Glitter And Be Gay

If anyone ever starts to lose faith in the value of equal rights for homosexuals, they should meet my cousin Bruce. Visiting with him reminds of why gay rights are so important, and why homophobes are such intolerable worms.

Yet many people - even though who claim to have nothing against gays or homosexuality – are still reluctant to let them marry. But why?

Of course, opposition to gay marriage is based on a number of things which are either false or irrelevant. Such as:

1. Homosexuality is wrong.

Pheh. If this is your argument, I won’t even try. Even according to my Torah, homosexuality is just an 'abomination'. That sounds harsh, but 'abominations' are not so bad. It's about on the same level of eating meat and milk together, wearing clothing made out of a mixed fabric, or growing two different kinds of crops in the same field. So I guess gays aren't kosher for Passover.

2. Marriage ought to be about children.

If you like to think of it that way, be my guest. If that were really true, of course, marriage would be illegal for couples who are sterile, infertile, or have no desire for children. And marriage is not about children in the first place. Until very recently, marriage was primarily a way for the moneyed class to look after their property.

3. Marriage is the basis of our civilization and has stood as an institution for thousands of years.

What civilization? Certainly anything remotely resembling our view of marriage didn’t exist for the ancient Greeks, or for any other Western culture. The whole concept of marriage for everyone who wanted to have children didn’t arise until the Victorian era. Before then, it was more common than not for lower-class people to live together and have illegitimate children with no social stigma whatever. I find such “it’s tradition!” arguments worthless in any case.

4. Gay people don’t take relationships seriously.

Lies. Gay people take relationships just as seriously as anyone. We’ve just been inundated with images of costumed gay men in cages dancing like Jerry Falwell’s nightmare. In any case, the divorce rate for gay couples in Massachusetts is far lower than the straight divorce rate in this country.

5. If you allow gay marriage, next thing you’ll have people marrying house pets and little kids and their sisters!

Nonsense. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent; children cannot consent; family members cannot consent. If anyone comes forward and suggests we legalize those things, the gay community will stand as firmly against them as the Catholic Church, and probably more so.

6. OK, what about polygamy? They consent, right?

Well, technically it’s not illegal to ‘commit’ polygamy, just to try and get it recognized by the State. But if it’s not between two people, the relationship cannot possibly be equal, one could argue that no consent is really possible there either. And, by bringing up these 'slippery slope' arguments, aren't you conceding the original point?

'BRB', As the Young People Say

This weekend I will be busy, and unable to post anything. In the meantime, I suggest you amuse yourrself with NationStates, which allows you to create and run your own country as you please.

My own nation is Forza America, which I began as an iron-fisted industrial society, but in recent days I've brought it along the path to reform.

Enjoy.

PS: Is my blog back to normal???

You Bearded Fruit-Juice Drinkers!

.

Being a leftist of the ‘superior’ type, it’s a continual puzzle for me why people do not rush to adapt our policies. So many things we try to stand for are basic human decency: No war, no hatred, no starvation. Poll after poll suggests that large majorities support the basic tenets of the Left way of thought, even if that doesn’t directly extend to establishing Socialism or something like it. At the very least, a good welfare system would ensure everyone enough to eat and a roof over their heads. So what’s the problem?

Asking himself the same question, our good friend George Orwell says:

Anything is relevant which helps to make clear why Socialism is not accepted. And please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. But for the moment I am advocatus diaboli. I am making out a case for the sort of person who is in sympathy with the fundamental aims of Socialism, who has the brains to see that Socialism would 'work', but who in practice always takes to flight when Socialism is mentioned. Question a person of this type, and you will often get the semi-frivolous answer “I don’t really object to Socialism, but I do object to Socialists.” Logically, it is a poor argument, but it carries weight with many people.

- ‘The Road to Wigan Pier’

OK, so what is it about leftists in general that the fence-sitting majority finds so repellent? Again, Orwell has the answer:

One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, birth-control advocate, vegetarian, pacifist, and feminist in England.

In other words, hippies.

Most of those things can be excused with little or no compunction at all. Fruit juice is a wholesome and delicious drink; sandals are comfortable in summertime; most people find sex enjoyable; the Quakers are a fine and noble group of people; birth control is necessary to a fulfilling and uncomplicated sex life; there is nothing wrong with avoiding meat for health reasons or out of compassion for animals; war is horrible; and most feminists would simply like women to be on an equal footing with men. I’d say a majority of people in the United States fall into at least one of the categories listed above.

