Invader

Moonlighting

Starting today, I'll be blogging not only here, but over at Catch, which has added a group blog to its Fark-ish link-and-comment-type format (sounds strange, but it works). Go on, have a look, then.

Here's my inaugural post, in case you can't find it.

March Madness

If you've ever listened to "sports-talk" radio, you'll know that fans can differ rather drastically in regard to what they consider best for "their" team. For every fan who thinks the coach is doing a great job, there's likely one who thinks he or she is running the team into the ground. For every fan who prefers an emphasis on offense, there's likely one who would emphasize defense. And that's only the tip of the ice-bucket, as far as disagreements go. But all fans seem to understand that every single other fan, no matter how they think the team should be run, wants to win.

I bring this up in light of the result of the election in Spain, and the manner in which the rabidly pro-war pundits of the Right have attempted to frame it. By suggesting that the ousting of the conservative, "Coalition of the Willing"-aligned government is a cowardly capitulation to terror, supporters of the Bush administration's war on terror are reinforcing the disingenuous supposition that states, in essence "unless you want to fight terror exactly the way we say it should be fought - unilaterally, through pre-emptive wars - then you must not want to fight it at all." An assumption analagous, in the world of sport fandom, to saying "if you don't think our team should do exactly what we think it should do, you must not want it to win."

Now, before I go on, I want to make clear that I'm not saying that the result of the election wasn't in some way a victory for terror. Almost certainly, it was a victory in the sense that it demonstrated to terrorists that they can influence elections. And even some on the left believe that the new Spanish government's policy (stated well before the election, it should be noted) that mandates the withdrawal of that nation's troops from Iraq is also a victory for al-Qaeda, or whatever group was responsible for the bombing of March 11.

But, returning to the issue at hand, what is either explicit or implicit in every editorial condemning the election's results is the notion that the new government will do nothing - or essentially nothing - to fight terror. This despite the fact that new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stated, in one of his first post-election press conferences that his "most immediate priority is to beat all forms of terrorism." And, more importantly, in spite of the fact that the thought of anyone not wanting to fight terror is positively laughable. Somehow, I doubt any Spaniard wants to simply turn their backs on the forces that perpetrated the most horrific act of terror in their nation's history.

Rather, what the Spanish people are doing, by electing a new government, is advocating a new approach to fighting terror. They're getting rid of the old coach, and bringing in a new one. Something that, any sports fan could tell you, is done in the interest of winning. To suggest otherwise - to imply that the Spanish want to lose the fight against terror, that they are somehow surrendering - is not only ludicrous, but an insult to the entire nation of Spain. No sane person wants to die at the hands of terrorist, just as no sane fan wants their team to lose.

It's fine, of course, to disagree with the approach a leader brings to fighting terror, just as it's fine to dislike the strategy a coach brings to winning a title. But it's absurd, and divisive to suggest that the followers of that leader want to give in to terror - just as it would be to suggest the fans of the coach in question want the team to lose every game. What's important to remember - especially as we approach the 2004 elections - is that in the global fight against terror we're all (except the terrorists, of course) rooting for the the same team here. Be you for Kerry, or for Bush, all of us want a world in which we don't have to worry about being blown to pieces everytime we leave our homes. And while we may criticize the each other's approach to combating terror, it benefits none of us to suggest that one side wants to abandon this fight.

On the left, John Kerry may not want to fight the war on terror in the same manner as Bush, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want to fight. And on the Right, while liberals may think that Bush is mis-managing the war on terror, it doesn't mean he hasn't waged it at least somewhat effectively (it has been over two and a half years now, since a successful attack on the U.S.)

Undoubtedly, this election season will be the most mean-spirited, the most nasty, the most all-around unpleasant since anyone can remember. But let's not forget, as we sit here in the stands, trading barbs ("Tastes Great!", "Less Filling!", anyone?) that we're all waving the same red, white, and blue pennant.

Flipping "the First Hundred"

By now, most people have probably seen, or at least heard of, the Bush team's new television ad, which claims that Kerry, in the first hundred days of his administration, would raise taxes "at least $900 billion," and weaken the Patriot Act "used to arrest terrorists and protect America." It also appears to imply he would back away from defending the nation against terror, accusing him of "wanting to delay defending America until the United Nations approved."

