, some of them wore giant signs. They read: I Am A Man. Think about that. Think of how profound that four-word sentence is in the context of their battle. Their fight for equality was more than just a fight for legal rights; it was their fight to be seen as men--nothing more, nothing less. Full humans.
When the American military wanted to make it easier for its servicemen to kill Japanese soldiers, what did they do? They produced posters showing the Japanese as animals--as something sub-human. If it's not a person, it's easier to kill him, isn't it? Likewise, Hitler convinced his followers that everyone else was inferior to his Aryan race. It's a tactic as old as time itself: strip someone of their humanity and justify your actions with ease.
There is a reason some thugs feel no remorse for beating and killing gays and lesbians. There is a reason the delinquency rates and runaway rates of gay teenagers are far higher than for straight kids. There is a reason suicide rates are higher among gay people (particularly gay youth). There is a reason people feel justified in firing gays just because they were gay. Because to many people, we aren't seen as real humans... humans who deserve rights... or humans who deserve "real" marriages.
Passing equal rights legislation or enforcing it via the courts isn't a magic bullet. Changing the law won't change millennia of religious-based hatred. And allowing gays to marry won't suddenly make all gay kids into healthy, well-adjusted youths. But it will help. A lot. And it's time we start seeing the connections between the hatred we encounter and the institutionalized discrimination that permits such ways of thinking to flourish.
There's (At Least) Two Sides to Everything
A nice, liberal friend of mine told me yesterday that he didn't think now was a good time to extend marriage benefits to gays because it would be too big of a drain on society, even if it were the right thing to do. My first reaction was to bash my head into a brick wall in frustration. But then I remembered Target Lady.
In college, I worked the Guest Service desk at Target. One day, a very angry woman rolled up to my desk with a problem. You see, when you sign up for a Target credit card, Target gives you 10% off your purchases in the store that day and also gives you 10% off your first purchase on target.com. My customer didn't like that. Visibly furious, she spat at me, "I don't have a computer. So this program dis-crim-i-nates against me!" sounding out each syllable in the word "discriminates" for full effect. I stood there in shock, unsure what to say. I was trying to connect the logic in my mind: this one woman did not have a computer (and apparently didn't know anyone else who had one either or know where her local library was located); therefore, a program that gives customers a 10% online coupon discriminated... against her.
To Target Lady and to my friend, I guess I understand that it's a matter of perception: One man's "right" is another man's "privilege." To my friend, gays were apparently wanting something new, extra, and exotic: equal rights. Equal rights might cost the government some money once preferential tax treatment was extended to same-sex couples. And I get that: the status quo is comfortable; change is unsettling.
But the flip side of the coin makes an awful lot of sense too. And that's simply this: withholding equal rights from gays and lesbians has been, is, and always will be wrong. Changing the law isn't providing anything "extra," it's correcting a deficiency that's always been there. So when we make our case to others, we must always remember that, to some, we homos are just the angry woman at Target without a computer. It's our job to make others see it in--dare I say--the "right" light.
So I circle back, dear Republican friends. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What issue persuades you so forcefully to vote against the health, happiness, and equal rights of your fellow man such that you would cheer the election of an anti-gay governor? It's a serious question. What do you find more important? Because I want to understand your position. And right now, I just don't. (And I like guns, low taxes, and small government too.)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
You've Come a Long Way, Baby
So I turn 30 on Sunday. I'd by lying if I said it wasn't a tad depressing. When you're in school until 27, you sort of feel like you've wasted half your life. Walking away with four degrees including a doctorate is swell and all, but the debt it produces makes you wonder if it's all worth it. And to date I've been unsuccessful in getting people to call attorneys "Dr. ____," though I really think they ought.
Anyway, such a big milestone got me thinking about how things have changed in 30 years--usually to reflect the Information Age's now now now mentality. And it made me appreciate when life was a little slower, a little simplier. And it made me feel a little bad for my younger friends who scarcely remember a time before 24-hour news and instantly downloadable music.
So here, in no particular order, is a little list of things that I remember about the good ole' days. (God, I feel old saying that.)
1. I remember when there was no such thing as "body wash." People used soap. And soap worked just fine. And, ya know what, it still works just fine and is cheaper than silly body wash. Oh, and you can take it on a plane.
