Patriarchal Misogynistic Tendencies

Posted: September 7, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Recently I’ve been reading a lot more internet chatter about feminism, which I can only take to mean it’s on the rise again. This wounds me greatly, as I had hoped we lived in a Post sort of world. You know, post-racial, post-gender, post-political, Post brand cereals, whatever. But I guess that ship has sailed, and we’re right back to having the same arguments that we’ve been hashing over (and failing to reconcile) for decades.

So what does this mean for me personally? To be honest it means I’ve had to confront my own patriarchal misogynistic tendencies. Yes, I admit that I have them. Of course I have them. C’mon, I was born in the mid-seventies and educated in public schools. I’m lucky I can even spell “patriarchal misogynistic tendencies” let alone admit having them. And I do. But just like paranoid schizophrenics can still have enemies, misogynists can still be right from time to time.

Here’s my favorite example: I’ve had a crazy ex-girlfriend or two. Now don’t get me wrong on this; I actually have several exes, and for most of them I hope I hold the place of “pleasant memory”, and I more likely hold the place of “bullet, dodged.” Most of those ladies I don’t even think of anymore, and while I may have in my callous youth said some unkind things about them I at least have enough class to regret it. But the fact is I do have one or two truly crazy ex-girlfriends. I even have objective witnesses of both genders to back me up. But here’s the problem: everything I’ve seen in the feminist orthodoxy says that’s wrong. That somehow I’m as much to blame as they are, if not more so, simply because I was a willing participant in the relationship. Boy, that’s not blaming the victim much, now is it? Only I can’t be a victim, because of my gender. That’s one.

My next favorite is things like quotas, preferences, and government set-asides. There are plenty of these designed to help women get ahead in school, in business, and in civil service. Setting aside the question of their efficacy, I wonder about their essential morality. Is this just? Is it right to single out one gender and favor them over another? And if so, for how long? Sure you may feel you are correcting some sort of societal imbalance, but when there’s no limit set the assumption is that injustice is either endemic to society or the individuals that comprise it (which are basically one and the same). With women graduating from college at higher rates than men and getting more advanced degrees than men these days, have we reached the day we no longer need these set asides? If not, will we soon? Will we ever? That’s two.

And hey, for the third issue, let’s go for a hat trick of issues that all tie together: divorce, custody, and child support. Despite the great gains that have been made by women in the workplace and men in the home, the default assumption that is near impossible to overcome in any divorce proceeding is that a man should support a woman “in the style she has become accustomed to”, and if there are kids they will almost always go to mom unless dad has absolute iron-clad proof she is a drug-addled child molester. In that case the kids will probably wind up with her parents. Fathers without custody will be tasked with child support (don’t get me wrong, I’m all for that) and hunted down like the dogs they are if they miss a single payment (a bit draconian, but hard to argue with), and in the rare event a mom doesn’t have custody she has to… well, how often are they ordered to pay child support? And when was the last time you heard the phrase “dead-beat mom”? And please don’t feed me some line about women being “nurturers”. Remember, we don’t assign gender roles in this classroom. So that’s three.

Last but not least is a real touchy one and the one I expect to catch the most hell over, but I feel the need to say it since nobody else will. First a clarification: I am not taking a stance on abortion here. That’s another post entirely. I do have an opinion, a strong one, but I don’t want to cloud the issue with that argument. Let’s simply take as given that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. So women have the right to decide, once they are pregnant, whether or not they will have a child. What right do men have in this arrangement? If he disagrees with her choice, either way, he is powerless. Completely at her mercy. He can beg, plead, persuade as best he might (and please don’t suggest threatening because I will gladly see a man in jail for that), but he has no recourse before the law. If you believe that is fair, turn the situation around. Put a woman in ANY situation in which she is bound for almost twenty years by a single decision that a man makes on her behalf, even if he is bound by that same decision, and tell me that it’s still fair. Here’s an alternative: let him surrender his parental rights if he doesn’t want the child. It’s not everything, but it’s more than nothing.

Life’s not fair. I get that. But why is it that women get to cry “life’s not fair” and call it a movement? Why do men have to stand by on the sidelines and simply accept the slow chipping away at our dignity and all the good we have in order to make the world an acceptable place? There is injustice in the world, this I understand; that is a fact that is not limited by gender, ethnicity, or politics, and we should all stand against it. But robbing from Peter to give to Paulina does not create a better world; injustice is not the answer to injustice; misandry is not the cure for misogyny.

 

Related posts:

The Road Away from Hypocrisy

How Is This Still a Thing?

Whose Body Is It, Anyway?

Anarchy X: The Eighth Amendment

Posted: September 5, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Of all the amendments to be interpreted and re-interpreted over the history of our nation, it may be the eighth amendment that has seen the most action, and is still in the greatest contention to date. Even the first and second amendments haven’t evolved as much, since they do not touch so deeply on the basic principles of what make us a society and what makes us human.

