Category: politics

Thoughts On Cynicism And Idealism

There’s a lot of reasons that this blog could dive headfirst into the “cynical” half of its title and never resurface. There’s the whole “spying on American citizens” thing. There’s the VRA thing. The looming student loan thing. I could go on, but that would merely be unnecessary padding. We all know things suck.

Except that, for today at least, there were a few things in our country that didn’t suck. DOMA is gone. There was Wendy Davis’s epic filibuster in Texas. These are lights in a dark time. These are moments that rekindle that flame of idealism and keep things firmly in balance.

That’s not to say that tomorrow won’t suck; conservatives in Texas are already mustering for round two of the fight. Even the DOMA victory isn’t complete: a complete victory would not have allowed for states to continue to define marriage. A complete victory would be equal rights for citizens of all sexual orientations NOW, end of discussion, if you don’t like it, too fucking bad. That’s still the end goal. You shouldn’t have to go to a specific state to be allowed a right like marriage.

On the other hand, we should be invigorated that something is happening. A woman’s right to make decisions about her body wasn’t abruptly gutted in Texas. Our same-sex marriage seeking friends and family members are one step closer to equality. Most importantly, the message is very different now than it was ten years ago. Ten years ago, we didn’t have a light in the darkness. Ten years ago, we didn’t have much of a reason to be hopeful about anything.

Ten years ago, those fighting for equal marriage rights were doing so largely alone. Allies were few and the general atmosphere was either “don’t talk about it, don’t think about it, pretend it doesn’t exist” or worse “God hates you, you’re an aberrant mutant, stop existing.” We’ve come a long way from that. Granted, we’re still on the road, and no amount of progress will ever make up for the abominable way we’ve treated our fellow men and women just for being themselves. Nothing will ever erase those mistakes we’ve made as a country or recover the lives of those who were destroyed because of prejudice and isolation. We can’t take those things back, no matter how much we wish we could.

All we can do is work to make sure that the damage that’s been done is stopped. All we can do is stand together against prejudice and bigotry. All we can do is prove that, no matter how flawed we are as a species, we are capable of learning from our mistakes and that we’ll never stop trying to make tomorrow better.

And that’s why I think this blog is still worthy of the second half of its name.

And In Other News

I’m related to a lot of people who vote for the GOP. This is something I really, really don’t understand. I don’t understand how we can have the same DNA, the same stuff that programs our brains and such, look at the same actions by Republicans and have completely divergent reactions.

For example, my reaction to  the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is one of abject horror that something this misogynistic passed through the House of Representatives. The fact that it will likely die in the Senate is a cold consolation; what would make me happy is knowing that bullshit like this couldn’t survive long enough to make it to the House at all.

And yet, you don’t have to go far along the family tree to find beings who are almost exactly like me in terms of DNA who likely think that this is a great idea, who would have almost certainly voted for Franks if he was representing our district (he’s actually representing a district in Phoenix, which should come as no surprise to anyone ever).

The only answer that makes sense to me is that I’m a genetic aberration, a mutant who was born with a defective brain bucket that renders me incapable of understanding the wisdom of this action, or anything else that the GOP does. That must be it.

Thoughts On Yesterday

For the moment, there’s nothing else of substance to be said about the gun control battle. The lines have been drawn in the sand; the first blows have been exchanged. Our side lost this round, but there will be others. The overwhelmingly sad fact is that as long as things remain as they are, we’re never going to run out of tragedies that will add fuel to the fire of this debate. That’s not the same thing as hoping for more violence. Rather, it is the sad realization that until something changes, this is how things are going to be until we finally have enough people saying, “we tried it your way. Now let’s try it ours.”

For now, though, all the good zings have been zung. In my opinion, Gabby Gifford’s scathing editorial was the most poignant. I tried to find an editorial from the gun rights side of things; the best I could do was John Cornyn’s criticism of President Obama’s speech yesterday. Hardly a fair comparison, I admit, but then, this wasn’t exactly a fair fight.

I did look at a few conservative news sites to see what else might be out there, but the first article on the Drudge Report was NRA: “Obama  ‘bit off more than he could chew, an article so vile and callous that I wouldn’t dare choose this to be the representation of the other side. It’s too fucking cruel. My first thought was that it was actually just very cold satire and part of me still hopes that’s the case.

So the other side gets Cornyn to sum up the day, because while he may not be the most eloquent representation, at least he doesn’t come across having been spawned in the darkest depths of some writhing abyss. Banality or pure evil; those seem to be the choices here.

