On the topic of “unalienable rights” as proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence, people question from where those rights come. Our founding fathers stated that they were we were endowed them “by our creator.” I can’t speak for what they considered the endowment process to be or how they imagined “our creator”. All I know is that the principle of unalienable rights makes common sense.
Governments that do not guarantee “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for all citizens ultimately fail. Those deprived of rights eventually rise up against the unjust government to claim their dignity. That’s what most revolutions are about: claiming dignity in the face of injustice.
Marx and Lenin played those cards better than just about anyone. They exploited the burgeoning resentment and popular loathing of the ruling class. The people were fed up with the oppressive, capricious brutality and injustice the regimes had practiced for centuries. The Communists didn’t mention that the regime that replaced the tsars would be as equally oppressive, brutal and unjust, but they stirred up a frenzy that ended the Russian empire and led to the creation of the Soviet one.
The second Russian Revolution that began with the destruction of the Berlin wall and the reunification of the two Germanys after decades of partition mirrored the first. It was by and large peaceful, not the bloodbath of the 1917 revolution. But it was driven by the same factors: oppressive, capricious brutality and injustice.
That brings us to the crazy eights: two voter approved propositions, one in Arizona and one in California, that are both destined for a Supreme Court battle. And for anyone that believes God doesn’t have a sense of humor, both of these patently unjust laws were passed by the same name on the respective ballots. But they boil down to the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.
Marx would be proud.
The Arizona law, in effect, requires that every person carry proof of citizenship at all times. The only real proof of my citizenship is my birth certificate, and the only copies of it are 750 miles away. My passport expired years ago, and I’ve never renewed it because I don’t have plans to travel outside the country any time soon. But in Arizona, if I couldn’t produce documentation of my citizenship, I could be detained (stuck in jail) until I could get a copy of my birth certificate sent to me.
I’m 45 years old, and I’ve never had to prove my citizenship to anyone except employers. I have a valid Social Security number and card, and that’s always been good enough. But, in Arizona, that would not be proof of legal status. I’m not going there any time soon because I don’t want to have to order another copy of my birth certificate from the Gibson County, Tennessee, custodian of records.
A federal judge sanely stayed its implementation pending appeals.
The other crazy 8 was a proposition in California that outlawed gay marriage. After a federal judge struck down the prohibition of same-sex marriage, opponents organized and passed a ballot proposition to amend the state’s constitution to specifically bar it. Another federal court has since found the new law unconstitutional on the federal level.
Both of these cases are about denying “unalienable rights”. Mr. Jefferson was a slave-owner when he wrote those words, but the concept of rights has always been fluid. He might well be proud that his words are being used to defend minorities today, whether those rights are sought based on sexual orientation or ethnic origin.
Historically, times of financial crises have led to the demonization of one particular segment of society or another. In the 30’s it was Jews, Catholics and homosexuals. Hitler rode to power on that message.
Today, it’s Hispanics, Muslims and homosexuals. I suppose fear-mongering by ambitious (and sometimes psycho) politicians will always be there. They will wrap their ethnic, religious and social hatred up in a flag and campaign on that platform. They will continue the tawdry practice of politics as it’s practiced today.
I long for a post-partisan, sane political arena. When politicians get mired in racism and homophobia, they don’t have time to take care of the people’s real business. They spend it on sound bites, in-fighting and attacking their opponents.
I don’t know what divided the country so long ago and why we can’t move to a place of consensus. The civil war was officially over a long time ago. We are now in the middle of an un-civil one fueled by news cycles and instant access to information.
It’s time to go back to unalienable rights. Don’t require that everyone carry citizenship documentation at all times. Let people of legal age marry if they want to. Get back to the business of governing and trying to get us out this hole we all dug.
And the hole is deep.
The government intervention, almost unprecedented though it has been, to prevent the economy from collapsing into a bigger mess than the Great Depression, started with a Republican administration. The Democratic one that followed continued and expanded that economic aid has been blamed for the whole mess and roundly criticized for not fixing things quickly enough.
It took us more than two years to get here, and it’ll take more than two years to get back to better. Ten years would be a more realistic estimate. The market doesn’t lose and then regain 40% of its value overnight.
Don’t blame the whole mess on ethnic and religious minorities or homosexuals, or even the so-called "liberal intelligentsia". Hitler already did that. So did Lenin and Stalin, as well as any number of petty dictators.
