I've been sitting here for about half an hour, flipping through the newspaper, checking my e-mail, contemplating what to "blog" about today. My original goal was, you'll recall, to write a post every single day. Obviously I am falling short of that goal, for various reasons...being busy, being lazy, not feeling like discussing anything...but I definitely want to maintain several posts a week, and since it's Sunday and I'm not really doing anything else, it seemed a propitious occasion to write.
Several topics have crossed my mind this morning...and I should make notes to myself to discuss them more in-depth in later posts. But what keeps overrunning all the individual topics is this disgust for all the social issues the conservatives keep parading about, because it seems to infiltrate into so many different areas. While I profoundly (and vigorously) disagree with those who fight to maintain the status quo when it comes to health care, who advocate lowering taxes over government intervention into business (tried and proven to fail under Reagan and Bush, incidentally), and it often enrages me, I can at the very least understand, usually, where they're coming from. They either have their own interests to protect (i.e., they or the corporations they represent or both--usually both--are making money, or seeking to make money, what is truly unjust to society as a whole, in undermining the good of the public), or else, if they are not part of a large corporation, lobbying for one, or in the pocket of one--if they are truly a Joe Schmoe on the street with nothing to gain personally from those positions (and everything to lose)--then chances are they simply watch too much Fox News and maybe even listen to Rush Limbaugh or his cronies, and somehow manage to take all that malarkey. I can almost feel sorry for them, even though their views threaten the greater good, because they are somehow ignorant enough or gullible enough to believe that somehow these positions they support are going to help them or someone they love, rather than just lining the same fat cats' pockets several times over, while they themselves get poorer and poorer...and fall into bad health and go bankrupt trying to cure their ailments. But at least I have an idea where the ideas are coming from. It's Reagan's ingenious "trickle-down" strategy in action. The ideas start at the top, with the executives and higher-ups who stand to lose from any significant change in the status quo, but stand to gain if they can get their own agenda of further corporate tax cuts and deregulation through. Then, since they have trouble (understandably) packaging their agenda into something that would be appealing to middle-class or working-class voters, they invest much more time, energy and money (especially money) into repackaging what the other side is pushing for into something terrifying: usually wrapping it up in a big package we Americans have been taught to fear above all else, labelled socialism or, better yet, communism (though it appears people finally aren't falling for the latter quite so easily anymore). "They want to socialize medicine," they hiss. "Watch out! You won't be able to pick your own doctor anymore. You'll be waiting months to get your throat examined. Your doctor will not have a high school diploma. They will operate on you without anesthesia. WE WILL ALL DIE!!!" Or, in the case of corporate taxes (or taxes on the rich), they will say, "They want to put small businesses out of business! They want to tax businesses so much that they will shut down and you will all lose your jobs! If they raise taxes on businesses, they won't be able to pay workers' salaries, and there will be massive lay-offs. You will all be unemployed!!" These are the usual scare tactics-propaganda, only slightly exaggerated. Their efforts to convince you of their soundness is usually just repeating the trickle-down philosophy--that if you make the rich richer, that wealth will eventually trickle down and everyone will be richer--but in today's economy, it's harder and harder for them to make that argument. They've been touting it for going on 3 decades now, and so far it has not worked. Quoting from www.commondreams.org, with statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (and quoting the same figures as CNN), "CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gap then declined, to 282-to-1 in 2002, before surpassing 300-to-1 the following year, according to the research and advocacy group United for a Fair Economy (UFE). Comparable figures for other wealthy nations generally do not exceed the double digits."
There has been no trickling down. In 2004, salaries of CEOs rose an average of 12% compared with the 3.6% rank and file workers saw their own salaries rise. Is that "trickling down"? The truth is, the rich get richer, but they get no more generous. If anything, they feel the need to hoard their riches ever closer, guarding them ever more ferociously. Perhaps the most outspoken of the conservative advocates for lowering or even eliminating taxes on businesses and the rich, Rush Limbaugh, makes $33 million a year. I'm not sure I could spend that much money if I tried. Yet he is infuriated by any attempt to tax that stockpile that he works so very hard to earn, with so much sweat, blood and tears. Oh, the poor thing, he works so much harder than those lazy, unambitious people working in factories day in and day out and still worrying about keeping the lights on. He deserves every penny, right. God forbid he should pay more in taxes than the family with a household income of $40,000 or less. So unfair. But, well, maybe I'm the one being unfair? After all, I guess that $33 million is just enough to support his OxyContin habits, and his trips to Dominican Republic for Viagra-fueled hooker parties. If he had to pay more in taxes, maybe he couldn't hire quite as many hookers at a time.