Meanwhile, In The Senate

Like I said in my previous post, today was a good day to be a gun in America. The reactions from most decently minded citizens was one of disbelief more than anything:

Kirsten Gillibrand : W/90% support, it’s absurd that we were unable to summon the political will to pass universal background checks. The Senate truly is broken.

There was also the reaction from those watching from the Senate gallery:

Among those looking on from the gallery, Lori Haas, whose daughter was shot at Virginia Tech, and Patricia Maisch, a survivor of the mass shooting in Tucson, shouted, “Shame on you.” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who presided over the votes, then asked for decorum.

The urge to give into cynicism is strong right now. The system seems broken, doesn’t it? It feels broken. It seems like playing by the rules is the best way to lose. It seems that a small but hysterically loud minority has been allowed to have the run of the country, simply because it’s the loudest and shrillest voice in the room. Is there anything left to do, but wait for the current crop of conservatives to succumb to old age and hope that the playing field is more fair the next time around?

I say no. Never give into despair. Everyone except Fox News agrees that the conservative leadership in this country is on the verge of collapse unless it reforms. These are the last gasps of a desperate minority struggling to hold onto their power. For them, the stakes are high enough to go beyond the point of reason. There is no incentive to play fair at this point.

I do not believe that this will stand forever. With each blatant defiance of the public will, the tide turns against them more. Each action that these NRA-owned senators take that prioritizes the gun lobby over the will of the people will reveal them for what they are: sycophants of special interests.

Amid those voices protesting is Tucson’s own Gabby Giffords, who needs no introduction, calling for resolve in the face of despair:

Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was severely injured in the Tucson shooting, wrote in a Twitter message: “Senate ignored will of the people & rejected background checks. Im not giving up. Constituents will know they obeyed gun lobby and not them.”

To the question of what can we do now in the face of this latest defeat, Giffords had this to say:

Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. It’s clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate. 

If this is how these senators wish to govern, I argue that they are no longer deserving of the responsibility. I don’t think I’m alone in holding this opinion:

“I was extremely disappointed,” said retired Col. Bill Badger, one of the people who tackled Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson. “When 90 percent of the people want something, and the senator votes against them, the next election, we’re going to take care of those senators, because they’re not representing the people.”

No matter how it shakes down, at the end of the day, you cannot ignore the will of the people like this. The political will to carry on the fight is still there and this particular fight is not over. There are too many people now who care too deeply about this to let the gun lobby bury this cause, as has been done so many times in the past. Maybe it’s time to consider reforming the filibuster. Maybe it’s time to consider the so-called “nuclear option.”

To those Republicans (and the small handful of Democrats) who bowed to the pressure brought on by the gun lobby, remember that it was the people who gave you those Senate seats.

The people can just as easily take them away.

Arizona: A Great Place To Be A Gun

The news today was great if you’re a gun. Or if you’re a person who makes and sells guns. Or if you – well, you get the point. Let’s talk about Arizona’s Gun Buyback program first.

The plan was to try and get some unwanted guns out of people’s homes with the guarantee that those guns wouldn’t end up in the hands of those who might do harm. Not an unreasonable concern, considering how easy it is to acquire a firearm without a background check of any kind. It was going to be a drop in the bucket anyway compared to the number of guns still out there, but you never know; one less gun could mean the difference to at least one person. It was, you might say, a symbolic action in the same vein as Bisbee’s proposed civil union law.

And like Bisbee’s symbolic civil union law, the gun buyback program has been blocked. Well, not blocked exactly, but gutted all the same. You can still turn your unwanted gun in. However, the city or county now must take that gun and sell it to a federally licensed dealer instead of destroying it as was intended. Guns seized by police already have to be sold in this fashion, per Arizona law, which means that, as Bob Christie notes in his article, “the gun used to shoot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords might end up back on the street.” Great law, that.

Here’s the thing that really brings my blood to a boil:

“It’s not about protecting Second Amendment rights, it’s about protecting the taxpayers,” said Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria. He also argued that the state doesn’t require the destruction of cars involved in fatal accidents, so requiring guns to be destroyed is simply a feel-good measure that protects no one.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Look, I get the fact that as a Republican, you have to bow to the almighty power of the gun lobby, but at least be fucking honest about it. Stand up and cop to it; you’re opposing this because the NRA demands that you oppose everything that even has the faintest springtime scent of gun control. Admit that this is what you’re doing, because it’s agonizingly obvious to the rest of us that this is what you’re doing.

Furthermore, the argument Rep. Murphy uses to justify his bullshit rhetoric is that we don’t require the destruction of cars in fatal automobile accidents. This ignores the fact that in many instances, a collision severe enough to kill a person is usually enough to destroy the vehicle involved. So, you know, you have that working against your claim. Furthermore, you’re not even addressing the same fucking issue! This isn’t even about the law requiring the state to sell seized guns. This was about a program designed to take some guns off the street and keep them from circulating.

