I've just run across a campaign ad, in which one of the "great accomplishments" of the candidate was the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Does nobody else remember precisely why Don't Ask Don't Tell was enacted? I mean, after all the celebration at the administration's having finally crushed it, shouldn't somebody ask why all the dancing in the streets?
DADT was created during the Clinton years as a protection for gays who wanted to serve in our military. Until then, a serviceman/woman accused of being homosexual -- not even acting upon desires, but merely having the desires alone -- could get a dishonorable discharge. DADT was drafted into law to protect soldiers/sailors/marines, etc., from getting the boot based on what amounted to hearsay. As long as nobody did anything, nobody had a right to ask what your preferences were. You were expected to leave your naughty ideas at home in bed -- as long as you were on active duty, the uniform stayed on and stayed unstained.
In other words, before DADT, if you were suspected in the off-duty act of merely flirting with a same-sex somebody, you were promptly made a civilian, with no pension or other benefits. Once Congress passed DADT, as a gay in uniform, you had to be actively in-your-face queer to get drummed out... they couldn't just drop you because you batted your eyes and sighed over that same-sex somebody. If your preferences and habits were discreet, as most military (and other) relationships should be, Don't Ask Don't Tell protected you. It didn't "force people to live a lie." In fact, it allowed for being in active service while having a different outlook on interpersonal relationships, and protected you for it all. DADT merely sustained the notion that there should be consequences if you were careless about your bedtime habits.
Granted, we have come upon an age when being gay in civilian life is less physically, politically, and socially dangerous than it was fifty years ago. For that, I can see just cause for celebration. And, personally, I'm glad that the military no longer sees the need for special protections for gays who serve our nation. After all, some of those nearest and dearest to me either are gay or have loved ones who are so. I want to live to see the day when nobody needs to be a protected class of people.
I'd dance for that.
But, as long as people misinterpret the past and celebrate the demise of "the oppressive DADT Act," and other such revisionism, I'm not shopping for ballroom slippers.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Pop quiz
Imagine you're standing in a house occupied by three humans and a handful of other pampered mammals. Those humans are three adults, one of whom is a serious, staunch atheist, the other two are agnostics. One has a PhD, has been a college professor and a particle physicist; the second has an advanced degree in history; the third is a professional artist of some small (very small) success. The artist is also partially disabled and mostly unemployable in the "real world" due to both physical and mental health challenges.
They have all been teachers.
They have an extensive library in their home. They can quote extensively from many sources.
Their families' bloodlines are of both European transplant and native North American backgrounds.
They own no firearms. They support the local arts. Occasionally, when they can afford it, they take trips to distant cities to visit those cities' museums and galleries, or to attend a special concert or performance of an opera.
Some of their closest friends are on the faculty and staff of the nearby college. Others are professional artists and musicians.
At holidays, their dining table has regularly welcomed persons from many different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different homelands.
The family drives a car which, when it was new, averaged 38 mpg on the highway, and occasionally capped 42 mpg on long drives, with a good tailwind. They have been proud of this economy.
They share a garden with their neighbors, and preserve much of what they harvest. Their wardrobe is of natural fibers. None of them wears cosmetics, uses hair spray or styling products.
In conversation in this house, it would not be unusual to hear the phrase, "the empirical data are indicative of...", or, "current research seems to point in the direction of...."
Their mean IQ is upwards of 150.
Now, the question: what are their political leanings?
Would they show support for
(a). the mostly-white, blue-collar crowd of the TEA party, demanding smaller government, or
(b) the mostly-white college graduates gathering in major cities demanding... whatever they're demanding at the moment? "Gun-toting, Bible-thumping racist bitter clingers," or "self-absorbed, over-schooled, uninformed, filthy, hippie communist/union-useful-idiots"?
Be careful how you answer.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Hello, sailor, allow me to accuse you of crimes against humanity
Yesterday was Columbus Day. Personally, I like the day. For starters, it's a holiday, so we got out of school for the day, back when I was an undedicated scholar. Second, I celebrate Cristoforo Colombo's error of navigation, because, had he not stumbled upon these lands in his quest for the Western Passage to China, my family would not exist as it does, and I'm very proud of my oh-so-American heritage. My recent roots dig in earth both European and North American.
Without Ferdinand and Isabella taking a gamble on a crazy Genoan, Europe would not have developed a "safety valve" for their populations during times of radical change, and, likely, my German, British, and other ancestors would have had no way to escape inevitable poverty and probable war, famine and death... Opening up the Western Hemisphere, initially for trade, gave hope to many. Had they not come here, they'd have never met the North American family eventually wedded to theirs. Ergo, an incompetent navigator/captain/businessman helped merge both elements of my heritage into one, bringing me into existence. For all my faults, I'm not inclined to gripe about that. In fact, like many Americans, I celebrate the coming together in me, and in others I love and respect, of many different cultures and gene pools. Grazie, Signor Colombo!