2. I remember before the miraculous Internet. And while it's obviously the coolest thing since the invention of the telephone, there was a certain mystery to life in the days when you had to ask another person a question or go to the library to look something up. Well, and it was nice to know that you didn't have to log into Facebook at least a few times a day so you wouldn't get withdrawal symptoms.
3. I remember those glorious days before cell phones. Back in high school I had one friend who had a cell phone. One. When we wanted to meet up at the football game on Friday night, we set a time to meet at the flagpole, and we showed up. There was no being late. There was, after all, no way to get in touch with someone if you were late. People didn't say, "Oh, I'll just call you when I get there." I truly think this is one reason kids today have no sense of time management. When you can always be contacted, plans can always be altered. I'd like to see all cell phone companies shut down for a week and watch the world melt... and children adapt.
4. I remember jogging with my bright yellow Sony Walkman. And it sounded like crap. And then my Discman. And then my Discman with 10-second skip protection, which never really worked. Kids with iPods today have no idea how lucky they are. Especially in the days before burnable CDs, I had to pick one disc and listen to that my entire six mile run! The horror!
5. I remember when TV went off the air. Oh, the glorious days of turning on the tube at 2 am and seeing snow. And then sometime--around 5:00 or 6:00 am--the network came back on the air, with a visual of an American flag and a band playing The Star Spangled Banner. It was a neat way to start the day.
6. I remember when you had to develop film. There was no way to check a photo to see if it sucked after you took it. I remember gleefully picking up the photos at the grocery store and standing in the parking lot laughing at the bad ones. Sometimes you threw them away; sometimes you kept them. But at least you didn't delete them instantly from your digital camera--funny memories forever banished moments after becoming pixels just because John had his eyes closed.
7. I remember the days before Caller ID. Someone called, you picked up. If it was Aunt Middy, you slouched in your chair, 'cause you know you'd be listening for a while. Yes, annoying callers sucked, but a ringing phone was always a crapshoot--a fun little mystery. Maybe it was Ed McMahon calling about that one-million dollar prize!!! But... usually it was just Aunt Middy.
8. I remember the days before DVR or even VCR+. The days when you had to be home or had to laboriously program your VCR to record a show if you weren't going to be home. (And had to guesstimate if you had enough room on the tape to hold your show.)
9. I remember ATARI, which in some ways will forever be cooler than Nintendo, Sega, Wii or any of that other crap. ATARI was simple... and it was awesome. I was sitting on the El a few days ago and saw a little girl playing a modern-day version of Pong on her dad's Blackberry. And I smiled. I'm sure if we could have played Pong on a mobile device in the 80s, we would have gone apeshit. But it's adorable to think that that little girl is playing the same game her dad did in 1985.
10. I remember when you had to look up books in a card catalog. Subject. Author. Title. And it worked just fine.
11. I remember with a certain amount of fondness the nuclear drills we used to do in grade school. Get down under your desks and cover your heads! The Russians are coming! Because, you know, when the Russians attack us with a nuclear bomb, our crappy little desks will surely protect us from the giant fireball that will rip through the school.
12. And I remember a time before 24-hour cable news. On the East Coast, the news was at 6:00 pm. It lasted an hour. If it was important, you heard about it in that hour. I'm ashamed to mention how many times I've been watching CNN and suddenly realized, "I've just watched this f*cking story three times!" When you're limited to an hour, you stick to the important stuff; when you have all day, you just repeat shit. One day I'd love to own a news channel, and on slow days if there wasn't anything particularly newsworthy going on, I'd show cartoons instead. Don't you think viewers would appreciate that?
Those older than I, of course, have slightly different memories. I, for example, have always known ATMs. I'm told there was a time before the 80s that if you didn't have cash by the time banks closed on Fridays, you didn't go to the bars that weekend. There simply was no other alternative.
While the availability of everything in 2009 and the instant gratification we get with quick downloads, 24-hour news, credit accepted even at fast food restaurants, etc., is wonderful, I do occasionally long for the days when things could wait. When people had to plan to meet at the flagpole. When there was some mystery behind a ringing telephone. When our worst enemy was a country with definitive borders instead of a radical religious sect with no boundaries.