Democrats argued that Republicans complain about the federal government when it requires the state to take action, yet they’re quick to force local governments to do what they want. “We hate it when the federal government mandates it to the state, and we’re doing the same thing,” said Sen. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma.

How the hell anybody can argue that the Republican party is the party of small government is beyond me at this point. This is not the action of a small government philosophy! These are the blatant actions of a party that has capitulated to its most powerful lobbying group because to do otherwise would mean the effective end of the party as a political entity.

I get why they’re doing it. I guess at this point, I’d just appreciate a little bit of honesty as they do it.

Baby’s Got A Gun

I think that one of the great things about the Internet is the juxtaposition of the profoundly amazing and the profoundly moronic. Just before I came upon this article, I was looking at a high resolution image of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, one of the most awe-inspiring images ever captured. Let’s admire it for a moment before we continue.

hubble

Doesn’t look like much, until you realize that each of those little blobs is an entire galaxy. Billions and billions of stars are out there in the black and we humans, we are the only animals on this planet who have ever even seen these stars. Magnificent, when you think about it.

The wonderful thing about the Internet is how with just a few clicks, I can go from this wonderful example of scientific achievement and transition to this slogan by Representative Steve Stockman of Texas: “if babies had guns, they wouldn’t be aborted. Vote Pro-Life.”

Let’s look at a list of all the ways this is an absolutely asinine thing to say.

  1. We don’t abort babies. We abort embryos and fetuses.
  2. If a baby is capable of holding a gun, it can’t be aborted because it’s already been born.
  3. Why would a baby having a gun change anything anyway? Babies don’t have the physical capabilities to effectively wield a firearm.
  4. Who the fuck would give a baby a gun? If your baby is holding a gun,  it means you have failed as a parent. Seriously, you’re the worst.
  5. WHAT DOES THIS STATEMENT EVEN MEAN I DON’T

Ahem.

One thing that flaming liberals like myself like to remark upon is the contradiction that seems to be part of the basic belief system of the religious right. Okay, so you’re Pro-Life. I get that, even if I don’t agree with it myself. I can understand holding all life to be sacred; hell, I’m a vegetarian myself almost entirely for philosophical considerations. Let’s set all that aside for a moment.

Why is it that the person who is proudly Pro-Life usually is also the person that supports the death penalty? Why does the Pro-Life person want more guns, when guns are specifically designed to take life away? Why does the person who values life more than anything else not value any life other than that of the embryo? All life is supposed to be sacred, right? Except for the lives of convicted felons. And the lives of burglars. And the lives of mothers.

Why is it that Pro-Life love stops once the fetus is a baby? Why do you care so intensely about the fetus, but rail against the welfare systems in place to take care of those fetuses now that they’re babies?

The only answer that makes sense is hypocrisy. That’s the only thing that makes sense  when you have a platform that is supposedly protects individual liberties, unless you’re a mother, or a minority, or a homosexual, or part of a lower economic class, or an atheist, or really just anybody who doesn’t meet with a very strict set of social requirements.

Seriously, I cannot understand how you can look at a politician like Stockman and not feel your brain recoil in the presence of such concentrated idiocy. This is slogan-bait of the worst kind. It’s the kind of thing you do when you are so convinced that your constituency is composed of morons that you know slapping “guns, babies, pro-life” together will get you some attention. I guess it worked in that regard, since we’re all talking about it. On the other hand, I don’t see how getting a lot of attention for being a moron could possibly help one’s political career.

Even if I was Pro-Life, this shit would offend me, because it’s so very blatant. The funny thing is that I could almost, almost, believe that this was satire. If it hadn’t come from a Republican from Texas, I would have laughed it off as a jest poking fun at the silliness of sloganeering. Part of me hopes that it’s a joke. I would be very relieved to find out that this was a story that originated from the Onion.

But I don’t think it’s a joke. I think that there are people who think like Rep. Stockman and there are people who agree with him. And those two sobering thoughts just leech away whatever schadenfreude I might have felt at this whole silly thing.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

It seems like my previous enthusiasm was misplaced. The Arizona state Attorney General seems determined to prove that he and the party he represents are the enemies of any form of social progress or forward thinking. The AG has threatened to sue Bisbee if the town’s proposed civil union ordinance allowing same-sex unions passes, since that ordinance would conflict with a state law that bans same-sex unions.

Whew, I’m glad we have somebody keeping an eye on this kind of thing. After all, we can’t have people thinking that Arizona isn’t a haven for prejudice and bigotry. That just wouldn’t be proper.

The part that really fills me with dark amusement is when you consider the implications of the Attorney General’s actions in light of this comment made by Bisbee’s mayor:

The main intent was symbolic more than anything, it was to communicate to the gay and lesbian community in Bisbee that we accept and recognize them and that we will help fight for their civil rights and equality.

In other words, Bisbee wants you to know that they accept and recognize the rights of the LGBT community. Arizona wants you to know that it most decidedly does not accept you. It’s my unfounded and wildly speculative assumption that in the first draft of the AG’s statement, somebody had to strike an admonishment to “go back to San Francisco, queers.”

That’s the trouble with striking down a symbolic action; you’re also striking down whatever the symbolic action represents. In this case, that symbol is equality and civil liberty for all citizens. Oops.

Well done, Arizona conservatives. Thanks for reminding us that in this state, everybody is equal but that straight white people are more equal than everybody else. I’m glad we cleared that up.

I’d also like to make a public service announcement: never read the comments section of the Arizona Daily Star. It seems to attract the lowest dregs of asinine Internet users in an echo chamber of ignorant opinion. I could do a post just highlighting the stupid comments attached to this article alone.

Keeping It All In Perspective

So it seems like North Korea has been in the news a lot lately. Well, actually, there’s no ‘seems’ about it; you can’t open a blog or RSS feed without reading a terrifying headline about the impending nuclear apocalypse. I suppose that by writing this post, I’ll be including myself in such august company. Oops.

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, in my reading, I tend to fixate on a subject for a while before moving on to the next one. While I don’t think that this makes me an expert on the Korean geopolitical situation, I do believe I’ve read enough about the topic to have something above a passing familiarity with North Korea and the developing situation over there. And in my (admittedly amateur) opinion, I think that it’s important to keep a few things in mind while the Google News headline is PENTAGON SAYS NUCLEAR MISSILE IN REACH FOR NORTH KOREA.

Seems pretty scary, right? North Korea is undeniably crazy, based on past experience such as its scientific discovery of the unicorn and the fact that it insists on being called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, despite the fact that such a name is both embarrassingly redundant (how many Democratic Republics belong to somebody other than the people?) and also wrong (how many Democratic Republics are actually totalitarian dictatorships?)

It seems that people like to overstate the military danger that North Korea possesses. That’s not to say that North Korea can’t be dangerous, just that it’s substantially less dangerous towards those of us living in the Unite States since we’re separated by that negligible body of water known as the entire Pacific Ocean.

If North Korea has developed a nuclear device capable of fitting onto a ballistic missile, that’s very bad news for South Korea, Japan, Australia, and every other US friendly nation. That is very bad news, indeed, and if things fall apart, a whole lot of people could be killed.

Keep in mind, however, that there is no scenario in which North Korea can win other than by doing what it’s always done, which is nothing. Many of their people are still starving to death. All China has to do is say “yeah, we’re done,” turn off the flow of resources that it’s been supplying, and North Korea collapses. They can’t go it alone and if they ever unleash a nuclear weapon, you can be they’ll be completely alone. It’s your basic WarGames scenario.

So while the headlines keep rolling out about the growing nuclear threat that is North Korea, keep in mind that while North Korea has the “largest military on earth with 9,495,000 active members,” it is also one of the most poorly equipped armies in the world. It’s an army that has been crippled by its own economic weakness. Most of its equipment dates back to the Cold War or earlier. Its military budget is $8 billion dollars. South Korea’s military budget is almost twice that.

It sounds like a lot to read that North Korea boasts “the largest submarine fleet in the world.” It’s less impressive when you consider that most of these submarines were acquired as scrap from Russia. What I’m trying to say is that history is filled with examples where having more guys doesn’t mean anything when the enemy has better weapons. Every single country North Korea has a grudge against (pretty much everyone) has better weapons.

I’m not saying that we should ignore North Korea; frankly, I consider it to be one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today. However, that concern doesn’t lend itself to any real feelings of fear on my part. I think there’s rather too much fear going around these days and it’s helpful to be reminded that many, if not most, of the things we fear will never actually come to pass.

Feminism And The “Best Looking Attorney General” Comment

I consider myself a pretty dedicated male feminist, but this whole backlash to a comment President Obama made about California attorney general Kamala Harris has left me wondering. I guess I just don’t see what is gained here; in my opinion, there’s a lot more to lose.

This might be one of those things that proves what some have argued: that men can’t be feminists. Certainly, I don’t know what it is like to be a woman; all I have to go on is whatever approximation I can reach through sympathy. Maybe I’m caught up in my own male privilege here, though I sincerely hope not. Regardless, here’s my case for why I think the reaction to President Obama’s comment has done more harm than good.

Like all causes, feminism is out to win hearts and minds. That’s the core of the issue, of any issue and virtually any “ism:” try to get people to agree with you, because only through agreement can we achieve the egalitarian society that is at the heart of feminism’s goal.

I hesitate to call this a “game” because that seems denigrating. It’s not a game; we’re talking about the lives and well-being of people. However, the same can be said about politics as a game; it’s a deadly serious game for which the stakes are the lives and well-being of people. These games have certain rules and more importantly, certain strategies.

I try to be more of an idealist than a pragmatist, but at some point, pragmatic concerns must be taken into account. I want feminism to “win,” by which I mean achieve all of its goals and foster a culture where feminism and humanism can be truly synonymous in all respects.

The problem is that this goal cannot be achieved by force. It cannot be achieved by browbeating or shaming or any form of negative reinforcement. No cause can win through these means. The Pondering Humanist articulates this point very brilliantly and although the context in this quote is for atheism rather than feminism, I believe the logic is applicable:

For those of you who have escaped religion, I don’t need to explain how hard it is to get your mind out of the pew. But for the benefit of those out there slinging insults like “Religitard” or “Creationshits”, allow me to explain why you need to turn down the heat. As the entertaining and enlightening Seth Andrews says in his book Deconverted: The Path from Religion to Reason, no one was ever “brow-beaten into an epiphany.” The louder you yell, the ruder you get, the less anyone listens.

I’m not calling feminists rude. However, at some point, we must realize that to win hearts and minds, that means overcoming the patriarchy that has permeated our society. That means realizing that there are those men who are, quite simply put, afraid of feminism are the ones that we most need to convince. It doesn’t matter that they are wrong in being afraid of feminism. It doesn’t matter how misconceived these fears actually are. We know that feminism isn’t going to put every man in chains and remove the “taint of masculinity” from the world. But they don’t know that, and that’s the problem.

When those fearful men see this kind of reaction to what they perceive as an innocent comment, they aren’t going to follow the train of logic about how comments like this are reinforcing a pernicious belief that women are judged by appearance. They are going to see a reaction that confirms their fears about feminism and they are going to dig their heels in and resist listening to everything else feminism has to say. They are going to believe that feminism will create a world where a man has to be afraid of everything he says. Again, it doesn’t matter that that’s wrong. It’s a real fear for him and it will cause him to oppose feminism simply because he fears it, because he does not understand it, and because he fears what he does not understand.

No, it’s not right that these small-minded fears being allowed to “get their way.” It should be incumbent upon those fearful men to open their minds and grow up a little. But if they were capable of doing that on their own, they would already be feminists and the world would already be better. Feminists have to be more than just “right” in this scenario; feminists have to be out to win.

I don’t think the reaction to the comment was oversensitive, like others have claimed. I understand the reaction and I understand how much it rankles to be told to allow a comment to pass, because isn’t that how we got into a rape culture in the first place? However, I do think that this time, it did more harm than good to the overall cause of feminism. I think that it was a battle that should not have been fought, because whatever victory was gained through President Obama’s apology was lost by all the men who don’t identify with the feminist cause and are now shaking their heads thinking that all their heads and thinking “man, those feminists sure are crazy.”

What it comes down to is the tired, but nevertheless accurate statement: “pick your battles.” Or, if you prefer, the Confucian saying “the man person who chases two rabbits, catches neither.” This doesn’t mean to simply allow any comment to pass unchallenged for fear of alienating non-feminist men. It does mean, however, realizing that any cause, no matter how noble, no matter how just, only has so much capital to spend in the arena of public opinion. Shouldn’t we be saving that capital for the kinds of comments that truly garish and offensive?

Sticking to your guns wins battles, this is true, but diplomacy end wars. I think that this was a battle that feminism should not have fought, because the media firestorm eclipsed whatever progress was made. But maybe all that does is prove that men can’t be feminists and I’m completely wrong in all of this. That’s entirely possible, too.

Credit Where It’s Due

I’ve been really harsh on Arizona in my last few posts, mostly because of brilliance like Free Shotguns and the stubborn zombie that is SB1070. It’s easy to find things that are wrong with this state and for that, I am correspondingly despondent. However, at my heart, I remain an idealist, however cynical I may seem, and at its heart, Arizona proves that it, too, is capable of brave actions that offer a glimmer of hope.

Bisbee, Arizona, you give me hope that this state can be better. That we can all be better. From my own little corner of Tucson, thanks for being excellent. I’m proud of you guys.