Kerry, maintaining the aggressive stance he has taken since the start of his campaign, plans to run a counter ad rebutting these claims, in particular the $900 billion tax-increase figure. And while I do applaud him for hitting back so quickly, I would actually suggest he do more than merely refute the charges made against him.

Because, sadly, once an accusation is made, it tends to stick in the minds of the public, even if it's debunked. Witness the case of Al Gore, and his supposed "invention of the internet." Despite the fact that he never made that specific claim, and that he was, in reality, responsible for legislation that transformed the internet from a loose-knit network of bulletin boards into the information superhighway it is today, the internet-invention charge dogs him still today.

So while Kerry is right to counter the Bush claims, he would do well to make some of his own. Perhaps answer with a "Hundred Days" of his own. I imagine an ad that runs:

"George Bush has told us what he thinks Kerry's first hundred days would be like. But what about the first hundred days of his second term? On the budget: He would push to make his tax cuts permanent, guaranteeing massive deficits for the remainder of the decade. On homeland security: He would expand the Patriot Act, imperiling the rights of ordinary Americans, without even bothering to examine its effectiveness. And remember: he delayed defending America until he was done fighting a war against a country with no weapons of mass destruction and no clear link to terror."

Remember: in politics, as in sports, while solid defense is important, it's spectacular displays of offense - the long bombs, the slam dunks, the home runs - that get remembered.

McCain't going to happen. And shouldn't.

There's been some recent speculation in the press regarding the possibility of John McCain joining Kerry's ticket as Vice President. Now, I don't think there's much of a chance this is going to happen, but I'd still like to make a case against it, just briefly.

First, of course, there's the fact that, although McCain is a reasonably progressive Republican, he is, nonetheless, a Republican. One who, in his own words is "a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk." Inviting him to serve as vice-president would give credence to the accusation, made by some both on the Right and the Left, that the Democrats can only succeed by turning into Republicans. It would thereby both embolden Republicans by further acquiescing to their agenda, as well as alienate the far Left, lending some legitimacy to their claims that "there's no difference between Kerry and Bush," and spurring them to vote for Ralph Nader or another third-party candidate.

Second, there's the fact that, while, a few ideological qualms notwithstanding, McCain would make a fine ally to the Democrats, he makes an even better opponent. McCain is one of the few true conservatives left among a Republican party that has otherwise given itself over to Bush/Cheney-esque faux-conservative corporatism. He also conducts himself with poise, generally staying above partisan mud-slinging. He is thus an excellent role-model for Republicans interested in returning the party to its fiscally prudent / anti-government roots, and doing away with "Party of Treason"-type name-calling. Bring him into the Democratic fold, and where do young, prinicipled Republicans turn to for leadership? Somehow, I doubt Tom "Redistrict and Deregulate" DeLay would be open to the suggestions of a junior party member concerned with fair play and corporate responsibility.

The Democrats don't need McCain. But the Republicans do. For the sake of a GOP that isn't just a clubhouse for corporate lobbyists, and whose rhetoric doesn't include disingenuously suggesting its opponents are traitors, let him be.

Taking on The Elitism Myth

Via Cursor, a terrific essay by Tom Frank, editor of the Baffler, on "the Elitism Myth."

Frank does an excellent job of analyzing just how Republicans, "the party of corporate management" manage to paint liberals as "elitists." And, at the same time, he also chides liberals for underestimating the power of this mythology, and even reinforcing it, through disdain for the working class. He then ends by making a point somewhat similar to one I made myself in an earlier post: that the Left shouldn't dismiss the fact that so much of Middle America buys into this myth as mere irrationality; that instead, they should make an effort to understand "the kind of people who think voting for George Bush constitutes a blow against the elite," if they are to have any true hope of dismantling the perception of the Left as the enemy of the common man.

Unfortunately, so far in the current election season, there's little sign of this happening. Certainly, Democrats talk of winning over "Nascar Dads." But they seem capable of suggesting only the most superficial means of winning their support. You'd think, in fact, to listen to many on the Left, that all that's necessary to bring working class Americans back into the fold is to nominate a Southerner as vice-president, or have the Democratic Party sponsor a stock car.

Sadly, however, it's going to take much more than John Edwards on the ticket, or a Donkey sticker on Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s Chevy to win the support of the denizens of the Red States. Instead, what Democrats must do is to recognize the economically downtrodden as minorities in their own right, and take the same stance - that of a mix of sympathy and a desire to uplift - in regard to the working class as they do toward Women, or Gays, or racial minorities. It's time to remember just who the "people" are in "party of the people." Hint: it has nothing to do with the color of their skin, but rather, the color of their collars.

There's actually a decent chance, if the polls are any indication, that the Democrats will be able to get away with not changing their ways, and still win in 2004. However, they would do well to challenge - through words and deeds - the perceived notion of their party as that of the elite. Lest, as Frank predicts, that as has been the case the past three decades "[the backlash] returns promptly every four years, to deliver landslides out of nowhere and rightwingers where there should be leftwingers and grassroots anger where there ought to be contentment."

The Non-Arguments Against Gay Marriage

Public discourse in the United States has always been somewhat shallow. But it seems to have reached the depth of a kiddie pool during the recent debate over gay marriage. Oh, and I use the expression "debate" rather loosely here, mind you. In a proper debate, it is expected that if a participant makes a claim, it should be backed up with either sound reasoning or evidence. Opponents of gay marriage, however, apparently bear no burden of proof when it comes to their rhetoric. Rather, their arguments are publicized by the media despite the fact that they are, so far, wholly unsubstantiated.

Let's just look at the three most prominent of them: 1) That gay marriage opens the door to legalized polygamy, bestiality, incest, and possibly necrophilia (OK, I haven't heard any pundit argue that gay marriage would lead to the living marrying the dead, but it wouldn't surprise me that much if I did); 2) That gay marriage will lead to the collapse of marriage as an institution, thereby dooming society; and 3) That the Bible says it's wrong wrong wrong. All of them, at face value, seem to make some sense; but unfortunately, the moment you give them any thought at all - and it would seem not too many people have - they reveal themselves as entirely devoid of merit.

Consider the first argument. Let's assume, for a moment, that allowing people of the same sex to marry does imply that a man should be permitted to wed his hamster, or his daughter, or possibly both. This implication, however alarming, would be irrelevant, as in this country, liberties are not withheld on the basis of what would occur if they were taken to their logical extreme. If this were the case, the 2nd Amendment, for instance, would be revoked, as if an individual were allowed to own a gun, then what's to stop them from owning a rocket launcher, or a tank, or an atomic bomb? It might take a lot of time and ammo, but someone could kill as many people with a gun as with an a-bomb. So, using the logic of gay-marriage opponents, you'd better not allow people to own shotguns, as pretty soon they'll be asking for ICBMs. In fact, you'd better not allow people to do much of anything, as if all our freedoms were not restricted to some degree, our nation would descend into anarchy. Fortunately, however, we place sensible limits on liberties. And there's no reason to think we wouldn't in the case of marriage as well.

But, even if homosexual marriage doesn't lead to man/horse weddings, it could still lead to society's downfall. That's the second contention of the holy-matrimony-not-homo-matrimony crowd, anyhow. However, other than constructing fanciful scenarios in which heterosexual couples are forbidden to adopt children, and children are taught to marry the same sex in school, they've offered little in the way of support for this claim. The thing is, though - and not to encourage them, but - in theory, there is possibly evidence out there to back up this belief. Several countries - Belgium, the Netherlands, two provinces of Canada - allow gay marriage, and quite a few more - the rest of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland - permit "civil unions" of some sort or another. It wouldn't be hard for them to do a little research, and find out if in fact what they suggest will happen has happened in one of these nations. But, then again, why would they want to bother with boring old facts when they're having so much fun imagining a future in which heterosexuals are so disillusioned by gay marriage that they eat their own children - the ones who haven't been taken away by the state and given to lesbian bikers, that is.

As for the third, and perhaps most central of the anti-marriage faction's arguments - that of the Biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Well, aside from that whole separation of church and state thing, there's the fact that, as Ezra Panda points out, it's not entirely clear that the Bible condemns gays. Yeah, it's right there, the bit about "to lie with a man as with another man is an abomination." But what isn't clear is whether this is meant as a denunciation of homosexuality in general, or whether it regards pedophilia, or homosexual prostitution, or whether it - in the context of the Old Testament - is just an arbitrary means of distinguishing the Israelites from other tribes who would sodomize their enemies after defeating them.

Three arguments. All central to the anti-gay-marriage cause. None particularly valid. Yet still given credence by mainstream media. And all I can do is sit back and ask "How?" and "Why?" when all it would take for truth to prevail is for one reporter, one talking head, one pundit to do the same.