It is the specific clause of “cruel and unusual punishment” that seems to be the sticking point in most cases, and it is the one that has given me the greatest personal turmoil. In my youth I was a hardliner in many ways, for while I believed very much in the idea of a justice system that gave every possible benefit to potential defendants, I also believed that prisons were places of punishment, not rehabilitation. I also was very strongly in favor of the death penalty, in particular in cases of the most heinous crimes. I was convinced that there were some people the world would be better off without, and it was the right and the duty of society to deal with those people in the most straightforward manner possible.

I do not write these words with glee, nor do I write them with contrition. Rather I write them so as to set a basis of understanding of my own personal journey of discovery for those who may feel as I did then, or who feel differently than I do now. My hope is that by understanding the path that I have taken you may in some way understand why I believe as I now do, and even if you still disagree you may at least take some time to consider why you believe what you believe.

In terms of the treatment of prisoners, I used to believe they should be treated no better than the minimum necessary for survival. Food, shelter, and clothing were sufficient; after all, they had already proven they were not willing to contribute sufficiently to society to be a part of it, so why should society pay to keep them in any better style than the least necessary? I saw nothing cruel in this, although it might seem vindictive; after all, if I had to work to support myself, they were at least better off than I was. I have come to realize I at least have something they do not; I have the freedom to choose what I want, and if my choices are constrained by my circumstances, then so are theirs, and theirs are even more artificially constrained by having their liberty taken, even if that is the result of their own actions.

Further, it is a short-sighted thing to suggest that we should reduce humans to the level of nothing but animals, with nothing to fill their days but food, shelter, and the barest of covering. If they have nothing to strive for, no hope that tomorrow will be if not better than today than at least different, that is a cruelty and inhumanity all its own. It also breeds anger and contempt toward society among those who will someday rejoin that society; even if you do not believe prison is a place for rehabilitation, you must at least recognize the potential to create better or worse citizens among those who come out. Providing even simple things like books, athletic equipment, and exercise space allows prisoners a chance to engage body and mind. Television and internet access, even if it is monitored and controlled, provides a connection to the outside world that keeps them engaged and may even keep ennui and desperation from setting in. If nothing else, it shows in us a level of humanity that we condemn others for lacking.

The final hurdle for me was the death penalty. Setting aside the numerous studies showing the uneven and unjust applications and use of the death penalty, which no rational or honest person should, as well as the studies showing the economic unfeasibility of it, which counter any argument on those grounds; I feel there is an ethical case to be made for the elimination of the death penalty. It is not a simple case, nor is it an absolute one, but I believe it needs to be made.

The justification for the death penalty, if there is one, is that it is the ultimate penalty, and it is only handed out for the most heinous of offences, those for which there can be no lesser price. Even if one were to accept that premise, there are other factors to consider which make that untenable. I do accept that the death penalty is the ultimate penalty, for no matter how many years you spend in prison, there is always the hope for redemption, and there is always the chance of parole. There is no coming back from the grave.

In a truly fair justice system, we would ensure two things: first, that the penalty matches the crime; and second, that the bar for a guilty verdict matches the potential sentence. Obviously this would make for a convoluted and difficult system, as we would have many different potential hurdles for prosecutors to reach depending on the severity of a crime, so instead we settled on one that seems to work in most cases and that, at least at first blush, favors defendants: “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But is this enough when a person’s life is on the line? Is “a reasonable doubt” sufficient to make a person pay the ultimate price?

Absolute justice calls for absolute certainty. That is the conclusion I finally came to. Regardless of how you might feel about the morality of the death penalty in the abstract, or even in specific cases where you are absolutely sure someone is guilty, is it enough? Extraordinary cases make for bad law. Or to put it another way, are you unable to think of a single time in your life when you were absolutely sure about something, only to find out you were wrong? Care to bet your life on it?

Care to bet someone else’s?

I don’t. Not anymore.

The Non-Presidential Debates – An Open Challenge to Democrats and Republicans

Posted: August 31, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

As we continue to roll through the election season, political debate seems to have devolved into the mere shouting of talking points, playing of sound bites, and worst of all, posting of mindless internet memes on social media sites. In an effort to change up the dynamic a bit, I thought I would challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle with a chance to defend some of their positions that I find a little contradictory, difficult to understand, or just plain nutso. Considering that I come from a direction that both sides tend to consider equally insane and out of touch, I think that makes me a reasonably fair moderator in that regard.

So, without further ado, I present my list of questions, in no particular order. I have alternated them, one for each party, although anyone may feel free to jump in and defend any position. I only have two rules. The first is that you can only initiate a comment string with an explanatory comment. Simply adding “yeah, that makes no sense!” doesn’t enhance the discussion. The second is that replies to comments be respectful or they will be deleted. Debate is encouraged, trolling is not. I have a banhammer and I’m not afraid to use it. Now, let the games begin!

1. Republicans: Explain to me how gay marriage is in fact a danger to traditional marriage. Cite specific examples without referring to religion.