Finally, I remember the first time I discovered what I would consider "club music." I was 11-ish. And sometimes at night, we could faintly receive radio stations from Cleveland. Some Cleveland station was playing this sweet ass remix of Janet Jackson's State of the World. I recorded it... on a cassette of course. There was something both frustrating and amazing about the fact that I didn't know who remixed it. I didn't know where on earth I could buy it (and probably couldn't buy it anywhere in rural PA anyway). It was just... there. For a few minutes it was on the airwaves, and then it was gone. Today, I'd Shazam the unknown song with my iPhone; Shazam would immediately tell me the artist, song title, and remixer; and then I'd find the song online with relatively no effort. No more mystery. Everything is here. Everything is now.
On a whim, I just YouTubed "Janet Jackson State of the World." The very first hit was this. It took 19 years, but I now know the answer. It's the United Nations mix. And, yes, it's still a sweet ass remix.
Anyway, such a big milestone got me thinking about how things have changed in 30 years--usually to reflect the Information Age's now now now mentality. And it made me appreciate when life was a little slower, a little simplier. And it made me feel a little bad for my younger friends who scarcely remember a time before 24-hour news and instantly downloadable music.
So here, in no particular order, is a little list of things that I remember about the good ole' days. (God, I feel old saying that.)
1. I remember when there was no such thing as "body wash." People used soap. And soap worked just fine. And, ya know what, it still works just fine and is cheaper than silly body wash. Oh, and you can take it on a plane.
2. I remember before the miraculous Internet. And while it's obviously the coolest thing since the invention of the telephone, there was a certain mystery to life in the days when you had to ask another person a question or go to the library to look something up. Well, and it was nice to know that you didn't have to log into Facebook at least a few times a day so you wouldn't get withdrawal symptoms.
3. I remember those glorious days before cell phones. Back in high school I had one friend who had a cell phone. One. When we wanted to meet up at the football game on Friday night, we set a time to meet at the flagpole, and we showed up. There was no being late. There was, after all, no way to get in touch with someone if you were late. People didn't say, "Oh, I'll just call you when I get there." I truly think this is one reason kids today have no sense of time management. When you can always be contacted, plans can always be altered. I'd like to see all cell phone companies shut down for a week and watch the world melt... and children adapt.
4. I remember jogging with my bright yellow Sony Walkman. And it sounded like crap. And then my Discman. And then my Discman with 10-second skip protection, which never really worked. Kids with iPods today have no idea how lucky they are. Especially in the days before burnable CDs, I had to pick one disc and listen to that my entire six mile run! The horror!
5. I remember when TV went off the air. Oh, the glorious days of turning on the tube at 2 am and seeing snow. And then sometime--around 5:00 or 6:00 am--the network came back on the air, with a visual of an American flag and a band playing The Star Spangled Banner. It was a neat way to start the day.
6. I remember when you had to develop film. There was no way to check a photo to see if it sucked after you took it. I remember gleefully picking up the photos at the grocery store and standing in the parking lot laughing at the bad ones. Sometimes you threw them away; sometimes you kept them. But at least you didn't delete them instantly from your digital camera--funny memories forever banished moments after becoming pixels just because John had his eyes closed.
7. I remember the days before Caller ID. Someone called, you picked up. If it was Aunt Middy, you slouched in your chair, 'cause you know you'd be listening for a while. Yes, annoying callers sucked, but a ringing phone was always a crapshoot--a fun little mystery. Maybe it was Ed McMahon calling about that one-million dollar prize!!! But... usually it was just Aunt Middy.
8. I remember the days before DVR or even VCR+. The days when you had to be home or had to laboriously program your VCR to record a show if you weren't going to be home. (And had to guesstimate if you had enough room on the tape to hold your show.)
9. I remember ATARI, which in some ways will forever be cooler than Nintendo, Sega, Wii or any of that other crap. ATARI was simple... and it was awesome. I was sitting on the El a few days ago and saw a little girl playing a modern-day version of Pong on her dad's Blackberry. And I smiled. I'm sure if we could have played Pong on a mobile device in the 80s, we would have gone apeshit. But it's adorable to think that that little girl is playing the same game her dad did in 1985.