I understand those who mourn the passing of the nomadic tribes' ways of life, and I sympathize, to some extent, with those who see the settlers as land-grabbers who had no regard for the indigenous peoples whose land this had been. Unfortunately, many of those who settled here from foreign lands had little or no choice. Some came because there was no future for them in their homelands, others were literally given no choice by their home governments, being deported for petty crimes or debts, and some were brought by simpler accidents of fate. In other words, they, too, were pushed out from their native lands. That sort of thing has been going on since Cain was forced to move to the land of Nod, or, for those who are less biblically-inclined, since modern man met Neanderthal. Why else would this continent have been settled, in earlier times, by Asians crossing the land bridge?
I also want these modern complainers to take into account that, in the days of the first settlers -- and even, up into the days of Hollywood's glory -- most of the Injuns, as they were called back then, were viewed as nothing but heathen savages, incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone the good earth. After all, how many, really, were tilling and farming in a rational manner? How many of those savage men were willing and able to perform basic farm labor (women's work, to the mind of the Indian man) without their attentions and persons wandering off to recreational activities such as hunting and fishing? They were like undisciplined children, to the early settlers -- and worse, they were pagans!
Meanwhile, the whites were loud, brash, pushy, self-absorbed, and incapable of behaving in a decent manner toward human beings.... and they kept cutting away the best food-hunting woods -- and then they kept their men doing women's work, and the women were, well, they all dressed funny... idiot children who couldn't even figure out what fruits and leaves were safe to eat, who weren't smart enough to take hunting and fishing seriously...
Needless to say, the groups were not easily compatible.
But, unfortunately, current travel technology and political situations of the day guaranteed there would be more coming. It was inevitable, and therefore, the message needed to be very simple: adapt or die. For both groups.
Nobody knows who fired the first shot. Suffice it to say, adaptation was, and still is, difficult and dangerous.
Now, several hundred years later, there are some who use Columbus Day as an excuse for pointing fingers and laying blame for any and all failures of modern civilization to bring light and happiness to every soul on earth. At the minimum, these people accuse the massively inept Columbus of having caused the destruction of the great and peaceable kingdom, and, at maximum, of maliciously brought about genocide. And, for some reason, they carry the thought forward to whinge and moan that it's all the White Man's fault that the Red Man is a bunch of drunken, starving diabetics living on a single horrible reservation in the Badlands, or some such... They use Columbus Day to celebrate hate, and race-based hate, to boot. Worse, there are people who fall for the race-baiting attacks.
Holding a grudge for things which (a) happened more than a century ago and (b) were, ultimately, inevitable is childish and self-destructive. Encouraging others to support that behavior is divisive and dangerous. It is time these people were shown for the racists that they are, and it is time our society taught its children to rise above the darker elements of our history. Instead of crying over spilt milk and pointing fingers of blame, we can stand up, grow up, and take responsibility for our own lives.
It's time to celebrate unity, in all our accidental diversity.
Without Ferdinand and Isabella taking a gamble on a crazy Genoan, Europe would not have developed a "safety valve" for their populations during times of radical change, and, likely, my German, British, and other ancestors would have had no way to escape inevitable poverty and probable war, famine and death... Opening up the Western Hemisphere, initially for trade, gave hope to many. Had they not come here, they'd have never met the North American family eventually wedded to theirs. Ergo, an incompetent navigator/captain/businessman helped merge both elements of my heritage into one, bringing me into existence. For all my faults, I'm not inclined to gripe about that. In fact, like many Americans, I celebrate the coming together in me, and in others I love and respect, of many different cultures and gene pools. Grazie, Signor Colombo!
I understand those who mourn the passing of the nomadic tribes' ways of life, and I sympathize, to some extent, with those who see the settlers as land-grabbers who had no regard for the indigenous peoples whose land this had been. Unfortunately, many of those who settled here from foreign lands had little or no choice. Some came because there was no future for them in their homelands, others were literally given no choice by their home governments, being deported for petty crimes or debts, and some were brought by simpler accidents of fate. In other words, they, too, were pushed out from their native lands. That sort of thing has been going on since Cain was forced to move to the land of Nod, or, for those who are less biblically-inclined, since modern man met Neanderthal. Why else would this continent have been settled, in earlier times, by Asians crossing the land bridge?