2. Democrats: Show me specific studies that prove the idea that banning guns (or significantly restricting gun ownership) actually makes people more safe. Account for crime data for Chicago and Washington, D.C. vs. similar sized cities while they had gun bans in place. Also account for countries that have more restrictive gun laws and higher rates of gun violence than the United States (I can cite sources if needed).

3. Republicans: Explain how drug prohibition, specifically marijuana prohibition, makes us safer than the alternative. For bonus points, justify the cost of enforcing the drug war while cutting spending on schools, health care, and space exploration.

4. Democrats: Explain why people have a right to free health care but don’t have a right to purchase a 32 oz soda or be given baby formula when they have a new child.

5. Republicans: Why is it acceptable to force people to use American labor by preventing immigrants from working in this country regardless of their status, but unacceptable to force them to use union labor?

6. Democrats: Why is it acceptable to force people to join unions in order to work in their chosen field but unacceptable to deport illegal aliens working in America unlawfully?

7. Republicans: Why is it unacceptable to pass a major new healthcare entitlement when you’re a Democratic president (the Affordable Care Act), but it’s perfectly acceptable to do so when you’re a Republican president (the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act)?

8. Democrats: Why is racial profiling bad but socio-economic profiling good?

9. Republicans: Are you seriously still denying man-made (or at least man-contributed to) global warming? Seriously? No, seriously?

10. Democrats: Conceding that global warming exists, are you really willing to give up all the trappings of civilization, including homes, food, clothes, and your iPhone in exchange for reducing the temperature in the atmosphere by 10 degrees Celsius by the end of the century? If not, what compromises are you prepared to make, and where do you draw the line?

11. Republicans: Why is it that when poor people try to get more money for social programs you refer to it as “class warfare”, but when rich people try to get tax cuts you refer to it as “the free market in action”?

12. Democrats: Assuming you favor progressive taxation, and in particular a strong tax hike on “the wealthy”, please tell me how much of your personal time and money (percentages please, not raw numbers) you have spent helping people who are not as well off as you are, unless you are certain there is nobody in the world who is worse off than you. Alternatively, cite every occasion in which you have NOT taken a tax deduction to which you were entitled.

13. Republicans: Make an honest effort to set aside your preconceived notions and talking points. Now spend ten minutes seriously imagining America thirty to forty years from now, with special attention being paid to the people who will be working in and running the place. Once you complete this exercise, please list any and all national priorities that should come before education.

14. Democrats: Make an honest effort to set aside your preconceived notions and talking points. Now spend ten minutes seriously remembering World War II, the Cold War, and 9/11, with special attention being paid to the loss of life and the horrors perpetrated by our enemies in those conflicts. Once you complete this exercise, please list any and all national priorities that should come before national defense.

Bonus question for either side: Explain to me why your restrictions on individual freedom are good while your opponent’s restrictions on individual freedom are bad. Use 5,000 words or less.

Anarchy X: The Seventh Amendment

Posted: August 29, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X | Tags: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

To be perfectly honest, this falls into the category of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” for me. On the one hand, I’m always a fan of keeping power as close to the people as possible, and I’ve always been a big believer in Lord Acton’s axiom of power. Give a judge a position for life, or even an elected position where most people won’t know what kind of a job he’s doing because they’ve never had a case in front of him, but hey, he’s a good guy so he keeps getting re-elected, and chances are he’s a prime target for getting bribed, same as any politician. Not necessarily directly, but golf club memberships, free trips, no interest loans for vacation homes, we all know the drill. Blackmail is always a favorite too. So jury trials seem like the way to go, especially in big money cases.

But it isn’t always that simple. Setting aside the well documented issues of race, gender, and age discrimination in jury selection (since most if not all of these studies have focused on criminal rather than civil law), there are still plenty of other issues to consider. First, there’s the question of fairness. Are we really getting justice for either side with a jury trial in some of these cases? Most of them? Any of them? As I understand it in issues of criminal law, the presumption is that if the average person wouldn’t know it was wrong, then there should be some leeway given, which is why you get a jury of your peers. Is that really what we want for cases that involve slander? Or copyright? Or patent law? These are fields that people study for decades to be specialists in, and we are asking a handful of average citizens to somehow pass judgment on which side is right.

This brings me to the second issue. When people don’t have a clear reason to take one side over the other, they will often be swayed by whoever has the better story. While there are certain basic protections against the Population Contest effect (the judge can set aside a ruling that isn’t supported by the evidence, for example), as long as one attorney can give them at least a fig leaf of cover, the jury can be lead to the “right” answer by the more persuasive story. For my money (quite literally) a good example of this is the recent decision in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. In the linked article there are two examples of the vote being swung by experts telling a compelling story: the Apple attorney (and please, someone try to convince me Samsung is more popular than Apple) and the jury foreman himself, who according to ars technica said the jury “wanted to send a message to the industry at large”.