10. I remember when you had to look up books in a card catalog. Subject. Author. Title. And it worked just fine.
11. I remember with a certain amount of fondness the nuclear drills we used to do in grade school. Get down under your desks and cover your heads! The Russians are coming! Because, you know, when the Russians attack us with a nuclear bomb, our crappy little desks will surely protect us from the giant fireball that will rip through the school.
12. And I remember a time before 24-hour cable news. On the East Coast, the news was at 6:00 pm. It lasted an hour. If it was important, you heard about it in that hour. I'm ashamed to mention how many times I've been watching CNN and suddenly realized, "I've just watched this f*cking story three times!" When you're limited to an hour, you stick to the important stuff; when you have all day, you just repeat shit. One day I'd love to own a news channel, and on slow days if there wasn't anything particularly newsworthy going on, I'd show cartoons instead. Don't you think viewers would appreciate that?
Those older than I, of course, have slightly different memories. I, for example, have always known ATMs. I'm told there was a time before the 80s that if you didn't have cash by the time banks closed on Fridays, you didn't go to the bars that weekend. There simply was no other alternative.
While the availability of everything in 2009 and the instant gratification we get with quick downloads, 24-hour news, credit accepted even at fast food restaurants, etc., is wonderful, I do occasionally long for the days when things could wait. When people had to plan to meet at the flagpole. When there was some mystery behind a ringing telephone. When our worst enemy was a country with definitive borders instead of a radical religious sect with no boundaries.
Finally, I remember the first time I discovered what I would consider "club music." I was 11-ish. And sometimes at night, we could faintly receive radio stations from Cleveland. Some Cleveland station was playing this sweet ass remix of Janet Jackson's State of the World. I recorded it... on a cassette of course. There was something both frustrating and amazing about the fact that I didn't know who remixed it. I didn't know where on earth I could buy it (and probably couldn't buy it anywhere in rural PA anyway). It was just... there. For a few minutes it was on the airwaves, and then it was gone. Today, I'd Shazam the unknown song with my iPhone; Shazam would immediately tell me the artist, song title, and remixer; and then I'd find the song online with relatively no effort. No more mystery. Everything is here. Everything is now.
On a whim, I just YouTubed "Janet Jackson State of the World." The very first hit was this. It took 19 years, but I now know the answer. It's the United Nations mix. And, yes, it's still a sweet ass remix.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Dissecting Kanye
Last night at the MTV VMAs, after the winner was announced for Best Female Video, Kanye West jumped on stage, stole the microphone from teenager and first-time VMA winner Taylor Swift, and pronounced that Beyonce should have won. Beyonce looked stunned, the crowd booed, Taylor tried to finish her speech but by then her mic had been cut, and then the producers rather hastily moved on to something else. Beyonce won the last award--Video of the Year--and graciously gave the mic to Taylor so she could finish her speech.
If you're keeping score at home: Beyonce +100; Kanye -1,000,000.
But, of course, as a lawyer, it's always fun to parse not only what was done but also what was said. Let's look at what Kanye Douchenozzle West had to say, shall we?
As he leaped on stage, he uttered these charming sentences: "Taylor, I’m really happy for you. Imma let you finish, but Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time! One of the best videos of all time!"
I'm going to let you finish? Well, how gracious of you! I mean, after all, MTV should have cleared all winners through Kanye first, so really this is their fault. But what a gentleman, he's going to let her finish her speech--you know, the one for the award she just won and for which he wasn't even nominated. As my friend Paul put it, even if he had jumped on stage to congratulate Taylor and to say she produced the best video ever made, he'd still be a douche for stealing her spotlight.
Then, in true Kanye fashion, he took to his blog shortly thereafter. In all caps, of course. He has since taken the following down... probably because his publicist told him that if he didn't he/she would quit and/or kill him.
After a half-assed apology, he writes, "BEYONCE'S VIDEO WAS THE BEST OF THIS DECADE!!!!" You see, Kayne, when you apologize, you're supposed to acknowledge that it's not all about you and your opinions. That's great that you liked Beyonce's video. Gee, so did I. But when you're apologizing for stealing a teenager's microphone you should, like, stick to the apology instead of trying to score points with Beyonce so you can pork her.
