Progressive Patriotism

 

I'm tired of being told I hate America.  Not personally, but the right-wing belief that liberals hate the USA dates back to at least the Cold War, when people like Joseph McCarthy would accuse anyone remotely on the left side of the political aisle of being in bed with the Russkis.  This has certainly been brought forward into the era of the "war on terror," when anyone opposed to the Iraq War was a wussy traitor, Obama was called out for going on foreign policy "apology tours," people who think maybe, just maybe, we could approach gun violence in a different way are accused of shredding the Constitution, and advocates for marriage equality are supposedly trying to destroy American (read: "Christian") values.  Frankly, it is bullshit.  I'm tired of it.  I love America.  I want it to be a better place.  Just because I don't subscribe to a narrow, jingoistic, red-white-and-blue F*CK YEAH vision of America doesn't mean I'm not patriotic.  And not to brag, but I probably know more about American history and civics than the average tricorner-hat-wearing Tea Partier.  Doesn't that count for something?

Progressives need to do a better job of communicating their patriotism.  For far too long we have allowed the Right to monopolize the concept and define it in terms of what they believe on the issues.  Well, I'm here to say that progressive values and policies can be patriotic too.  That's why I'd like to establish the following statements of Progressive Patriotism.  Perhaps I'll revisit them and add more as time goes by and more issues come to the fore, but I think this is a good start.

This is America.  We are a country of immigrants.  We celebrate our diverse past, present, and future, and do not make judgements about an entire ethnic or religious group based on the actions of a few.

This is America.  We do not start unnecessary wars that cost thousands of American lives and bring untold suffering to others.

This is America.  We acknowledge that we are a citizen on the world stage.  We respect other countries and work with them to solve problems on a global scale.  

This is America.  We believe that anyone who's willing to work hard should earn a wage sufficient to support themselves and their family.

This is America.  We don't allow our elders to spend their golden years mired in poverty and sickness.

This is America.  We don't let someone go bankrupt because they got cancer or were injured in a terrorist attack.

This is America.  We look after the least fortunate, and provide them appropriate help to get back on their feet.

This is America.  We value education and free thought.  We use laws to support it rather than hinder it.

This is America.  We invest wisely in an infrastructure that supports the greatest economy in the world.

This is America.  We take care of our environment so that it might be enjoyed by future generations.  We use resources wisely and believe in investing in those of the future.

This is America.  We recognize the necessity of paying taxes, but demand an effective return on our investment.

This is America.  We don't put great stock in "freedom" and then obsess over how and why consenting adults have sex.

This is America.  We don't dismiss the victims of gun violence who are exercising their First Amendment right to petition their government as "political props."

This is America.  We acknowledge every part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as applying to every citizen, even if we really don't like them or what they have done.

This is America.  We do not see conspiracy theories behind every bad event, government action, or anything associated with the United Nations.

This is America.  We base policy decisions on science, statistics, established precedent, and the historical record, rather than gut feelings or purely personal beliefs.

I think that's enough for now, but hopefully you get the point.  There's more than one way to love your country.  It's time for progressive to own their brand of patriotism.

______________________________________

Footnote: Here's an example of what progressives (and Muslims, to tie things back to my previous post) have to put up with, courtesy of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer:

"Secular fundamentalists hate this country as founded.  They hate it. They're trying to dismantle it.  President Obama hates this country as founded. That's why he's trying to transform it and make it into some kind of socialist, Marxist utopia. Because he doesn't like America, as it was founded. And Muslims don't either.  They hate America. They hate America as founded. They have the same dislike, and distaste, the same enmity toward America is it was founded that secular progressives do.  And so that's the bond that they share."

It's Still OK to Stereotype Muslims

It's been a crappy week in America, and especially in the wonderful city of Boston.  Let's all take some solace in the fact that the ordeal appears to be over, and that the remaining Tsarnaev is in custody and will hopefully provide some answers before facing the full weight of the justice system.

The terrorist attack was bad enough, but it also unleashed a fury of stupid speculation among the right, left, and mainstream media.  CNN proved itself to be just about as bad as Fox, though in a somewhat different way, in its relentless quest to get everything about the story first and wrong.  There was improper speculation among some left-leaning pundits that the perps would be right-wing antigovernment extremists, which of course sent the conservative world into a tirade, especially when this was proven inaccurate (though, of course, we still don't know the exact motives behind the attack).  While I agree those pundits should have chosen their words better, I also find it odd that conservatives seem so willing to associate their ideology with "anti-government extremism."

The writer who received the most attention was probably Salon's David Sirota, who stated "Let's hope the terrorist is a white American."  While again, that could have been phrased better, it was a ballsy statement obviously meant to get attention, and it did.  Sirota was immediately labeled a racist and all sorts of other vile things for daring to discuss the concept of white privilege.  Well, this may be uncomfortable to hear, but white privilege exists in America.  To deny otherwise is naive.  When a white male (and usually Christian) commits a vile crime, not much happens other than he, if still alive, is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which is proper.  When a non-white commits a widely notorious and despicable crime, all hell breaks loose.  Wars are started.  Freedoms are limited without complaint.  And entire groups of people are labeled as suspect.

Timothy McVeigh: 169 killed.  Anything happen beyond him being put to death?  Nope.  Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza - almost 50 dead total and scores injured.  Anything happen?  Well, the Senate just failed to pass the most watered-down gun legislation imaginable that 85% of Americans support.  So, nope.

But even before the Boston bombing was proven to be perpetrated by a Muslim, these happened:






(Erik Rush is a Fox News contributor.  This was supposedly "sarcastic."  I'm not laughing.)

Pat Robertson: "Don't talk to me about a religion of peace."

Congressman Steve King (R-IA-Leading Tea Partier): “Some of the speculation that has come out is that yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa.  If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture.  We need to be ever vigilant,” and that security should be the focus right now, not a path to legalization. If we can’t background-check people that are coming from Saudi Arabia, how do we think we are going to background check the 11 to 20 million people that are here from who knows where?"

And, by far the worst of all:

Muslim Woman Attacked After Conservatives Repeat False Speculation About ‘Dark-Skinned Suspects’

By Adam Peck posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm

"It didn’t take long after the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday for the internet’s most irresponsible figures to begin pointing fingers — without a shred of evidence — at several dark-skinned “suspects” seen in surveillance videos and miscellaneous photographs.
On Wednesday, the far-right’s Islamophobic online fear mongering spilled, tragically, into the real world."

Read the last link for the full story.  Guess what Islamophobes, your hateful words have real-world consequences.  How many white guys were on the receiving end of reprisals after OKC?  Hmm.

Look, conservative gun owners have spent the past several months - if not years - insisting that they not be stereotyped or punished for the actions of a few lunatics.  Fine, good point.  But now many of the same people - don't pretend there is not significant overlap - are perfectly happy to declare all Muslims suspicious, if not terrorists, and call for stopping their immigration or outright deportation.  Bryan Fischer, head of the American Family Association whom I've blogged about before, says no one who believes in the Quran should be allowed here.  Now that's the American spirit!

Or going back to Steve King - we locked down a million people for a day, creating a police state in Boston and arguably violating numerous constitutional rights for the sake of public safety.  I don't hear any freedom-loving libertarians complaining about that injustice.  And yet asking somebody to do a 5 minute background check at a gun show - merely a further application of an existing law - is somehow going to create Obama Task Forces in black helicopters coming to take all guns.  And while that sort of background check is horrendous, to King it's perfectly OK to dig into every bit of personal backstory of an immigrant just because of where they are from or what religion they follow.  Now that's freedom!  Thankfully, any old terrorist who does make it into the country can go to a gun show and buy whatever assault weapons they want.

I've had the pleasure of working with several dozen respectful and friendly Muslim students.  They had the courage to come to post-9/11 America knowing what they might face because they wanted to improve their lives in a country that gave them that opportunity.  If I'm somewhat "biased" in my attitudes toward them, it's only because I see it as a personal mission for them to be treated with the same dignity and honor that they showed me.

Which brings me to the last horrible reaction by a conservative this week, coming on Friday from a duly elected U.S. Senator sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Lindsay Graham of South Carolina took to Twitter to tell the Obama administration that it wouldn't be prudent to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights and that he should be treated as an "enemy combatant."  Well, I have news for Graham.  Even though he's got a funny god and a funny name, he is an American citizen.  He has the exact same constitutional rights as you or I.  These rights actually extend beyond the 2nd Amendment and include the 5th, 6th, and 8th - guaranteeing him due process of law and the right not to be tortured.  Now, the Justice Department has already stated they will be waiving his Miranda rights for a brief period in order to try to get useful intelligence out of him, which I am perfectly fine with.  But eventually he will be read his rights, he will go on trial, and he will suffer the full consequences for what he did according to the established processes of the American justice system.  That is how it should be, and that is what makes us better than those radical few who would seek to change our way of life through terrorism - and, after 9/11, succeeded to an extent.

As-salam alaykum.  Peace be upon you.

Board Game Review: Suburbia

The recent launch of the latest entry in the much-beloved SimCity computer game franchise was an unmitigated disaster.  Server issues combined with an always-on Internet connection requirement prevented thousands upon thousands of city planners from playing the game for days.  Cities were deleted through no fault of the player.  Electronic Arts refused to offer refunds.  Once the dust settled, many gamers found that they were disappointed with SimCity 2013 as it was meant to be anyway.  City sizes seem way too small, city optimization requires the cooperation and active participation of other players, and there has proven to be serious issues with the supposedly realistic simulation of urban life (your city dwellers always take the shortest route somewhere regardless of traffic, and tend to go home to different houses every night).  Wannabe mayors should fret not, however, for if they can unplug for a while, there is a great board game alternative to SimCity.  Not only is it cheaper, it's guaranteed to always work.

Suburbia was released in 2012 by designer Ted Alspach, who openly admits that he drew inspiration from Maxis Software's city-building classic - and it shows.  Players construct their individual boroughs of some great metropolis by placing tiles depicting various city building types - residential, commercial, industrial, and civic - and must balance their income and reputation in pursuit of the highest population possible (which determines the winner).  The tiles and graphic design are crisp and attractive, the rules are fairly simple with underlying complexity, and the player interaction is relatively high for a tile-laying game.  That's the short version - I'll give you the details on a Sunday drive out to the 'burbs.

The actual gameplay in Suburbia is deceptively simple.  On your turn, you will usually first acquire a tile.   You can either buy one of the basic tiles of each type (suburb - residential, park - civic, heavy factory - industry), or you can buy other tiles, which are revealed as others are bought, and priced according to a sliding market scale (usually this is where you'll be going).  Each tile has a name in addition to type (other examples: mobile home community - residential; landfill - industrial; office supply store - commercial).  Once you decide what tile you want, you pay its price and then put it in your city anywhere that you like, just so that it touches at least one side of a tile that's already there.  Once placed, you determine what effects this placement has.  There could be effects just from placing the tile, from what you placed it next to, from other tiles in your borough, or even according to what tiles other players have placed in their boroughs.  These effects could be positive or negative (or both), and tend to tie in well with the theme.  For example, placing a factory might bring you more tax revenue, but plop it down next to a residential area and the pollution will make your reputation suffer.  Placing an international airport will reap benefits to every regional airport in play, even those of other players.  Like any good urban planner, you must carefully consider the benefits and costs of your tile placement, and choose accordingly.

A growing city, with income and reputation above.

Once your tile is placed, you make any necessary adjustments to your income and reputation.  Then you collect your income (or you might have to pay, if your city has turned into a money sinkhole) and you increase your all-important population by your current reputation score.  (So if your reputation sits at 4 for three turns, you would increase your population by 4 each turn.)  However, there is a slight catch in scoring that really makes Suburbia stand out.  At various points along the population score track there are red lines that basically represent milestones in population growth.  When your borough crosses one of these lines, you must reduce both your income and reputation by one each - your city is growing, but it's losing some of its small-town appeal.  This makes for excellent strategic decisions as you must carefully decide when and how much to score, evaluating whether you have the money and reputation to support a larger population.  Once the tile supply is exhausted, whomever has reached the highest population is Suburbia's victor.

Suburbia reminds me of a Reiner Kinizia game in that the gameplay, which boils down to "get a tile, place a tile" is very simple, but the complexity comes in the scoring and effects of your actions.  This does lead to the game's one drawback - it can be difficult to ensure you are accounting for all possible effects when you place a tile.  There simply can be a lot to keep track of.  However, the iconography and text are quite comprehensible, and the process will eventually become routine the more you play - I was feeling very comfortable by the middle of the game, even as my borough grew larger and more complex.  The upside of this is that the possibility of triggering effects in other players' areas increases player interaction and decreases boring downtime, as you must be paying attention to what your opponents are doing.  Without this element, Suburbia could easily fall into the "multiplayer solitaire" trap.  Also, as this game revolves around open information, there is no harm in helping other players make sure they have taken all effects of their play into consideration.