It didn’t work out too well for any of them. How's it working for you?
15 August 2010
12 August 2010
Mouthy
I have a long history of being mouthy, and since same-sex marriage is a hot topic, I sent letter to the editor of the Austin American-Statesman. They published it today. (I had a few others posted on other topics.) It's a condensed version of the last piece, but includes a response and a reply.
This is the text of what I submitted, only mildly edited by the paper's staff:
The federal court's ruling overturning California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage reignited a firestorm and has left politicians (including the president) with the options of either supporting it, condemning it or taking the middle road. The middle would be domestic partnerships.
While it is politically expeditious to endorse domestic-partner laws, endorsing gay marriage is a much stickier wicket. I realize that. But the truth of the matter is that not doing so perpetuates the class of "other."
"Separate but equal" was ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional long ago. This issue is no different.
I am tired of being "other." As George Orwell so tersely put it in "Animal Farm," "Some animals are more equal than others."
As it stands, most people I know are more equal than me.
That's how it shakes out at the end of the day. I'm separate, but by no means equal.
Austin
Someone posted this response:
Regarding the "some animals are more equal than others" quote, there are valid reasons for saddling horses and rounding up cattle. The idea that all animals are the same is as silly as seeing no difference in men and women. The worst part of this is trying to point out the obvious without sounding stupid.
This was my response to the critic:
I'm afraid you're the one who sounds stupid. "Animal Farm" is an allegory about fascism. The whole point of Orwell's statement was that, although we are all different, our rights should be the same. The function that an individual serves in society is a totally unrelated to any discussion of rights.
In addition, you seem to imply that men and women should be treated differently because of their genitalia. To take your argument to its natural conclusion, it would justify assigning rights based on societal function.
Your logic is severely flawed, and your attack is ad hominem and thoroughly unreasoned. As well as unflattering. It paints you as either unintelligent or as a bigot.
I think the exchange speaks volumes about the whole issue. Many people cannot overcome ingrained bigotry and rely on poor and/or illogical arguments to rebut challenges to it.
This is the text of what I submitted, only mildly edited by the paper's staff:
The federal court's ruling overturning California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage reignited a firestorm and has left politicians (including the president) with the options of either supporting it, condemning it or taking the middle road. The middle would be domestic partnerships.
While it is politically expeditious to endorse domestic-partner laws, endorsing gay marriage is a much stickier wicket. I realize that. But the truth of the matter is that not doing so perpetuates the class of "other."
"Separate but equal" was ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional long ago. This issue is no different.
I am tired of being "other." As George Orwell so tersely put it in "Animal Farm," "Some animals are more equal than others."
As it stands, most people I know are more equal than me.
That's how it shakes out at the end of the day. I'm separate, but by no means equal.
Austin
Someone posted this response:
Regarding the "some animals are more equal than others" quote, there are valid reasons for saddling horses and rounding up cattle. The idea that all animals are the same is as silly as seeing no difference in men and women. The worst part of this is trying to point out the obvious without sounding stupid.
This was my response to the critic:
I'm afraid you're the one who sounds stupid. "Animal Farm" is an allegory about fascism. The whole point of Orwell's statement was that, although we are all different, our rights should be the same. The function that an individual serves in society is a totally unrelated to any discussion of rights.
In addition, you seem to imply that men and women should be treated differently because of their genitalia. To take your argument to its natural conclusion, it would justify assigning rights based on societal function.
Your logic is severely flawed, and your attack is ad hominem and thoroughly unreasoned. As well as unflattering. It paints you as either unintelligent or as a bigot.
I think the exchange speaks volumes about the whole issue. Many people cannot overcome ingrained bigotry and rely on poor and/or illogical arguments to rebut challenges to it.
07 August 2010
Other
The federal court’s ruling overturning California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage re-ignited a firestorm that left politicians (including the President) with the options of either supporting it, condemning it or taking the middle road. The middle would be domestic partnerships.
While it is politically expeditious to endorse domestic-partner laws, endorsing gay marriage is a much stickier wicket. I realize that. But the truth of the matter is that not doing so perpetuates the class of "other".