But I digress ever more. This was not the point of my post today. My point was, those at the top have something to gain or protect by pushing their economic agendas, and those at the bottom who support them are ignorant, misled, or both. I hate it, I disagree with it, but at the very least I can understand where it comes from. What I simply cannot understand, or stomach, are the positions on the social issues.
This was brought about this time, I think, by the anti-Obama protests at Notre Dame. He is their commencement speaker, and a minority of Catholics are against him speaking because he is pro-choice. I do believe that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and everyone has a right to assemble and express their opinions in a public place in a peaceful manner. I simply cannot understand why people spend so much time, energy and emotion on issues that, more often than not, just don't affect them or their personal rights or freedoms.
Abortion is a tricky subject, of course, one that has to be plodded through with care. If you truly believe that life begins at conception, then it is easy to see how one would think that abortion is murder, and be against it. These are not my personal beliefs, of course, but I can at least conceive of how people can hold that position. My qualm with these individuals is not so much their message but their methods. I think intimidating women who are already in the difficult position of having to choose an abortion is just wrong--let's face it, this is just not something most women take lightly or do for "fun" or out of sheer convenience, but because of necessities such as income, living situations, age, physical or emotional problems that would prevent them from caring adequately for a child, the list goes on and on. Threatening doctors who perform abortions is also uncalled for. Parading about with posters that use gory graphics to convince the beholder that a first-trimester abortion is tantamount to killing a fully-developed baby is misleading at best, downright deceptive at worst. Indoctrinating small children, who don't even know how babies are made yet, to protest against something they don't understand, especially something as difficult and complex as abortion, is criminal.
But my other qualm with them is consistency. If someone who claims to be "pro-life" (i.e., anti-abortion) is also against the death penalty (in all cases), against war (especially "preemptive wars" like the one we waged in Iraq), in favor of gun control (in light of the inconvenient truth that guns kill family and friends far more often than some threatening outside force), and in favor of universal health care (since access to health care for everyone, regardless of their income or work situation, saves lives), then I can accept their anti-abortion position, even accept their claim to be "pro-life"--because they would be showing that they are actually in favor of allowing people to live, no matter what their income or what they have done in their lives.
But when someone says they are "pro-life," but then supports the death penalty (as they almost always seem to do), supports Bush and his war (as they usually do, or at least did until the war become so unsupportable that there are just a few ralliers left to bolster it up), carries a gun (or attacks anyone who questions one's constitutional right to carry around an AK47), and decries "socialized medicine," their position on abortion seems hypocritical at best. You mean to say, you value the life of a fetus not only not even born, but not even developed--a ball of cells--over the life of someone who is already alive?
It is ridiculous, but they will, almost across the board, lean back on the Bible--that mishmash of human testimonies from thousands of years ago, often contradicting each other, and very few of the major stories or characters having any verifiable base in real history--to support and justify their stances. I'm not sure where in the Bible it talks about abortion--if you find that passage, show it to me, by all means--nor where it says in the Bible that one should carry around an AK47 at all times--but they will justify their positions with the Bible nonetheless. Never mind that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill"--we should play God anyway and kill anyone who kills someone else, or does something we don't like, or breaks into our house. And as for bombing civilians in Iraq...well, these people seem to see those people as something less than human, anyway--they're Muslims. They have the mentality of the Crusades. It complements the jihadist mentality quite nicely, actually. If there were somewhere these people could go to face off and fight it out to the finish--bets on God? on Allah? anyone?--and not kill or maim any innocent men, women or children who do not seek holy war but seek merely to exist--then I would say, more power to them. Let them go fight it out. But the sad fact is, each side crusades, and more innocent people die. For what? What has anyone gained by any of this?
Pro-life, huh? Whose life are you really "pro"?
...And don't even get me started on the whole "gay marriage" issue. I simply cannot conceive of why anyone would be so passionately against gay marriage that it would trump issues such as a terrible failed, costly, deadly war; economic policies that have bankrupted working American families; a failed health care system so bad that the World Health Organization rates us #37--right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Why, when everything else is crashing and burning around us, things that affect every single one of us either directy or indirectly, why the hell would you even care if two people who love each other get married?