But he didn't stop there. "WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!!!! EVERYONE WANNA BOOOO ME BUT I'M A REAL FAN OF POP CULTURE!!!" Real world? Well, I guess when the sun revolves around you in the "real" world, that statement makes perfect sense. Or does he really think that in the "real" world it's perfectly OK to jump on stage and yank the mic out of someone's hand? He is, after all, from the South Side of Chicago.
"I GAVE MY AWARDS TO OUTKAST WHEN THEY DESERVED IT OVER ME." Ah, I love this one. It's like saying, "I pay my taxes, so I can beat my wife." So you handed an award to Outkast at a prior award show when you thought they deserved it more than you (and they handed it back, might I add). Big deal. It's not called "humility" when you're Kanye and you do that; it's called grandstanding. And, in any event, doesn't this just reinforce your point that you think you're The One in charge of dispensing the Moonmen?
Finally, Kanye reminds us, "I'M JUST REAL. SORRY FOR THAT!!!" Well, at least I agree with you here, Mr. West. To be "real" is to be true to oneself. You are indeed real. A real asshole. Congratulations. Now can we stop inviting this asshat to award shows?
Fortunately for us, Perez Hilton (who is almost as contemptible but at least he's a decent journalist) found a quotation from Kanye in 2007 explaining everything. "I'm a glitch in this matrix. Man, this music for me is like a sport. And the only thing we got for championships is, like, award shows. So if something goes wrong, I'm gonna scream at the ref." So there you have it, kids. Music is a game. The votes of the Academy--or whoever--don't matter. Kanye is like an indignant student who got a bad grade. "The teacher gave me a D." No, honey, in all likelihood, you earned a D. MTV chose a winner. It wasn't Beyonce. This isn't the U.S. Open. You're not Serena. Shut up. (But can we still assign a penalty point, please?)
(On a side note, my friend Josh had a keen observation. Janet Jackson shows a little nipple at the Super Bowl and MTV throws her under the bus, her career tanks, she loses her record contract, and some radio stations stop playing her. But Chris Brown beats up his young girlfriend and Kanye throws temper tantrums worthy of a five year-old on crack, and radio does next to nothing? I'm usually the last person to say something is "sexist," but, hel-LO.)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Frizzle fazzle
In ninth grade geometry, my teacher suggested we memorize some obscure geometric formula for finding the surface area of a cone. "One day, you could be in a meeting, and your boss will want to know how much it would cost per square foot to cover this cone in frizzle fazzle, and you'll know. You'll be the one to get promoted!"
Yes, it was a stupid statement then. And it's even stupider now.
But the teacher's larger point recently got me thinking: just how much memorization is necessary anymore? When I was in high school, the Internets was just coming into existence. Back then, knowledge was, indeed, power. But back then, we didn't have Google.
To old people like my grandparents, the Internet is a scary, unwieldy place. They wouldn't even know where to begin. But for my generation, you just "know" where to find a lot of things. Google for almost anything. LexisNexis or Westlaw for law. Switchboard for a landline phone number. Fandango for movies. It's simple. Or at least it is to us.
One wonders if the focus of education will eventually move away from "knowing" so much (like the surface area of a cone) and toward knowing where to look. Honestly, could a geometry teacher even get away with such a statement like that today without his students laughing in his face? They could probably pull the formula up on their cell phones before he could flip to it in his book.
(P.S. http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/surfareas.htm if you care. Found it in 20 seconds using The Google.)
Yes, it was a stupid statement then. And it's even stupider now.
But the teacher's larger point recently got me thinking: just how much memorization is necessary anymore? When I was in high school, the Internets was just coming into existence. Back then, knowledge was, indeed, power. But back then, we didn't have Google.
To old people like my grandparents, the Internet is a scary, unwieldy place. They wouldn't even know where to begin. But for my generation, you just "know" where to find a lot of things. Google for almost anything. LexisNexis or Westlaw for law. Switchboard for a landline phone number. Fandango for movies. It's simple. Or at least it is to us.
One wonders if the focus of education will eventually move away from "knowing" so much (like the surface area of a cone) and toward knowing where to look. Honestly, could a geometry teacher even get away with such a statement like that today without his students laughing in his face? They could probably pull the formula up on their cell phones before he could flip to it in his book.
(P.S. http://www.math.com/tables/geometry/surfareas.htm if you care. Found it in 20 seconds using The Google.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)