Which brings me to the third issue. In this hyper-publicized day and age, there is more than a little danger that any particular jury verdict is less about that specific case and more about something else. Whether it is sending a message, grabbing a headline, or just getting that fifteen minutes of fame that Andy Warhol promised to us all, there is no certainty in the righteousness of the common man to deliver justice when the blandishments of fame and fortune lie just on the other side of the courthouse doors. That’s no to say they won’t do their honest best or that everyone will vote one way when the answer is clearly the other way, but in the tough moment when there is no clear answer, or when you have to decide between $500,000 and $1.05 billion, that siren call is hard for anyone to ignore.

So what’s the answer? One possibility is already in use, and that’s private arbitration. I don’t mean the kind of abusive arbitration that is written into some contracts these days, “if you ever have a problem with us you have to use our arbitrator that we select, and that we pay, and oh look, he knows which side of hi bread is buttered.” I mean independent arbitrators, people who specialize in civil law and get paid out of an escrow account so they very specifically don’t know which side of their bread is buttered. Another model I heard once (and my apologies to whoever told this to me, since I can’t recall the source) is that you go one step further: you have your arbitrator (or judge), and I have mine, and there’s a third party we both agree on. Two out of three votes wins.

The truth is anytime there’s a dispute between two parties, there will never be a perfect solution that satisfies everyone (just ask any parent with more than one child). The best we can do is find a system that maximizes the good results while minimizing the bad ones.

UPDATE: For a deeper analysis of the rule of law and how private resolution can work as opposed to public systems, check out this article by Prof. John Hasnas (h/t to Kurt Bouwhuis).

Nine Ravens

Posted: August 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Humor, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

(With apologies to Edgar Allen Poe)

 

Once upon a web page I saw, that was dedicated to law,

Raven sitting on end of branch by Dave Menke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Raven sitting on end of branch by Dave Menke, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(I do not recall if it was blog or wiki or something more,)

While I tried to keep from snoring (face it that stuff’s kind of boring),

There came a tapping, as of someone rapping at my study door.

” ‘Probably my wife,” I mumbled, “tapping at my study door;

Only this, and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was a bleak and cold November,

The High Court’s term starting on the first Monday month before.

Desperately I wished the morrow; foolishly I sought to borrow

From Jack Daniels surcease of sorrow, sorrow caused by culture war.

Caused by the endless bickering that had been dubbed the culture war,

Discussed here nevermore.

And the monitor light glowing with new lawsuits overflowing

Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;

So that now to stop the throbbing of my head, I stood there sobbing,

“It’s just the puppy trying to get in at my study door,

It must be my little puppy pawing at my study door.

That must be it; nothing more.”

Eventually I took a nip, with liquid courage got a grip,

“Whoever’s there,” I said, “I hope you don’t mind about before;

But the truth is I was… napping, when you came so gently rapping,

When you came so gently tapping, tapping at my study door.

Wasn’t really sure I heard you.” Then I opened wide the door;

Darkness there, and nothing more.

I don’t know how long I stood there, staring out at nothing but air

Questioning my sanity like so many who came before;

But there was no sound but silence, and my only sign of guidance

And the only words there spoken were the whispered words,

“Culture war?” This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the words,

“Five to four!” Just this, and nothing more.

Back into my study turning, all my heart within me burning,

Soon again I heard a banging, something louder than before,

“Huh,” I said, I thought that I’d seen something just above my flat screen.

It’s outside the study window, so this mystery I’ll explore.

Let me just chill out a minute, and this mystery explore.

“It’s the wind, and nothing more.”

So I opened up the window, and suddenly what do you know?

Right in comes these nine ravens that I had never seen before.

Not a word or gesture to me; not a single “An it please thee”;

But with mien of lord and lady, perched  beside my study door.

Perched upon a bench that was sitting inside my study door,

Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Decked with feathers black as robes, sitting with patience to match Job’s,

I attempted to establish some semblance of rapport.

“An unkindness some might call you, yes, and a conspiracy too,

To be honest that’s the sort of name-calling that I deplore.

Tell me, pray, how I should know you, oh great Scions of Baltimore.”

Quoth the ravens, “Five to four.”

I was stunned at these ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,

Though their answer little meaning, use, or relevancy bore;

For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being

Ever yet was given help by birds within their chamber door,

Birds or beasts sitting upon their bench within their chamber door,

With such words as “five to four.”

But the ravens, having spoken, would not let that be their token,

Instead they had to further discourse on matters more and more.

Topics timely and political; both trivial and critical;

Till my rage was near biblical, “I should show you to the door!

I want none of this, please, leave me be, get out of here, no more!”

Then the birds said, “Five to four.”

There’s nothing that they won’t debate, from abortion to speech of hate

Taking their sides from established ideologies of yore.

Though they might each strut and posture, give an enigmatic gesture,

Make us wonder if the outcome might be different from before

In the end there’s no cause for surprise about the final score;

The score is 5 to 4.

But the ravens still sat judging, so with grace ill and begrudging

I sat down, tried to ignore them and work as I was before.