I also want these modern complainers to take into account that, in the days of the first settlers -- and even, up into the days of Hollywood's glory -- most of the Injuns, as they were called back then, were viewed as nothing but heathen savages, incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone the good earth. After all, how many, really, were tilling and farming in a rational manner? How many of those savage men were willing and able to perform basic farm labor (women's work, to the mind of the Indian man) without their attentions and persons wandering off to recreational activities such as hunting and fishing? They were like undisciplined children, to the early settlers -- and worse, they were pagans!
Meanwhile, the whites were loud, brash, pushy, self-absorbed, and incapable of behaving in a decent manner toward human beings.... and they kept cutting away the best food-hunting woods -- and then they kept their men doing women's work, and the women were, well, they all dressed funny... idiot children who couldn't even figure out what fruits and leaves were safe to eat, who weren't smart enough to take hunting and fishing seriously...
Needless to say, the groups were not easily compatible.
But, unfortunately, current travel technology and political situations of the day guaranteed there would be more coming. It was inevitable, and therefore, the message needed to be very simple: adapt or die. For both groups.
Nobody knows who fired the first shot. Suffice it to say, adaptation was, and still is, difficult and dangerous.
Now, several hundred years later, there are some who use Columbus Day as an excuse for pointing fingers and laying blame for any and all failures of modern civilization to bring light and happiness to every soul on earth. At the minimum, these people accuse the massively inept Columbus of having caused the destruction of the great and peaceable kingdom, and, at maximum, of maliciously brought about genocide. And, for some reason, they carry the thought forward to whinge and moan that it's all the White Man's fault that the Red Man is a bunch of drunken, starving diabetics living on a single horrible reservation in the Badlands, or some such... They use Columbus Day to celebrate hate, and race-based hate, to boot. Worse, there are people who fall for the race-baiting attacks.
Holding a grudge for things which (a) happened more than a century ago and (b) were, ultimately, inevitable is childish and self-destructive. Encouraging others to support that behavior is divisive and dangerous. It is time these people were shown for the racists that they are, and it is time our society taught its children to rise above the darker elements of our history. Instead of crying over spilt milk and pointing fingers of blame, we can stand up, grow up, and take responsibility for our own lives.
It's time to celebrate unity, in all our accidental diversity.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Right side, wrong reason
Recently, the ACLU once again came out against a government agency acting in a manner unsurprising... power-grabbing, this time by police departments and other investigative agencies attached to law enforcement. The ACLU is against the coppers being able to put GPS gadgets on a citizen to track him everywhere he goes, without a warrant. The ACLU's complaint? It violates a person's right to privacy.
Well, I'm agin it, too, but not for the reason they are. You see, as far as I can tell, we really don't have an expectation of -- or a right to -- privacy, especially once we leave our homes and go out into... you know... public places. It's really hard to be private in public.
No, my reason for not wanting the police to be tailing me or any other US citizen without warrant falls under the presumption of innocence part of our nation's legal tradition. A person's going hither and yon is his own life, and, unless he does something obviously unlawful while on his peregrinations, he's still a lawful citizen. If you can't figure out how to demonstrate to a judge why you think that person ought to be watched more closely, it's your problem. Do your homework a little better before you go there.
If I haven't done anything wrong, or, for that matter, if there's no really good reason to think I've done wrong, and somebody -- uniformed or not -- puts a GPS tracer on me and starts following me around, it's not law enforcement, it's not justice, it's just plain stalking.
Well, I'm agin it, too, but not for the reason they are. You see, as far as I can tell, we really don't have an expectation of -- or a right to -- privacy, especially once we leave our homes and go out into... you know... public places. It's really hard to be private in public.
No, my reason for not wanting the police to be tailing me or any other US citizen without warrant falls under the presumption of innocence part of our nation's legal tradition. A person's going hither and yon is his own life, and, unless he does something obviously unlawful while on his peregrinations, he's still a lawful citizen. If you can't figure out how to demonstrate to a judge why you think that person ought to be watched more closely, it's your problem. Do your homework a little better before you go there.
If I haven't done anything wrong, or, for that matter, if there's no really good reason to think I've done wrong, and somebody -- uniformed or not -- puts a GPS tracer on me and starts following me around, it's not law enforcement, it's not justice, it's just plain stalking.
Thursday, October 06, 2011
What do do with Palin now that she's not running
Put her in the chairman's seat for the RNC. Not that I'm complaining about the job that Priebus is doing, but the position could be improved greatly by putting in Sarah Palin.
For starters, the job requires major fund-raising skills and talents. Reince Priebus has done a fairly good job at this end of things, but compared to what Palin has been doing, he's Dell computers and she's Apple. She's gangbusters at getting people to join up and sign checks for the party.