Nowadays, Orwell would probably amend his list to include ‘every latter-sipper, herbal-tea swiller, vegan, tree-hugger, tattooed, pierced, Goth, punk, homosexual, and transsexual in America’ - all basically harmless.

But the fact remains that the widespread antipathy towards such people is a visceral reaction, not a rational one. That is, people do not support the Left as a matter of taste, even if they would be inclined to strictly on matters of policy.

People tend to underestimate the importance of such personal inclinations. They say to themselves ‘Politics is too important for petty matters to affect the way I think. It doesn’t matter if a statesman has a bad suit or a funny way of talking; when it comes down to it, I’ll support the best person running.’ In fact, when push comes to shove, we do no such thing. How many people refused to take Dennis Kucinich seriously because he looked like a creepy elf and not because they knew anything about his beliefs? For that matter, how much of the lower-level antipathy against George W. Bush is based on revulsion against his irritating mannerisms and not against his (abominable) policy? Or, at the very least, how much criticism against Bush and Kucinich (and those like them) used their personality foibles as a way to poison people against them before the serious discussion even began?

Why are masses of eccentrics and uncommon people (I mean that as a compliment) drawn to the Left in the first place? Most ‘cranks’ are attracted to left/liberal thought because it has such a strong history of non-discrimination. A good liberal (in theory, anyway) won’t look down on you because you dress differently or have some unusual ideas about society. We’re all free to be you and me, right?

So, what can be done? The Left movement as a whole is in something of a bind: appeal too much to the fringes, and you lose the mainstream. Strive too hard for the middle, and the base becomes alienated and apathetic. If I were Howard Dean, I’d adopt a nationwide policy of aesthetic middle-of-the-road sensibilities (middle-class clothes and language) and political Leftism in regards to social and economics policies. There are untold millions in this country who largely agree with the hippies but don’t know it.

Fool Italia

Last Wednesday, Italy's richest citizen and prime minister Silvio Berlusconi tended his resignation, effectively collapsing the government. He quickly re-formed his base on Sunday the 23rd, but in Italy – a country where the instability and fecklessness of the government is a national joke – for their longest-serving prime minister to be in such danger is quite an event.

First of all, everyone knows Italy is one of the world’s greatest manufacturer of elections, but just why is Italian politics such a mess? The system for electing members of parliament has single-member districts for 75% of the seats; the remaining 25% are allotted on a proportional basis. This results in a confusing hodgepodge of parties and organizations on Left, Right and Center, as the cutoff point for a parliamentary seat is very low and practically anyone can get into the Chamber of Deputies (in 2001, no less than a dozen parties had seats) Who ends up in the government can seem almost random, as everyone scrambles to form some kind of government. Not surprisingly, these partnerships rarely last long, and Italy has had 60 governments in the 60 years since the end of World War II.

Berlusconi came to power in 2001 with the Forza Italia (Hooray for Italy) party, forming a governing coalition called the Casa della Liberta (House of Liberty). He’s lasted a surprisingly long time; longer than any other Italian government since Mussolini. But now it looks like his days are numbered.

Times have been tough for Silvio. He was already under fire for his conservative views, support of the Iraq war, and the conflict of interest between Berlusconi being head of the government and his ownership of major Italian media, but then there were the massive corruption charges and legal battles, including (but not limited to):
- perjury
- false accounting
- embezzlement
- tax fraud (oh, but who in Italy doesn’t cheat on their taxes?)
- bribing a judge
- bribing a member of the Italian financial police
- various and sundry Mafia ties

The courts even went so far as it convict Berlusconi of several of these charges and sentence him to prison, but the convictions were overturned on some complicated legal issue relating to him being Prime Minister. Still, people said it was only a matter of time before the Berlusconi name would become more of a curse than a blessing, and his supporters would start to abandon him.

And that’s precisely what happened. Recently, his party (and those allied with it) lost 12 of 14 regional elections to the Left bloc know as the Olive Branch (I’m not sure if that pun works in Italian), spreading doubts about whether Berlusconi can hold together much longer. Then the Union of Christian Democrats, the smallest party in the governing coalition, defected, breaking the House of Liberty majority in parliament. We’ll just have to wait and see if the Left can have a government that lasted as long as Berlusconi’s did, or whether this will simply start the yearly cycle of governmental collapse Italy is used to.

I never thought old Silvio had much of a chance; Italy is a very left-wing country, and while they were willing to elect a conservative government in return for some order and stability, his heavy-handed way of doing things was just too much. The same was true in Spain a few years ago, and, in fact, it remains true in most of the democratic world. Some kind of Danger arises, the Right promises to battle it and either does or does not deal with the issue better than the Left, but once the Danger is over people yell “Throw the rascals out!” and the Left comes back in. Of course, there is always more Danger (and more frequently, an Issue or even a Problem), otherwise the government would never change. Democracy is a beautiful thing.

Palestinian Terrorists And 'Ultra-Zionists': Unlikely Partners (In Hate, I Suppose)

My blog is screwing up; perhaps Benedict XVI has formally excommunicated me like he always threatened to do on his LiveJournal. Oh well.

In studying (or being forced to study) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one very strong theme emerged: there were two Israels. One was Israel as it truly is, the other a deeply distorted picture of the country as many saw it.

The False Israel: A blood-drenched, aggressive, imperialist state, usually run by a council of bearded Elders of Zion who revel in the suffering of the Palestinians. Probably there’s some puppet or marionette reference in regards to Israeli’s relationship with the United States.

The Real Israel: Peaceful, altruistic, socially progressive, agnostic, and wholeheartedly dedicated to democracy. As Martin Buber one said, a Jewish state could never be a goyishe nation, "with cannons, flags and military decorations". People like Ben-Gurion were trying to build a society such as has never been seen before on earth. Of course, political realities made such a civilization practically impossible, and it’s not complete yet, but progress had been made.

Yet as i sit down to my improvised seder tomorrow, here’s the really striking thing about the whole situation:

Palestinians in general, fed on a diet of Dark-Ages PA media and constant contact with the rougher elements of Israeli policy (security barriers, continued military presence in Palestinian territories, etc.), hate the imagined picture of Israel and refuse to acknowledge that the true Israel exists.* This makes sense if one considers that if people see the country as it really is, they would neither want to harm it nor blame its defenders for wanting to preserve it. Of course, to the critics it doesn’t matter that huge majorities of Israelis oppose such measures, as 80% want to withdraw from Gaza, 2/3 want the settlements dismantled, and 75% desire a two-state solution (all poll numbers are according to the Israeli policy Forum). Even though almost all of Israel wants only the best for their Palestinian neighbors, they've never gained the security needed to let that altruism come into full effect..

To various degrees, Ultra-orthodox Jews and their allies among right-wing American Zionists idolize the gruesome caricature of Israel and despise the real thing. How could they not? It’s the embodiment of everything they stand against: peace-loving, feminist, secular, environmentally conscious, socially liberal, emphasizing cooperation over competition, and with no great desire to impose their particular Gospel on those who don’t want it.

Even today, it’s the religious settler types who demand money and protection while contributing absolutely nothing to society, and it is they who are responsible for why Israel still does not have a real constitution (“Israel’s constitution is the Torah!!”) and lacks some basic liberties, such as civil marriage.

Some people accuse me of being anti-religious; I’m not. I’m anti-clerical, because I don’t think dedication to higher calling should be about enriching yourself, and I’m anti-dogmatic because I don’t see the point of having faith if it doesn’t make you a better person. And any true understanding of Judaism cannot fail to instill one with a sense of social justice. After all, doesn't the Hagadah say (roughly) "Oppress no stranger among you, for remember that you were once strangers in the land of Egypt."

One might say there’s not really an equivalency between what the two groups would do to Israel if they had the chance. Fine, but the fact remains that neither outcome is desirable, as the spirit and value of Israel would still be utterly destroyed.

Ariel Sharon might be the darling of the Project for a New American Century, but if he (much less someone like Ehud Barak) tried to suggest Israeli domestic policies here, he’d be called a Communist and get death threats from Ann Coulter. And Sharon is to the right of most Israelis!

If Israel were magically moved from the Middle East to Western Europe, they’d become just another part of ‘Old Europe’ and be deemed irrelevant. If Israel were in South America, Bush would declare Sharon ‘a Hugo Chavez wannabe’ and try to spark a coup. Conversely, if American-style democracy and economics were imposed on Israel, the whole country would collapse tomorrow.

I really cannot wait for peace in the region. It’s going to be very interesting.

*Actually, I’m not entirely sure how effective PA propaganda is, as 70% of Palestinians want to end attacks on Israeli civilians. Still, it’s definitely there, and it’s hard to have a decent society where a minimum of 30% of the people want to kill civilians.