I have not yet heard one claim for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage that makes a lick of sense. Many religious groups claim that to legalize gay marriage is to, somehow, violate their "freedom of religion". I have been trying to get my head around this one for quite some time now, and still can't figure it out. So let me try to get this straight...Your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong. (Actually, it doesn't--nowhere does the Bible talk about gay marriage at all, and its only mention of homosexuality is passing and its condemnation of homosexuality is much milder than its condemnation of divorce, and in the seeming basis for the condemnation, we see that in order to prevent that abominable homosexual act it is somehow better for our hero to offer up his daughter to be raped by the town. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that they can find a verse somewhere in the Bible where Jesus says, "Thou shalt not marry someone of the same sex.") Therefore, if a gay couple is legally allowed to marry (not even by your church, but just in general, by the state, at city hall), but your religion tells you this is wrong, then...oh, yes, I get it now! Your religion says it's wrong; state or federal law says it's OK; oh my God, you're right! Your freedom of religion is being impeded upon! You're no longer being free to have your own beliefs, if something your religion disagrees with is legal! OK, it's all clear to me now...
So that's one argument. I totally see the logic in it now.
The other common argument is that gay marriage is somehow a threat to heterosexual marriage. That makes a great deal of sense, too. I totally get it. For example, I know that if they legalized gay marriage in my state tomorrow, I would have to run out and marry another woman. I would instantly become gay. How could I not, if it were legal? What a slippery slope! Once gay people are allowed to marry, it's all straight downhill from there. Why on earth would any man and woman want to stay together, if they were legally allowed to go out and marry someone of the same sex? And hell, while they're at it, why stay married to someone of the opposite sex if they could marry, say, a goat? I mean, I know for one that the only reason all my romantic relationships have been with men is because I knew that they were the only ones the law would allow me to marry. If I had known that I could marry another woman, or a goat, or a cat, or a cockroach, I would have been involved with those all along...all at the same time, why not?! So, OK, yeah, I get it. Gay marriage definitely threatens heterosexual marriage...or heterosexuality in general!
Then there's the argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation; therefore, since two homosexuals cannot naturally conceive a child, there is no logical reason for them to marry anyway. Well, that's a damn good argument. Every couple I know marries solely for that one purpose and no other. We should also fight against marriage anyone too old to bear children; God obviously does not approve of that marriage, and thus neither should we. Oh, and while we're at it, let's require a fertility test for both parties in any marriage, and if either one is deemed infertile, then we should immediately deny their application for a marriage license. After all, if natural reproduction is not on the table, there is no purpose for their marriage. And a fully-functional heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children? Marriage should be annulled with two years if no children are produced. No sense in that marriage.
Obviously, not a single one of these main arguments against gay marriage holds a drop of water in today's society. Nobody's "freedom of religion" is being infringed upon, because nobody is going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Nobody's sexual orientation is going to magically change because gay marriage is legal--though perhaps some closeted individuals will be more willing to come out and pursue their own happiness once they feel more accepted for themselves in society (God forbid). And having children is only one of many reasons for people today to get married; most people marry someone they are in love with (or believe they are in love with) because they want to share a life together. And maybe children are in that future they foresee, maybe they're not; but nobody requires them to make that decision before granting them a marriage license, or even before marrying them in a church, of any denomination. And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure all of this out; it doesn't take a rocket scientist.
So what is this really all about? I'll tell you.
It's about intolerance. It's about prejudice. It's about hate. Just as interracial marriage was once illegal in many states, bigots fight, now just as they did then, against rights for any group who dares to be different from them (and never mind that one cannot control his or her sexual orientation any more than one can control the color of his or her skin). While the Civil Rights movement won rights for racial minorities, those rights apparently do not extend to homosexuals. Once again, a segment (far larger than it should be in the 21st century) of our population feels that in order to maintain their own position in the world, it is necessary to repress others.
These are just two social issues where the opposing view perplexes and revolts me with their ignorance, hypocrisy and prejudice. I try to understand, but I have a lot of trouble. I was always taught in school growing up, "My rights end where your nose begins." In other words, I am a free person, but as soon as my so-called "freedom" begins to harm you or infringe upon your freedoms, it is no longer freedom, it is persecution...and it is wrong. Can we please be the nation where all men (and women) are created equal, and we all enjoy the same rights...to freedom of expression, to privacy, to religion (or lack thereof), to pursue happiness--when it is not hurting anyone around us?
Or must we really crawl out of the Middle Ages once again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment