Misanthropic Californian

Do you remember how Michael Moore was advocating possibly leaving the country when Bush won in 2004 (though few if any liberals did)? There are actually conservatives saying the same thing about Obama. Aside from the fact that all of the other English-speaking countries an American expatriate might go to have pretty much already done whatever crazy liberal stuff they think Obama will do to ruin the country, it’s just hypocritical. Republicans are all about loving this country, and all of a sudden when they don’t like the guy in charge that kind of fell by the wayside. If liberals managed to weather 8 years of the Bush administration, conservatives should be able to handle the Obama presidency just fine.

If you look at the crazier conservatives, they’re acting like America is Over, like November 4th represented the end of the good old U.S. of A. Soldiers have said “you’re not the real Americans I swore an oath to protect.” We’re doomed to become some socialist nightmare (never mind that the Socialist Party candidate said in no uncertain terms that Obama is not a socialist), so you’d better stock up on guns and ammo before Obama tries to take them away. Oh, and apparently since Obama isn’t vehemently trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, he’s 100% in favor of murdering babies, and thus unfit to be president, because this isn’t an issue where we can afford nuance or realism.

The one thing that’s come out of the conservative reaction that I will agree with is that the GOP has lost sight of its own core principles. It got in bed with the religious right, and became distorted by their anti-intellecual evangelical tendencies. Real conservativism, which is about limited government and federalism and such, hasn’t been around for a while now. The current Republicans certainly aren’t shy about spending; it’s just that they have different tastes in government bloat from their opponents. (Pour as much money as you can into defense; why should the military try to be fiscally efficient? You support the troops, right?) The real question is which way the GOP will go from here, because it has to refine itself in some way. I’d like to see it become classically conservative, because that’s a value system I can actually respect and might even vote for once in a while. However, it’s entirely possible that it could become that much more crazy and anti-knowledge. I suspect a lot of the Republicans who were replaced by Democrats in this election were the more reasonable ones, and the survivors will tend to be more the crazies with crazy constituencies.

The election reflect on race relations in odd ways too. Although a lot of people, even some people who don’t like Obama’s policies, are glad to see the first black president (setting aside the militantly racist fucktards, whom the FBI and Secret Service and such will continue to watch closely), there is now a routine accusation that “People only voted for him because he was black.” This line of thought requires flagrant, willfull ignorance of everything that went on during the election. The Obama campaign used a brilliant, unconventional strategy, and carried states that had not gone Democratic in decades. The campaign was agile, funded by millions of small donations from individuals, and stayed much more positive than the opposition. As an orator, he schooled everyone he went up against. And if you believe the exit polls, age was a much bigger deciding factor than race. Furthermore, the people for whom a candidate being black would be a plus? They’re mostly liberals who would’ve voted for the Democratic candidate, regardless of that person’s race or gender or whatever. Black people in particular have long voted close to 100% Democratic, so it’s not like there was any significant base of black Republicans that he could’ve stolen away because of his skin color.

Now, I’m not so naive as to think that Obama can go in and fix everything. For one thing, there is some truth to the notion that he’s inexperienced. Whatever one thinks of her overall, Hillary Clinton was better connected and more experienced in politics, and with Ameircan politics being the mire of bureaucracy and stupidity that it is, it takes more than optimism, intelligence, charisma, a party majority in both houses, and lots of ideas that are popular with the general populace, to get things done. Obama is a very, very smart guy (magna cum laude from Harvard Law School; McCain was near the bottom of his class at the naval academy) with a lot of smart people around him, and to be sure I have my fingers crossed, but I will assume nothing. The advantage of being a cynic is that most of life’s surprises are pleasant ones, since a cynic already saw the bad stuff coming.

The part that gets me is that when McCain gave a stirring concession speech, some people in the crowd booed. Needless to say I disagree with McCain on a lot of things, but he showed real class there, in a way that makes me respect him, and tried to end things on a high note. And his supporters booed. Some people are too caught up in labels and absolutes to even see straight, much less be rational.

It’s not the first time a different party has come into power, and it won’t be the last. I have no doubt that conservatives will make a comeback in some form–hopefully a more rational form, but I’m not holding my breath–and swing the pendulum back the other way for a while. Whatever you believe in, be patient, be reasonable, but speak your mind. Be a part of this, be informed, and let your voice be heard. If you don’t like how things are, work to change it. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how we’ve come this far. As long as you’re looking to do good for the country and her people, that’s much more important than whether or not I agree with you personally.