Second, the GOP needs a lightning rod, because the media will be almost as eager as the DNC and Obama to smear the Republican candidate, and if the RNC head is there to draw attention, it's better protection for their man (I'm not being sexist, I'm just assuming that Bachman is not going to stage a huge comeback, at this stage) and his running mate. When Sarah Palin appears, the media dogs salivate as though a bell had just been rung in their ears or a squirrel chittered in a nearby tree.
Let her do as much damage to their (and the DNC's) credibility as is humanly possible, while allowing the party to outflank the opposition. And, give her the title and paycheck to make it happen.
It's a darned shame the Republicans haven't taken full advantage of the gifts Palin has. She would be awesome if officially let loose on the Dems.
For starters, the job requires major fund-raising skills and talents. Reince Priebus has done a fairly good job at this end of things, but compared to what Palin has been doing, he's Dell computers and she's Apple. She's gangbusters at getting people to join up and sign checks for the party.
Second, the GOP needs a lightning rod, because the media will be almost as eager as the DNC and Obama to smear the Republican candidate, and if the RNC head is there to draw attention, it's better protection for their man (I'm not being sexist, I'm just assuming that Bachman is not going to stage a huge comeback, at this stage) and his running mate. When Sarah Palin appears, the media dogs salivate as though a bell had just been rung in their ears or a squirrel chittered in a nearby tree.
Let her do as much damage to their (and the DNC's) credibility as is humanly possible, while allowing the party to outflank the opposition. And, give her the title and paycheck to make it happen.
It's a darned shame the Republicans haven't taken full advantage of the gifts Palin has. She would be awesome if officially let loose on the Dems.
Plus ça change...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Anyway, the movie, 1995's Die Hard With a Vengeance, was not my favorite in the series to begin with, but stuff blew up and smart aleck comments abounded, so originally I got a kick out of it. In fact, though, it was the flip remarks which ruined it for me, this time around. No, not the throwaway lines from Bruno, it was the anti-white lines scripted for Samuel L. Jackson that jarred. And it wasn't jarring in the way I expected.
What jarred me was the timing. Not the theatrical timing. The real world timing.
Here I was, watching a show filmed nearly a generation ago, in which a major character judged people by the color of their skin. Yeah, yeah, so what? you ask. It's cinema verité.
Somehow, Hollywood and a large contingent of the minority community think, today, that these sorts of racist remarks are still appropriate.
Today, while the rest of the world looks at somebody of pallor saying that somebody of another race or ethnic group is something less than saintly by dint of political disagreement or... well, whatever... is a lowdown dirty racist, having a person of color make a blanket derogatory statement about white people is somehow viewed as not only right and righteous, but bold and new. Hip-hop artists, actors, preachers, and even a few politicians have repeated their beliefs that white people are evil (or some political equivalent) and, in more than a few cases, have repeatedly called for violent actions against them.
I am not merely offended.
I am tired of racism in all forms.
One would think, two and a half generations after Martin Luther King spoke of his dream that a man would be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character, we might have come closer to that goal. One would think, but, apparently, in some communities, one would be wrong.
Monday, October 03, 2011
Is that the best you've got?
A lefty friend of mine shared this image on a social media site, and it got me to thinking...
I suppose that was what my friend had hoped, but I do not think I came to the intended conclusion. What I wound up mulling over was a handful of facts available via Wikipedia.
It seems that, shock of all shocks, the vast majority -- approximately 70% -- of hospitals and health care facilities in this country happen to be in the hands of non-profit organizations (read: religious groups or organizations with strong religious affiliations). These groups have built-in systems for providing care to those who can not afford to pay for it themselves, and who have no insurance to cover even the most basic care. Often, that money comes from individuals or groups within the religious community, sometimes also from the friends and neighbors appealing to sentiment (ever go into a convenience store and see a donations jar for some kid with cancer? Pay close attention: they're not demanding that strangers help, via taxes, they're simply asking. It usually works pretty darned nicely, and, instead of creating a well of resentment, the donors feel good about themselves and their fellow human beings).
In other words, followers of Jesus (and a few other faiths) are already giving away free health care to an awful lot of people.*
So now, I have to ask my friend and the sign-bearer a simple question: what, precisely, are you giving? Are you really demanding that Christians be more Christian than they are already, in their donating to hospitals and clinics and other NGO programs and emergency causes, or are you merely justifying another power grab by your favorite partisan beasts because you think that, when they rule the world, you'll get all the good table scraps without having to work to earn them?
*Oh, and, contrary to what so many leftists like this one would have you believe, Jesus was not a socialist. Faceless, soulless governments were not His idea of the direction in which one should surrender one's life, works, and soul. It doesn't require a degree in theology to figure that one out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