Although it's a fairly abstracted derivation from its PC ancestor, Suburbia's connections to SimCity are clear.  You must balance acquisition and placement of different building types as well as watch your budget to avoid overextending your resources.  The basics are simple but hide an underlying system that is complex and rewarding when you unlock its potential.  Plus, you can probably fit in an entire game of Suburbia while waiting for an open SimCity server.  Those who feel burned by the computer game's troubles should really consider going cardboard and taking a trip to Suburbia.

The War on Easter: A Veteran's Tale

(Note: Hopefully this goes without saying, but the following is a work of satire.)

Those were heady days.  I had served admirably in the Christmas War of 2012.  The beards of five mall Santas decorated the walls of my man cave.  Sadly, two of them were fake.  My stealthy ability to use garland to choke anyone who uttered "Merry Christmas" got noticed by the brass.  Not only did I receive two Medals of Marx, they even gave me December 25 off.  On a grand scale, the enemy's attempt to extend Christmas by opening stores on Thanksgiving had backfired, destroying that holiday as well.  Now it was all just forty days of Secular Humanist Capitalist Consumption Season.  Life was good.

Our mission was far from complete, however.  In early February the O-bot chip implanted in my brain activated, signalling that I had a new message from Dear Leader.  My services would again be needed.  He appeared in my mind's eye wearing a dark brown hooded robe, as was his custom.  "Loyal followers," he intoned, "I must call you to action once more.  Immediately following February Platonic Friendship Day, those who would destroy our way of life will begin preparation for a holiday called Easter.  As a Muslim Atheist, I'm not aware of the specifics of this celebration.  However, my bros in Friends of Hamas tell me that stores will be soon be filled with rabbits, eggs, and barely edible things called "Peeps" that are somehow vaguely associated with the religion of the enemy.  We cannot allow this!  Rabbits don't have eggs!  And I will have no references to the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre in the land of the New Black Panther Muslim Brotherhood!  Agenda 21 dictates that Easter must be eradicated!"

"Yes, my lord," I obediently replied.  Detailed instructions for my role in this struggle followed.  I was the captain of an elite task force known as the Soetoro Squad.  Our mission was to infiltrate school districts and ensure that any references to "Easter" were replaced with "Spring."  Thus "spring recess" and "spring egg hunts" were held from Alaska to Alabama.  The mind-control powers bestowed on us by the Great One made this task particularly easy.  We would zoom in riding our black helicopters, work our magic, and quickly be dispatched to the next location.

Eventually, though, we began to meet resistance.  Organizations such as O'Reilly's Rebels and the Dukes of Doocy caught on to our ingenious scheme.  Not content with broadcasting their filth from the Iron Throne atop Rockefeller Plaza, they mounted an armed insurgency.  The War on Easter had begun.

The enemy.  Bring it.

Fortunately, the Great One had naturally anticipated violence, and thus had ordered the Department of Homeland Security to buy up all the ammo on the market, leaving the rebels only the stockpiles they already had on hand.  This was only ten times the amount the army had, and thus it became a war of attrition.  Skirmishes between the O-Bots and the "Bunnies," as we came to call them, flared up all over the country.  Slowly but surely we drove the enemy back.  Prisoners were sent to FEMA's shiny new concentration camps, where they were reeducated into proper Secular Progressive Socialists.  The front receded deeper and deeper into Holy Texas, until it became clear the final battle would take place at a mighty bastion called Independence, commanded by a figure shrouded in mystery, known only as The Beck.

I was there.  The Battle of Independence raged for three full days.  I led my squad in a daring raid to take out Doocy, one of The Beck's top lieutenants.  By that time, ammo was running short for the Bunnies, so they were getting creative with their tactics.  Several gruesome casualties on my squad resulted.  Krugman ate it when an egg land mine exploded under him, sending deficit-funded shrapnel into his luscious beard.  Biden got caught in a web of some sort of fake grass and we had to leave him behind; after the fortress fell he was found bound and gagged in a room with Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and a bottle of water.  I shudder at the torture he endured.