Bill O’Reilly pretty much always refers to Media Matters as a “left-wing smear site.” Granted, I don’t take his accusations seriously — and I highly doubt he’d be having similar complaints if there’s a right-wing site that posted up things said by Keith Olberman and Michael Moore — but I do take it with a grain of salt nonethless. That what you have to do with any source of information these days.

Nonetheless, I took notice of this article about Rush Limbaugh. MM’s headline is “Service Men Who Support Withdrawal Are ‘Phony Soldiers.’” Depending on who you believe that comment could have been taken out of context. The part that bugs me, which I don’t think could have been taken out of context, came well before it in the transcript. You can read it for yourself if you’re so inclined, but a caller said:

CALLER 1: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and suggest that there are absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?

The caller goes on to explain how he’s a Republican yet he’s against the war, and Rush just can’t handle the idea. (I overcame the temptation to type that last bit in all caps, barely).

 

LIMBAUGH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER 1: I am.

LIMBAUGH: You are — you are –

CALLER 1: I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You can’t be a Republican. You are –

CALLER 1: Oh, I am definitely a Republican.

LIMBAUGH: You are tarnishing the reputation, ’cause you sound just like a Democrat.

So, this is what I’m always going on about in terms of divisive politics and tainted discourse. In Rush’s world everyone who wants to call themselves a Republican has to support the war in Iraq, and by extension everyone who wants to withdraw even remotely soon must therefore be a Democrat. The whole spectrum of possible opinions on the matter, reduced to red vs blue. I’m not saying that liberals never do this kind of thing, just that, god dammit, here’s an egregious example right in front of my face. Not only are people allowed to believe what they want on the issue, but there are a zillion other issues to talk about that matter at least as much to everyone. Is it really that hard to believe that an intelligent human being, after examining the available information, might come to the conclusion that we should leave (or stay in) Iraq, regardless of that person’s stated political affiliation?

I am so totally not a people person, but I’ve been seeing news that makes me inclined to have a little more faith in humanity. But a lot less faith in governments.

Something like 80% of the population of Iran supposedly wants democracy and friendly relations with the U.S. Despite that, they’re stuck with a government that likes to bring Sharia to bear, and leaders that insist on “Death to America” chants, regardless of whether there’s any real emotion behind them.

There’s also this article, based on a study that concludes that more than 80% of the American combatants in WWII refused to fire on the enemy. Normal people are instinctively reluctant to kill other people, and it’s only through careful conditioning that the military has managed to push the percentage of “battlefield conscientious objectors” down to less than 10%. And according to the article it is conditioning in an almost Pavlovian sense; soldiers drill in shooting man-shaped targets while in full gear, so that when a real battle happens they can methodically repeat the same learned behavior while barely thinking about the act of shooting another person. I don’t blame the military for taking these steps per se — soldiers are more likely to be able to do their job and live to tell the tale that way — but I think it’s another example of why well-trained volunteers are better than all the involuntary conscripts in the world. 

So, while people will no doubt continue to find ways to be awful to each other, it seems that governments have a whole hell of a lot more difficulty getting along with each other than actual human beings. Average people want to not kill other people and get along, or at least leave each other alone, while crazy government leaders find ways to start wars.

The other day I came across this article about NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” thing, and I think it articulates a lot of the reasons why I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Whenever the show comes up on Digg or Reddit, people inevitably complain that there are issues with the show, and other people accuse those who take issue with it of supporting pedophiles. So, again, discourse is getting muddled. I can disagree with their methods while still agreeing that pursuing and prosecuting child predators is necessary.

Pedophilia is almost universally reviled, and in a very black-and-white kind of way. While I’m willing to go with the idea that an adult having sex with a minor is a bad thing, there ought to be a big difference in degree between a man seducing a high school girl (ephebophilia) and a man doing things to an elementary school boy, even if we definitely agree that both should be considered immoral and illegal. As things stand, merely being accused of such a thing can ruin a person’s life, and (according to the article) half of all who wind up registered as sex offenders for pedophilia are subject to harrassment and violence. It’s a serious crime — I wouldn’t even contemplate pretending otherwise — and that’s all the more reason to protect our notions of “innocent until proven guilty.” A guilty verdict isn’t just saying “you did this crime and you’ll go to jail for it.” It’s saying, “you’re going to be marked and despised for the rest of your life.” Maybe they do deserve that, but considering the stakes we’d better be damn sure.

While there’s certainly a place for ordinary people to step in to protect their community, I’m leery of letting untrained citizens do jobs normally reserved for trained law enforcement professionals. I wouldn’t hire some guy off the street to do marketing or surgery, and law enforcement does involve life and death situations at times. If Rolling Stone’s statements about Perverted Justice are true, I just plain don’t trust them, however important their work might be. Von Erck responded to one critic by basically doing everything in his power to destroy the man’s life, which suggest he’s more interested in humiliating and harming those he percieves as the bad guys than in helping the innocent kids. It may be necessary, but I’d be much more comfortable if the effort was helmed by someone who could respond to criticism with reasoned dialogue rather than petty vengeance that reads like something out of an Operation Clambake article.

And of course, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that you could go to jail for propositioning a fictional 14-year-old. I know that that’s how the laws work (at least in most states) and that there are reasons for it, but still. It hurts my head.

And then there’s the issue of turning the whole thing into entertainment. As I said, you’d better be damn sure before you destroy someone’s life, and in my opinion the media ought to strive to be responsible in that regard every bit as much as the justice system. Fortunately NBC and the public have limits, and the show is on its way to being canceled.

Lately I’ve been seeing a good amount of stories about what amounts to women’s reproductive rights. More often than not reading about this kind of thing gets me at least a little irritated. However, I’m of the opinion that my opinions on the matter, like those of people of the male persuasion in general, shouldn’t count for much here. If I were a woman, I might go beyond irritation and be sorely tempted to start writing hatemail to, say, the guys saying that a woman shouldn’t be able to get an abortion even if she’s been raped. So, while I think anyone reading this should be listening to the opinions of women instead, I’ll write a bit more anyway.

I wouldn’t call an abortion a “good” thing by any means, but it’s asking an awful lot of a woman to tell her to take an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nine months is a long time, and from what I remember of my mother being pregnant with my youngest sister, a big chunk of that 2/3 of a year is hell. And there are considerable after-effects even after the baby is born to boot. Needless to say I think no one should be so stupid as to think of abortions as a form of birth control — I figure women should have the choice, but if they’re smart they’ll consider it a last resort — but the idea that the child’s life begins at conception is a bit much to swallow.

The thing that really gets my goat (yeah, I used it) is the whole thing about pharmacists — and doctors — refusing to provide certain kinds of medication or treatment on “religious” grounds. As others have pointed out in Reddit’s comments multiple times, if your religion is going to interfere with your line of work, then you shouldn’t be in that line of work. If you can’t handle the idea of women having access to birth control or the morning after pill, don’t become a doctor, or if you do, become say a pediatrician, podiatrist, surgeon, endocrinologist, or any of the zillions of specialties that aren’t gynecology and don’t involve being put into that kind of situation. Instances of this kind of thing are fortunately pretty rare from what I’ve heard, but a doctor who refuses to prescribe the morning-after pill to a rape victim has, for that moment at least, failed as a doctor in my opinion. Pharmacists are even worse since they’re specifically not supposed to have that kind of oversight. They get to double-check prescriptions in case, say, the doctor accidentally wrote the wrong number of zeroes, but anything more than that is overstepping their authority. All of this is doubly true when it takes place in a small town, where refusing treatment can mean that you’re in effect not only telling the patient that you’re putting your religion ahead of their health and free will, but can mean forcing them to drive 3+ hours to get any kind of alternative.

It gets twice as idiotic when doctors use their authority to find ways to prevent people from adopting. One woman went in for what amounted to a routine physical in order to be certified to adopt a child. When it turned out that she was single, the doctor refused to sign the paper. Never mind that she was indeed physically sound in all the ways the adoption people wanted, as would ultimately be proven when she went to another less bigoted doctor. As I’ve said before, it may well be that having a mother and father is the best route to a healthy child, but these days kids can and often do have much worse than a loving single parent or a lesbian couple. This doesn’t even have a basis in religion as far as I can tell; it appears to be just a mixture of 1950s Leave It To Beaver ideals of family life backed up with a smattering of pop psychology. Not that discriminating against someone on the basis of your own religion is okay.