But one thing there was no budging,  no, never sufficient nudging

To shift the awful balance that had been previously foreswore–

That these awful birds of omen held over from the days of yore

Had doomed us with “Five to four.”

Each single word I was weighing, the game D.C.’s always playing,

Despite myself, taken in by the vile back and forth once more.

On this law there’ll be no bending, the back and forth is never ending,

Though we cry out for unity, it’s victory we look for,

But when that ugly fool’s gold is the prize that we all opt for

Then the prize is, “Five to four.”

Turning then to my oppressors, I became the new aggressor

Unleashing on them all the wrath I had pent up heretofore.

“Were you not all nine delighted when the citizens united

Or you sat in judgment o’er the case of Bush v. Gore?

Uninsured were not deplored, racial preferences galore?”

Quoth the ravens, “Five to four.”

“Jurists!” said I, “all divided!– never one, though sit united!

Whether Donkey sat or Elephant deposited before,

Determined though you are to lead us by example not at all–

In this land that’s so torn by strife– tell me truly, I implore:

What’s the chance for peace and brotherhood–tell me I implore!”

Quoth the ravens, “Five to four.”

Jurists!” said I, “still divided! Still deserve to be derided!

By that space that bends above us–by that God (that you won’t let His commandments be posted in a government building but somehow a six foot tall monument on government property is okay and how are those not blatantly conflicting rulings?) that we all adore–

Tell this soul with strife encumbered, if these days of pain are numbered,

Will the time come when we at last can put out the last flame war?

I beg you, can you tell me I will have the peace that I yearn for?”

Quoth the ravens, “Five to four.”

“Be that phrase our sign of parting, birds or fiends!” I shrieked, upstarting–

“Get thee back unto the night and to Baltimore’s polluted shores!

Leave no writ or other token of the cruel words you have spoken!

Leave my solitude unbroken!– quit the bench beside my door!

Take your damn conspiracy elsewhere and haunt me nevermore!”

Quoth the ravens, “Five to four.”

And the nation stands divided, never to be reunited,

Cursing politicians from north to south and from shore to shore,

Though we think they’ll keep us guessing, ain’t it really quite distressing

We’ve found out as Ackbar warned us that “it’s a trap!” to be sure,

We may all try to hope for change but we see forevermore

That the score stays 5 to 4.

Let’s Talk About Sex. Better Yet, Let’s Not.

Posted: August 13, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Culture | Tags: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Quick show of hands: how many of us are actually comfortable talking about sex? I don’t mean in a roundabout way, or in a joking way, or even in a clinical way. I mean an honest, open discussion about the kind of sex that happens every day, maybe even the kind of sex we are having on a regular basis (if we’re lucky). I’m not imagining a lot of hands are up right now, even among the health teachers out there, and there’s a good reason for that. Well, not good, as such, but a well-documented one at any rate.

There’s a puritan taboo in the American culture and psyche regarding sex. We can discuss violence, death, psychological trauma, divorce, even Pauly Shore movies with minimal discomfort (well, maybe not Bio-Dome, that thing scarred me), but we simply can’t have a frank discussion about sex. I can laugh about it with my friends, dance around it with my mom ever since THE TALK, and never, ever admit it happens when my in-laws are around. If I turn to the one source of knowledge that informed my youth, television, I discover that sex consists of two people wearing pajamas kissing goodnight and sharing a bed, with a soundtrack of “oooOOOOOOooohhh!!!” If I rely on its younger sibling, the internet… you know what, I can’t even repeat what the internet showed me. I just need to go wash my eyes out. With industrial strength cleanser.

Obviously I can’t step outside of my own cultural baggage and experiences to say whether or not this is “unhealthy” or “bad” or “disturbing as all hell”, especially in comparison to other countries, where they seem to serve soft-core porn with the soft-serve ice cream. All I can say with certainty at this point is there has to be some better way, some sort of middle ground that neither glorifies sex nor demonizes it. There’s so much that sex can be, any discussion or portrayal of it is by definition going to be incomplete. However, I can take a look at some of the portrayals of sex in American popular culture (no, I will not now nor in the foreseeable future consider the internet to be “popular culture”) and see what common pitfalls there are and if I think anyone is getting it close to right.

First, I think most of the shows on HBO and Showtime today are getting it wrong. The sex is gratuitous, which I couldn’t care less about, but more importantly it is irrelevant. Every time I see sex show up in one of these shows it seems to exist purely for titillation, rarely if ever to drive the plot forward. That’s not to say the characters’ sex lives don’t drive the plot forward, but the portrayal itself adds nothing. In particular I am thinking of True Blood, Game of Thrones, and House of Lies. At least when they do violence or politics (medieval or office) on those shows they get it right.

On the other end of the spectrum is broadcast television, which in spite of the FCC has gotten to the point of acknowledging that people do, if fact, have sex. Not on camera, of course, but at least it does occasionally get discussed. Even here though it is oblique, rarely referenced except in the most banal and inoffensive ways for fear of some octogenarian degenerate somewhere filing a complaint just to get their jollies off by telling everyone else what to do. I would cite examples, but really, just watch primetime TV.

So what are some good examples? Not that I was ever a fan, but the few times I was forced to watch it, it seemed like Sex and the City got the balance right. The sex scenes, while sometimes graphic, always had a purpose and lent weight and credence to the situations and characters. In the same vein, I’m not loving Girls on HBO, but the few episodes I have watched have some very uncomfortable sex scenes that make very important character and story points I just can’t see being portrayed as clearly and compactly without just putting it out there, for lack of a better phrase. One show that I do like a lot that I think gets the balance right is Lost Girl on SyFy. Considering the protagonist is a succubus, there’s pretty much a guarantee of a lot of sex, but it is for the most part done tastefully and within context of the needs of the story. They don’t linger just for the sake of a few cheap thrills, but they don’t shy away either.

I don’t mean to give the impression that I’m some kind of prude who’s afraid or ashamed of sex. Not to go into too much detail, but I was once a twenty-something male with a credit card and access to the internet. There’s nothing wrong with cinema whose greatest contribution is the archetype of the Pizza Delivery Boy or the Pool Cleaner. But if that’s all you’re aiming for, then by all means don’t waste my time with dialogue and story. On the other hand, if you are attempting something a little more highbrow, don’t insult me by assuming I either can’t handle seeing naked skin or you have to have gymnastic bedroom exploits every five minutes. Focus on the story, and if sex is a natural part of that story, let it happen naturally. Maybe then we can start to treat it as something natural.

Anarchy X: The Third Amendment

Posted: August 1, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

You don’t hear much about the Third amendment these days. Everyone is more concerned with the Big Five as I think of them (First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth) to worry too much about the rest except in theory or in extremis. And why should we? After all, when was the last time the U.S. Army knocked on your door and demanded that you put up a couple soldiers for the night? Doesn’t seem like something we really need to worry about in this day and age.

I like to look a little deeper and consider the philosophical and political ramifications of these things. As I have heard the rights of man explained in many courses and in many ways over the years, there are two approaches. The first, which is more popular (and populist) than I am comfortable with, is that as a member of a community and a citizen of a country, you owe something to your community and country simply by virtue of being a part of it. And no, paying taxes doesn’t cover your obligation. There is a presumption of first claim on your person, on your time, and on your livelihood. This would then naturally extend to a first claim on your belongings, including your residence.

The second way of looking at things is that people are born with certain rights (you might even call them inalienable). These rights exist with or without the presence of a community or a government, and in fact supersede any communal or governmental attempts to restrict or circumvent those rights. This does not mean you have no reason to participate in your broader community or government, but it does put very distinct limits on what can and cannot be asked or demanded of you.

It would seem to me that the Third Amendment more fully supports the latter belief than the former. While there is room in it (that clause “but in a manner to be prescribed by law”) for some impinging on an owner’s right to privacy in their own home, even that is restricted to times of war (and no, I don’t think the Wars on Drugs or  Terror count). That being the case, there are several presumptions that flow therefrom quite logically that have a great deal of bearing on our modern lives. Not the least of these is the idea of government restrictions on how we use our own property, whether it is for housing or running a small business out of our own homes. I’m not a fan of zoning laws in general, but so long as there is no material impact on my neighbors that would be distinguishable from any other residential use, why does the government get a say?

While I’m on the subject of businesses, bear in mind that at the time the Constitution was written, for many business owners their business and their home were one and the same, and even now it’s as often a matter of semantics as reality to distinguish between a small business owner’s home and business. So why does the government get to dictate the terms of how that business is run? So long as everyone is there voluntarily, nobody’s rights are being violated. I know, being “forced” to work in an environment that allows smoking is a terrible burden. Far more so than, say, being out of work because the bar you had a job at went out of business when there wasn’t enough trade to support it… or maybe they just had to fire one bartender.

I have heard the counter-argument made, and I think it’s a fair one worth addressing, that if “every man’s home is his castle” you end up in an anarchic state where anytime you set foot on someone else’s property they can simply claim “this is my land, I make the rules, and I say you’re my slave now.” The counter to this is that the right to be secure in one’s home is based on the right of self-ownership, and that right extends to each and every individual. Violating that right in another is to surrender that right for yourself. That is the value I see in having a government in the first place: to defend the rights we each have against all comers, both foreign and domestic. However, the government that strips away those rights is no better than the brigand it is meant to defend against. I for one prefer the brigand; he is easier to bargain with, easier to fool, and if need be, easier to destroy.

Anarchy X: The Second Amendment

Posted: July 25, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 9 Comments

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What is it with those Founding Fathers? Once again, we have a set of words and clauses that obscure as much as they illuminate. I know, I know, some people look at this and say that it’s perfectly clear what it means. Unfortunately, I’ve had as many people tell me it clearly means one thing as I have had tell me it clearly means something diametrically opposed that the only thing I can say with certainty is that there is no “clear” meaning.

So here’s what I think this means, and I know this is not the most popular definition, but I’m going to put it out there: people have a right to defend themselves, from any and all comers. This includes state actors, foreign and domestic. Keep in mind that it was not so long before the drafting of the Constitution that a war was fought by the people, using their own weapons, to fend off an oppressive government. As the old saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, national rebellion.”

For those who believe the purpose of this amendment was to establish a militia for national defense, and we don’t need that since we have a standing army or the National Guard or whatever else, allow me to point out that at the time this was written the people of this country already had plenty of experience with their government having a standing army. If you don’t believe me, check the Third Amendment. It exists specifically because of past experiences with the British army back when they were British citizens. However, we don’t need to restrict ourselves to the intent of the past; we can look to the present to consider what our best course of action is.

Consider the Arab Spring that so much has been made of, and Egypt in particular. So many people were elated when Hosni Mubarak was deposed, and they anticipated the rise of democracy. But a funny thing happened rather quickly. Turned out that it wasn’t really Mubarak who was in charge after all, it was the military. The guys with the guns. And they aren’t giving up so easily. The protesters might have won a major battle, but there’s a long war left to go.

This isn’t to say that the U.S. is the same as Egypt, not even close. But there were a lot of people who got very upset at the Patriot Act, and that’s not the only restriction on freedom we’ve seen in the last twenty years. What happens if this trend continues for another twenty years? What about if the protesters who occupied parks across the country feel they aren’t being listened to? What if they start to riot and get thrown in jail, and emergency powers are enacted to deal with the problem?

These aren’t likely scenarios, but they are possible ones, and they aren’t the only ones. They are simply a few of the ways that a government that has nothing to fear from the people can start to tighten its grip on the people it is supposed to protect, often with the best of intentions (and we all know everyone in government has the best of intentions, don’t we Messrs. McCarthy and Nixon?) And governments should be afraid of their people. Every day, in every way, governments should rule with a very light hand because they understand the price of choosing wrong.

Gun control advocates will try to claim there is a public interest in limiting the number and availability of guns, but why? How does that help? This is like any other sort of prohibition, in that the more you do it the more you drive the market underground, and the more you give profits to criminals.

The worst part is when good people start to use the exact rhetoric for gun control their opponents use in other circumstances without even batting an eyelash at the irony: “Register your guns; if you’re innocent you have nothing to worry about.” Sure. While we’re at it, let’s just go ahead and get fingerprints and DNA from everyone in the country as well. Same logic applies, right? Makes it easier to find the bad guy when a crime is committed. More accurately, too.

I’m not going to say something silly like “guns don’t kill people.” Of course guns can kill people. So can cars, knives, rocks, televisions, glass bottles, and (if you eat enough of it) my mother’s cooking. That doesn’t mean we try to ban those other things (although if anyone wants to try to ban mom’s cooking, sign me up.) We acknowledge the risks, and we do what we do in any situation: we enforce the laws we already have. If you hurt someone with a gun, you committed a crime and you should go to jail. Simple. That doesn’t mean that owning a gun should be a crime all by itself.

ADDENDUM: I originally wrote this post before the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. First, I would like to say my heart goes out to those who lost friends and family that day. To those who wonder if this changes my position on gun ownership, I regretfully have to answer no. This is a black swan event. I do not believe that extreme cases such as this make a good and justifiable case for any sort of gun control, as they are an example of the sort of individual I spoke of above who will find a way to hurt other no matter what, and punishing the vast majority of law-abiding citizens in an unreasoning attempt to protect us is specious and wrong-headed. However, in the name of fairness, I would like to direct anyone who is interested to this post by Jason Alexander, which represents the opposing view (h/t to R.L. Mirabal). While I do not agree with everything he has to say, I do believe he has some salient points to make and his post is well worth reading. If nothing else, he at least seems open to rational discussion, rather than simple finger-pointing and blindly clinging to one position. In times like these, more rationality and less blind ideology would be a nice change of pace from all of us.

Anarchy X: The First Amendment

Posted: July 11, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Boy, that’s a mouthful, ain’t it? And it covers so much ground in so little space. Enough ground to keep us arguing over exactly what even one clause means over two hundred years later, and there are three distinct clauses that cover three, arguably very different, aspects of life. So why do all of these fall in the same amendment? And what does it all mean, anyway?

For me personally, it’s not just a matter of “these are the most important things, so let’s put them all first.” The entirety of the Bill of Rights was adopted at the same time, so there’s no reason to say any one amendment is more important than the others, and it’s kind of curious to try to mash together a bunch of unrelated ideas and hope they hold together (unless you think the Founding Fathers were the world’s first DJs. Come to think of it… dibs on that name.) There’s a common thread there, if you look past the surface and consider what the purpose of each of those acts is, and what their deeper meaning is and was at the time of the founding of our country.

I believe the First Amendment is about freedom of thought and the expression thereof. To be able to think or believe something is essentially meaningless in a society without the legal capability to express that belief, and each of those clauses covers one of the primary means by which people of the time communicated with each other. Whether from the pulpit or in the pews, by voice or the printed page, or even simply gathering in the town square and letting their voices be heard, these were the ways that people could let their thoughts and beliefs be known. So what are the implications for our modern society of that interpretation?

For starters, I believe that a strict literalist reading is just silly. To restrict the realm of free speech only to the items identified by a two hundred year old document is to assume that not only were the Founding Fathers great authors and statesmen, they were also prognosticators able to see the advances of technology yet to come and said, “Verily, that internet looks most interesting, but mayhap we best restrict the freedom of expression only to those technologies that exist in our day and age, lest we somehow bungle the whole experiment. Harrumph, harrumph.” (Because that’s exactly how they talked.)

Next, note that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion“. That means that any law like prayer in schools, hanging of Commandments, or anything else that is an official state recognition of religion is out. This also covers pathetic dodges like attempting to make religious shrines “secular” monuments. By the same token, any attempt to restrict people from “the free exercise thereof” is also banned, so stopping folks from displaying a manger scene on their own property is as unconstitutional as banning a sign that says “God hates fags.” You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but it cuts both ways. That’s the way I read it.

Also, while it’s been said before, I think it’s worth noting and reinforcing that the First Amendment is not there to protect popular speech. That’s easy; if the majority of people like what you have to say or believe, and in particular if the people who trod the halls of power are comfortable with what you are saying and how you say it, then you have nothing to fear in terms of what you say or do being restricted. It is the unpopular speech, the vile speech, the speech we would prefer not to have to endure in our comfortable lives that most needs protection. Whether it is jerks who claim military service they never gave or idiots who deny the Holocaust, we need to protect and allow all speech. Let us not forget that there was a time in our country’s history when speaking out against slavery, or in favor of equal treatment for people of all ethnicities or genders, was equally offensive in polite society and the halls of power.

Finally, and this is the big one, expression is merely the final extension of thought. To give freedom of expression without freedom of thought is like saying “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black” (thank you Henry Ford.) Being given the choice between “yes” and “yes, please” is no choice at all. Likewise, hate crime legislation is wrong on two points: first, it presumes we can know the true thoughts and motivations of another person. Honestly, I don’t know why I do the shit I do half the time. I’m supposed to understand why other people do things? And even if I did, the First Amendment gives us the right to believe what we want. You don’t have to like it, and you don’t have to agree with it. If the way someone expresses those beliefs is a crime, then let them be punished in accordance with the crime they committed, but not for the thoughts in their head.

Unless we’re okay with making thoughts a crime.

Anarchy X: An Occasional Series on Politics and American Life

Posted: July 4, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Anarchy X, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

I decided it was time I got my thoughts on paper (yes, I’m old enough that I still think of typing as writing and my computer screen as paper) about politics, specifically the intersection of politics and American life, mostly because I’m American and that’s what I know. So the first place to start is with “what is politics?” Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” I happen to disagree; I think he got it completely backwards.

What is war? War is the wholesale application of violence to achieve specific material ends. Politics (at least one definition of politics and the one most applicable to von Clausewitz) is the wholesale threat of violence to achieve specific material ends. Dress it up as nicely as you want, at the end of the day that’s the difference between the two. If you don’t believe me, try to disregard the law of your choice and see if the nice policeman simply asks you politely to cease and desist, or if he may very well at some point consider utilizing some form of force to compel you.

That being the case, it’s all about which came first, the chicken or the egg, in this case the chicken being war and the egg being politics. Another way of considering it is to take it down from the wholesale level to the retail level: personal violence used to achieve specific material ends and personal threats of violence used to achieve specific material ends. This makes things much clearer: we have archaeological evidence of hominids doing violence to each other that predates our evidence of language. Ipso facto, politics is the continuation of war by another means.

Does this mean I abhor politics and everything it accomplishes? Not at all. I believe in self-defense, I believe in just war theory, and I believe it is preferable for us to talk out our problems than for us to fight out our problems. But I also believe that when we lose sight of what the tools we are using really are, then we tend to overuse them. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks very easy to solve. The greatness of politics is also its weakness; it removes and distances us from the immediate pains and burdens of the violence of forcing our collective will on others, which makes it so much easier to use that force. Here’s another famous aphorism from Lord Acton, and this one I agree with completely: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

So what does this have to do with American life, and why “Anarchy X”? By now you may have realized I have certain anarchist tendencies at heart, although many hard-core anarchists would thoroughly disagree with my stated opinions regarding the value of politics and war. The X is a reference to both the Ten Commandments and the original Bill of Rights, both of which have had a major effect on the shape of politics and culture in America and will be the launching point for future posts in this series. Hopefully I’ll cover other topics as well, but if I manage to cover all twenty of those, that’s enough ground to keep me busy for quite a while. It should be a fun ride.

Newer Entries →