I’m hoping the debate the firestorm kicked off will encourage sane debate about the issue. But I doubt that it will. It comes ready-made for partisan politics and name-calling. It’s an opportunity for sound bites about “activist judges”, “judicial legislation” and the general decay of moral values. Some will even claim that it will lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality.
That’s a slippery slope they often fall down to score points with constituents who won’t bother trying to trace A to B and find out that they don’t meet. Laws protecting children and animals would in no way be impacted by laws that allowed consenting adults to choose and legally wed the person of their mutual choices, regardless of sex.
And our legislators, whether state or federal, by and large don’t want to hear about what is inherently good about gay marriage. As a body, they are too cowardly to address the issue directly. They’d rather keep sliding down that slippery slope.
They don’t want to hear or accept the simple truth that long-term gay relationships are as stable, fulfilling and healthy as long-term heterosexual ones. That children of gay parents have the same chances of a having a healthy, nurturing childhood as those of heterosexual couples. Sexual orientation plays little to no role in defining good parents: it’s the individual parents who are either good or bad at the job.
They don’t want to know that millions of gay families already exist in everything but name and have for years.
Instead, they revert to their prejudices and preconceived notions about what “gay” is, while not recognizing or acknowledging that their actions predicate and foster inherent bias and discrimination aimed at more of their constitutes than they want to admit exist.
Some days, I want to stand up and scream, “I’m a human being. I hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Let me be happy in peace, dammit.
And while that statement draws on the Declaration of Independence and has no standing in a court of law, it should guide and inform anyone interpreting the law.
Most politicos would like for people to think that law is cut and dried: that it’s precise and covers every scenario and anticipates every possible outcome. But law is fluid. It requires judgment calls. It requires speculation about original intention and possible outcomes. It is not the static, immutable creature that some want to pretend that it is.
"Separate but equal" was ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional long ago. This issue is no different.
Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution broadly for a reason: they knew that they could not anticipate every situation or issue that might arise in the future. So they made the provision that it could be amended and that the sometimes-vague language could be interpreted by judges. They didn’t write a document for the 18th century: they wrote it for all ages and times.
They framed the language to protect persons who had been persecuted in Europe because of their religious beliefs. To protect the “others” of their day. Over time, the list of “others” protected grew to include people of color and women, as well as legal immigrants, regardless of where they came from.
Same-sex partners’ battle for legal countenance is the civil rights movement of our time. It follows in the footsteps of the suffragists in the teens and, later, Dr. King, who so eloquently gave a voice to a disenfranchised body of citizens. His “I Have a Dream” speech is great, not only because of the hope implicit in the words, but also for the implicit indictment of the larger society for keeping that dream from coming true. What he didn’t say was as important as what he did say.
I am not so eloquent or patient. I am simply tired of being "other". But as George Orwell so tersely put it in “Animal Farm” (his satiric novel about fascism), "Some animals are more equal than others."
As it stands, most people I know are more equal than me.
That's how it shakes out at the end of the day. Separate, but by no means equal. Just “other”.
While it is politically expeditious to endorse domestic-partner laws, endorsing gay marriage is a much stickier wicket. I realize that. But the truth of the matter is that not doing so perpetuates the class of "other".
I’m hoping the debate the firestorm kicked off will encourage sane debate about the issue. But I doubt that it will. It comes ready-made for partisan politics and name-calling. It’s an opportunity for sound bites about “activist judges”, “judicial legislation” and the general decay of moral values. Some will even claim that it will lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality.
That’s a slippery slope they often fall down to score points with constituents who won’t bother trying to trace A to B and find out that they don’t meet. Laws protecting children and animals would in no way be impacted by laws that allowed consenting adults to choose and legally wed the person of their mutual choices, regardless of sex.
And our legislators, whether state or federal, by and large don’t want to hear about what is inherently good about gay marriage. As a body, they are too cowardly to address the issue directly. They’d rather keep sliding down that slippery slope.
They don’t want to hear or accept the simple truth that long-term gay relationships are as stable, fulfilling and healthy as long-term heterosexual ones. That children of gay parents have the same chances of a having a healthy, nurturing childhood as those of heterosexual couples. Sexual orientation plays little to no role in defining good parents: it’s the individual parents who are either good or bad at the job.
They don’t want to know that millions of gay families already exist in everything but name and have for years.
Instead, they revert to their prejudices and preconceived notions about what “gay” is, while not recognizing or acknowledging that their actions predicate and foster inherent bias and discrimination aimed at more of their constitutes than they want to admit exist.
Some days, I want to stand up and scream, “I’m a human being. I hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Let me be happy in peace, dammit.
And while that statement draws on the Declaration of Independence and has no standing in a court of law, it should guide and inform anyone interpreting the law.
Most politicos would like for people to think that law is cut and dried: that it’s precise and covers every scenario and anticipates every possible outcome. But law is fluid. It requires judgment calls. It requires speculation about original intention and possible outcomes. It is not the static, immutable creature that some want to pretend that it is.
"Separate but equal" was ruled by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional long ago. This issue is no different.
Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution broadly for a reason: they knew that they could not anticipate every situation or issue that might arise in the future. So they made the provision that it could be amended and that the sometimes-vague language could be interpreted by judges. They didn’t write a document for the 18th century: they wrote it for all ages and times.
They framed the language to protect persons who had been persecuted in Europe because of their religious beliefs. To protect the “others” of their day. Over time, the list of “others” protected grew to include people of color and women, as well as legal immigrants, regardless of where they came from.
Same-sex partners’ battle for legal countenance is the civil rights movement of our time. It follows in the footsteps of the suffragists in the teens and, later, Dr. King, who so eloquently gave a voice to a disenfranchised body of citizens. His “I Have a Dream” speech is great, not only because of the hope implicit in the words, but also for the implicit indictment of the larger society for keeping that dream from coming true. What he didn’t say was as important as what he did say.
I am not so eloquent or patient. I am simply tired of being "other". But as George Orwell so tersely put it in “Animal Farm” (his satiric novel about fascism), "Some animals are more equal than others."
As it stands, most people I know are more equal than me.
That's how it shakes out at the end of the day. Separate, but by no means equal. Just “other”.
01 August 2010
She's an Angle, not an Angel
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in a fight for his political life in Nevada. His opponent, Sharron Angle, is running on a platform of privatizing Social Security and Medicare, neither of which make any sense to anyone who has a 401(k) or private health insurance.
Privatizing Social Security would mean putting that money in the financial market, which is currently so schizophrenic that I take comfort in knowing I can’t take any money out for at least 20 years. Maybe it’ll be better by then. But to transfer all my Social Security money over to that market means I could lose as much as I’ve lost in the past two years.
I have good, conservative investments, but I lost 40% of it when the market crashed. I’ve regained a good bit of that, but not enough to regain contributions made since the crash.
That is no way to manage Social Security.
On the Medicare front, I have said long and loudly that the VA has one of the most efficient health care systems in the world. They went from sub-standard to being world-class. My health insurance costs about $700 a month. The VA provides comparable or better care every day.
Instead of privatizing Medicare, take the VA model and run with it. It’s a very good model, and provides a better path than the alternative suggested by Ms. Angle.
While she paints Mr. Reid as a radical, she’s the real one. She's a tea-party girl who hasn’t thought through what her proposed agenda would do to her proposed constituents. It’s typical reactionary bile.
I have to wonder which knee is jerking harder: the right or the left.
My guess is that it’s the right one. And in this case, right is wrong.
Privatizing Social Security would mean putting that money in the financial market, which is currently so schizophrenic that I take comfort in knowing I can’t take any money out for at least 20 years. Maybe it’ll be better by then. But to transfer all my Social Security money over to that market means I could lose as much as I’ve lost in the past two years.
I have good, conservative investments, but I lost 40% of it when the market crashed. I’ve regained a good bit of that, but not enough to regain contributions made since the crash.
That is no way to manage Social Security.
On the Medicare front, I have said long and loudly that the VA has one of the most efficient health care systems in the world. They went from sub-standard to being world-class. My health insurance costs about $700 a month. The VA provides comparable or better care every day.
Instead of privatizing Medicare, take the VA model and run with it. It’s a very good model, and provides a better path than the alternative suggested by Ms. Angle.
While she paints Mr. Reid as a radical, she’s the real one. She's a tea-party girl who hasn’t thought through what her proposed agenda would do to her proposed constituents. It’s typical reactionary bile.
I have to wonder which knee is jerking harder: the right or the left.
My guess is that it’s the right one. And in this case, right is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)