Ultimately, a lot of this seems to stem from the Christian notion that sex outside of wedlock is sinful. People want sinners to face consequences for their actions (as though being tortured in hell forever after death would somehow not be enough), even when we have the means to remove those consequences, or when the sin never had any tangible consequences to begin with. All of this ignores the basic fact that human biology, like that of animals, doesn’t line up with anyone’s religious ideals. Even in the animal kingdom, where it would seem to serve no purpose, there are instances of recreational sex (dolphins), and homosexual activity (too many to count). The Bush administration was very, very quiet about the study showing that the abstinance education programs they were so proud of had zero impact on whether teens were having sex and whether or not they did so with protection. To paraphrase a stand-up comedian whose name I can’t remember, people view contraception as a license to have sex, but if people are going to be driving anyway I’d much rather they did so with a license.

How much of this is sexism, religious dogma, or legitimate concern for human life is hard to say. As usual, it’s a complex question for which people are demanding simple answers. Personally, I think that a living breathing woman should get priority over a collection of cells that could become a human being some day, but my opinion shouldn’t count for all that much. If a bunch of women went around saying that men must or shouldn’t get vasectomies, I’m betting men would be every bit as offended, but that isn’t going to happen.

Finally, here’s a thought (from someone else): Why aren’t the people who bomb abortion clinics called terrorists? As far as I know they fit the bill in every way possible. They’re thankfully far fewer in number than the Islamic extremists we hear so much about in the news, but the fact remains they’re using cowardly methods to murder people on the basis of ideology.

This morning BoingBoing posted this, a fun game called “Hitler or Fallwell,” where you look at quotes and try to figure out which of these two men said them. I don’t even know what to make of the guy, because he was just that out there. He was like a culmination of all of the worst kinds of bigotry and hate ever perpetrated in the name of American Christianity. The Wikiquote page on him has plenty of icky quotes.

Also, yesterday at Borders I made the mistake of looking at the new releases section (a mistake in that there are lots of political books mixed in with the rest), and I saw a book called “Freedmnomics.” The book presents itself as a rebuttal to Freakanomics. I thought “fair enough,” but then the bullet points inside the book’s jacket were ALL standard Republican talking points, except for “Why the controversial assertions made in the trendy book Freakonomics are almost entirely wrong.” Lott’s main specialty has been putting together research (which many, including the authors of Freakonomics have questioned) that indicates that higher gun ownership leads to less crime. (Though according to this blogger, Freakonomics’ citations of such aren’t quite right). The fact that Freedomnomics came out after his lawsuit against Levitt makes it even more suspect. The real problem, however, is that it’s part of a huge genre of books that are written to be read only by people who are firmly at one side or the other of the political spectrum. I know these books make money, so the problem is not so much the books themselves as the cultural factors that allow them to exist, but either way it’s a problem, and the profitability of publishing these books leads to more and more of them coming out.

This blog post, which includes a clip from 20/20 about a girl who was ostracized, harassed, and falsely accused of all sorts of things just for publicly being an atheist, helped me articulate something I’ve been trying to put into words for a while now.

A comment by shalimar says “I, for one, do not know how atheists are not sad, depressed horrible people.” This comes back to what I mentioned before about how the idea that some Christians can’t conceive of morality without religion scares the hell out of me.

The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative says: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” Human morality is based on the idea that human beings have an inherent value, and as a human being I have no problem agreeing with that statement. If enough people act this way, everyone benefits. This principle exists independent of god, and works from one god to the next. (Except for the ones with which it doesn’t work at all, but those are best avoided).

In Buddhism, the Eightfold Path includes “Right Action” and “Right Intention.” In the Buddhist view, virtuous behavior is a means to becoming a better person — part of the path of self-refinement that leads to enlightenment and cessation of suffering. (Buddhism has a specific meaning for “suffering,” which is a very rough translation of a term from Pali). However, the Buddha was clear that it wasn’t enough to merely act in a moral fashion. Being good just because it would provide you with some reward in your next reincarnation (he was also critical of the Hindu notion of reincarnation, but didn’t discard reincarnation outright) is not enough.

So, my views on morality in the absence of divinity:

1. Moral behavior is inherently beneficial to mankind.
2. Virtuous behavior is an end in itself, both for oneself and others.

What constitutes moral behavior is probably going to be the hard part.