I was left alone to confront Doocy, whom I found going over the latest transcript he had been handed from the Throne and audibly complaining it didn't make him sound smarmy enough.  We shared a homeland, Doocy and I, and I was eager to wipe that shit-eating smirk off his face once and for all.  I caught him off guard, and he attempted to woo me with the same charm he used to manipulate millions of Bunny underlings.

"Hey, man, all we wanna do is wish each other Happy Easter," he pleaded.

My rage at hearing the E-word knew no bounds.  I knew the time for talk was over.  Being a liberal, I had of course never fired my gun.  I put my finger on the mechanism I felt pretty sure was the trigger and pulled it.  Doocy's head exploded in a shower of blood so epic I felt as empowered as Tarantino's Django.

I looked at what was left of the corpse.  "Happy Spring, you freedom-loving asshole."

The Great One ultimately defeated The Beck in an epic duel atop Mount Galt.  The War on Easter was over, with the righteous forces of Secular Humanism once again victorious.  The holiday once known as Easter is now called the Spring Anti-Fertility Observance.  Gay Scout leaders hand out plastic eggs filled with condoms and birth control pills to all the little boys and girls.  Once again, everything is right with the One World.

I love the smile on Dear Leader's face just as the knife goes into that rabbit's back.  Booyah!

Marriage Equality: The Tide of History

"If love is the only measure, then the only measure of love is love without measure." - St. Augustine

Marriage equality is coming.  It is inevitable.  It may not happen nationwide this year before the Supreme Court, but it will happen eventually.  There has been an unmistakable generational shift on the issue that reaches across political and religious boundaries, and once that age cohort is running the show, gay marriage will be as obsolete of an issue as interracial marriage.

(Note: I know "marriage equality" is the more PC term, but for brevity's sake I'll often refer to it as "gay marriage."  We all know what we're talking about here).

I know what it’s like to wonder if you’ll never be able to get married.  I’ve been there.  For me, thankfully, it came through.  Of course, some people never choose to marry, and that’s fine too.  But it should be an option, and I can’t imagine being told that the government forbids me to marry the person I love.  This is why I fully support the right of gays and lesbians to marry whomever they choose.

It is obvious that the course of history bends toward marriage equality.  The most virulent opponents of gay marriage are going to, frankly, die off, and polls show that 80% of people under 30 support marriage equality.  That's not likely to change anytime soon, and those people will only get older.  I credit the Millennials' acceptance of gay marriage to modern communication making interaction with gay people and the gay community easier than ever before.  As people learn through first-hand experience that gays and lesbians are not the societal outcasts "traditional" culture has made them out to be, it becomes natural to believe that they should have the same marriage rights as anyone else.

I understand that for many people, especially in rural America, the overwhelming trend toward marriage equality can be a bit discomforting.  Perhaps they've never met an openly gay person.  They have allowed the bigotry spread by right wing media - which has a lot more penetration in middle America than Out Magazine - to affect their attitudes, even if only on a subconscious level.  This is why gay marriage advocates need to honestly and kindly combat negative images through their own media efforts.  Eventually this will likely not be necessary, but as marriage equality continues to meet strong resistance in many parts of the country, a continuous outreach effort will be needed.

 Pretty sure these dudes could beat me up.  Please, get married.

For example, here are Larry and Randy.  They were one of the first couples to get married in Washington state when gay marriage went into effect there on January 1, 2013.  They're not exactly the flamboyant young party animal stereotype, are they?  They're normal dudes.  They look like they could be my dad's hunting buddies.  All they want is to love each other and have the legal recognition of such.  Who are we to deny that?  To all you libertarian types out there - who is the government to deny that?  Either embrace your small-government beliefs, or quit pretending.

Such images are moving, and will only be enhanced as the gay community and its allies can effectively introduce themselves to the heartland.  I'm from there, I know they're good people, and I maintain my belief that they can be more accepting if the hate can be met with love and personal exposure.  The power of personal knowledge and awareness is undeniable.  Even Republicans such as Dick Cheney and Rob Portman have expressed support for equality after one of their family members came out. And if Cheney and I can agree on something, it must have some merit.

For the second half of this post, then, I'll address what I see as the most common arguments against marriage equality.  There's some tough love for opponents in here, but it needs to be said.  In 20 years these arguments will be outright ridiculed and automatically dismissed; at least I'm taking the time to explain their flaws.

1. Gay marriage is against God's will.

You are free to believe what you want to believe.  However, it doesn't matter.  Sorry if that sounds blunt but it's true.  There's a reason why there were zero religious-based arguments brought before the Supreme Court.  They have no place in American jurisprudence.  Religious freedom means we celebrate a diversity of belief.  It does not mean the freedom to impose religious views on the majority who disagree with you on an issue that fundamentally has nothing to do with religion.  Moreover, no gay marriage law to date has forced churches to perform gay weddings that they are opposed to, and that's not going to change.

However, the Christian Right is clutching their pearls over the mythical Christian persecution that I've blogged about before.  They somehow believe that a country where 95% of religious people identify as Christian (and 80% of the Congress) will systematically destroy Christianity if gay marriage is allowed.  I'm not exaggerating.  Frequent Fox News contributor Erick Erickson: "Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan."  In other words, because of perceived fear of discrimination against straight Christians, he wants a black check to be able to discriminate against gay people.  Disgusting.

Fortunately, many Christians have embraced equality and refuse to let fear of diversity get in the way of spreading the message that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy so long as we respect Him and each other.  I have hope that they will soon become the vocal majority of Christians.  My favorite is this clever minister, who turns the words of racial bigotry into a powerful argument for marriage equality:

2.  Gay marriage goes against "traditional" marriage.

This is closely related to the first argument, as most proponents' idea of "traditional marriage" falls neatly in line with the modern American Christian ideal.  However, the concept of marriage has evolved greatly through human history and around the globe.  For much of history and in many cultures, marriage was merely a business or political transaction.  Marriages were prearranged from birth.  In some cultures polygamy and harems were widely accepted practices.  In many, you were not allowed to marry for love.  You were not allowed to marry outside your social class.  You were not allowed to marry outside your religion.   You were not allowed to marry outside your race.  All these practices have been defended as "traditional marriage," and all have lost.  We may be heading into uncharted territory by recognizing gay marriage as valid, but gay people have been around as long as straight people.  If we finally acknowledge that they can marry whom they love as much as anyone else, I think that's an expansion of "traditional marriage" that we can be proud of.

Tied into this is the idea that gay marriage somehow devalues or damages straight marriage.  I'm not exactly sure how this works.  Apparently our straight marriages are so fragile that seeing gay people get married will lead to their destruction (never mind that half of straight marriages end in divorce anyway).  Gay marriage is already legal in ten states, and I'm pretty sure society isn't crumbling there.  The attorney arguing against gay marriage in the Supreme Court - hopefully a leading expert on the issue - could not come up with a single reason why gay marriage harms straight marriage.  That's because there isn't one.

3.  If we allow gay marriage, what will be next?  Polygamy?  Marrying children?  Marrying dogs?  Marrying toasters?

This is the lamest, most offensive snowball-fallacy argument I have ever heard.  It's so weak it almost feels like something marriage equality supporters would put forth as a straw-man argument because it's so easy to knock down.  And yet Rush Limbaugh made the "gay marriage leads to pedophilia" claim just the other day.  What's to stop marriage/sex with a child?  Oh, I don't know, how about the law and the age of consent?  Marriage is between consenting adults.  If we allow gay marriage, will an arsonist set fire to your house?  Because that has about as much to do with gay marriage as pedophilia does.  To claim otherwise is insulting and demeaning to every gay person on earth.  We better ban straight marriage too then, because there's certainly a lot of opposite-sex pedophilia going on as well.  That some people take the argument further into "dog and toaster" territory is laughable.  Please, please try telling a gay person that the love they have for their partner is roughly equivalent to the love for a pet or inanimate object.  Would you ever say that to a straight person?

Polygamy is a separate issue that needs to be worked out on its own merits and divorced from gay marriage.  You can certainly argue that consenting adults should be able to organize their families as they wish.  However, whereas being gay is not a choice, polygamy is, and recognizing it would open up all sorts of legal issues regarding spousal benefits and such.  It's an issue certainly worth discussing, but it's completely separate from the issue at hand.

4.  Marriage is defined by natural procreation, and gay people should not be parents.

A double-whammy here.  First, are we going to tell all the infertile straight couples that their marriage is invalid?  What about straight married couples who choose not to have children?  Older folks who get married past child-rearing age?  We have never prevented them from being married.  So obviously we cannot hold natural procreation as the basis for a marriage definition.

The second part of this argument involves a bit of concern trolling, in that opponents claim to be worried about the effects gay parents, or the lack of both a mother and father, have on children.  While I agree that ideally a child should have strong role models of both genders in their lives, there is no guarantee that their parents will be such.  Maybe the dad is abusive or in prison.  Maybe the mom is an alcoholic or watches TV all day.  Is such a situation really better than having two loving, doting fathers or mothers?  Don't conservatives want kids to grow up in strong, married families?  (Oh, but only the kind of marriage they approve of, I see.)  I taught in a school with a lot of broken families.  Hardly anybody came to parent-teacher conferences.  I would have gladly welcomed two moms or dads coming into my classroom to talk about their child. 

Additionally, as Justice Kennedy (not a flaming liberal) noted, there is legitimate cause for concern over the detrimental effects denying gay marriage has on gay couples' children.  They are indirect beneficiaries of the benefits denied to gay couples that straight married couples enjoy - inheritance, tax breaks, medical benefits, etc.  Is it fair to deny kids such just because of who their parents are?  Not to mention the social issues these children face due to the stigma that comes with having same-sex parents.  Not that making gay marriage legal will solve that issue overnight, but recognizing their marriage as valid will at least set us on the right track.

In that vein, I'd like to close with the words of a brave sixth-grader advocating for his parents' right to marry in Rhode Island.  Cynical opponents of marriage equality would argue that he's being manipulated and put up to it.  Personally I think he's a smart kid who just wants there to be a little more love in the world, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Fox News Treats Its Viewers Like Idiots

There is so much to write about the propaganda machine that is Fox News, and I've touched on some of it before.  But what bothers me the most, probably, is their blatant abuse of graphics to present misleading or outright false information.  They cynically play on their viewers' assumptions that shiny maps and charts must be displaying Gospel Truth and thereby get away with spreading some of the basest right-wing filth I've seen in major media.  They really like to do it with regards to President Obama's record on unemployment and the economy, as these can be complex issues that a flashy graphic distills into one inaccurate statistic (go here for a thorough history and explanations).

Today, though, they presented what I found to be the most offensive graphic yet.  In support of the standard right-wing talking point that "one cold snap proves climate change doesn't exist," Neil Cavuto presented this map to his audience:



Now, do you notice anything about these two maps?  What's missing?  Oh, I don't know, how about some freaking numbers?  A map key, perhaps?  Just what are we looking at here?  There is no way to know.  All we know is that the map on the left looks REALLY HOT and the map on the right looks REALLY COLD and since it's more recent, climate change/global warming is a hoax!  QED!  But these maps could have been filled in by a kid with a coloring book, for all the actual information they present.

Now why do you suppose any sort of actual data was left off?  Because if it were there it would be obvious Fox is full of crap.  But before I provide what Fox did not, take a look at the maps and try to figure out what they show.  It would be reasonable to assume that they depict average temperatures of some kind.  On the right, using the colors that we most commonly associate with temperature maps, it looks like it's the coldest in the Upper Midwest and northern Great Plains, and warmest in the South.  That's reasonable.  But now apply that same logic and scale to the map on the left.  Look at all those warm colors.  Where is the most blazing hot heat?  Wisconsin?  Michigan's Upper Peninsula?  Meanwhile LA appears to be undergoing some sort of frost.  Does that make any sort of sense for an average temperature map for the US in March?  Of course not.  These two maps aren't even comparing the same thing.



Here is the actual left map.  Notice how it has things such as a descriptive title and clearly defined key?  How informative!  It shows whether temperatures in an area were above or below average during March 2012.  So the Midwest was above average while the West Coast was below average, and so the differences in "hotness" make sense on such a map.  In fact, taken on its own this map actually makes the case for global warming, because it shows that in March 2012 temperatures in a rather large part of the country were warmer than in the past.



The map on the right here equates with Fox's right-side map above.  It shows the minimum temperature for ONE DAY - March 20, 2013.  That explains why the colors are what we'd expect them to be.  But Fox commits the cardinal sin of statistics - it compares averages to one data point in a way that is dishonest, misleading, and doesn't even make sense.  It's basically like telling a bowler with a 100-game average of 240, "Hey, one time I bowled a 250, so I'm obviously better than you."  You cannot disprove long-term trends with one outlying data point (and with the maps, Fox isn't even doing that honestly).  This is Scientific Analysis 101, but as the right wing has shown time and time again, they have no regard for such lofty ideas.

There is a word for such blatant misrepresentation of data: propaganda.  There is no other explanation.  They have done it so many times that sheer incompetence can't explain it.  As I've said before, I would have no problem with Fox if they were merely a conservative-leaning network.  But they are not.  They are a vile, puking automaton that regurgitates the detritus fed to them by their right-wing overlords in order to dupe their viewers into believing they provide "fair and balanced" coverage.  Please, do not get your "information" from them.

As a final note, here's a lovely graph that shows the difference in how the same set of data can be selectively interpreted to fit your talking points.   It uses 40 years of data, however, so I'm sure it's totally useless.

The Myth of GOP Fiscal Conservatism and Responsibility

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation that conservatives like to throw around, which is aided and abetted by the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media, is that choices on economic policy boil down to "fiscally conservative" Republicans vs. "tax and spend" Democrats.  The record of the past 30 years blows this claim out of the water to such a degree that it is downright shameful that the GOP still gets away with it.  Now, I'm not saying that there is never a time to be fiscally conservative.  However, the perception of the Republicans as the Golden Knights of Austerity and Fiscal Prudence really needs to be dismissed.

First, since the media does such a poor job of even explaining the basics, let's make sure we have our terms straight.  "Debt" refers to the total amount of money owed by the US government to its creditors.  The deficit, then, is the amount by which annual expenditures exceed annual revenues, because the federal government is not required to pass a balanced budget (most states are).  Having a deficit, then, adds to the total debt.  Conversely, paying down the debt requires an annual budget surplus.

On a very basic level, you can compare it to a family budget, in that you have to earn more money than you spend if you want to pay off a debt, such as a credit card balance.  However, common claims by conservatives that "families balance their budgets, so should the government" are grossly oversimplified and misleading.  You can't really compare the actions, needs, and effects of spending by a family with a total annual budget of, say, $75,000, against the largest government and economy in the world with an annual budget of about $3.5 trillion.  The former is studied by microeconomics, the latter by macroeconomics.  Still, there is a simple take-away to draw from this comparison: families have to maintain a budget, but it also makes sense for them to take on debt.  They use credit cards.  They take on mortgages and auto loans.  They get student loans for their education.  Perhaps they incur short-term moving expenses in order to take a new job that will benefit them in the long run.  Uncontrolled debt can ruin a family's finances, of course, but there is an appropriate time for it.  Same goes with the government.  (For a great takedown of this failed analogy, see this post on Daily Kos.)



Turning to history, the last GOP president who could legitimately be called a fiscal conservative was Richard Nixon.  Ronald Reagan then ushered in the Republican doctrine of "don't tax but still spend, and pass it off as responsibility."  Reagan slashed taxes while increasing defense spending by astronomical amounts (see chart above), which drove up the debt.  Whether such defense spending was necessary to win the Cold War is beyond the scope of this article; the point is, he had no problem cutting revenues and increasing spending at the same time by huge amounts - hardly what most people would call fiscally responsible.  Later, he begrudgingly supported certain tax increases in response to lackluster revenues, which would render him persona non grata to today's slaves of Grover Norquist.

(Side note: What, you mean that the core doctrine of supply-side economics - that giving the rich more money through lower taxes will propel them to create new jobs out of the goodness of their hearts, thus stimulating enough economic activity to overcome any lost revenue, didn't quite work?  You mean that the basic tenet of capitalism - that people want to make as much money as possible and will only do something that costs them (creating a job) when they are sure it is economically beneficial and necessary to do so, won out?  I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!)

Then Clinton came along and, thanks to a sound economy and actual fiscal prudence, was able to completely balance the budget by the end of his administration, setting us on the course to pay off the national debt.  In 2000 Presidential candidate George W. Bush responded by claiming that a budget surplus meant Americans were being overtaxed, and the Bush tax cuts were the immediate result.  This begs the question - how in the holy hell are we ever supposed to pay off the debt if the moment we have a budget surplus Republicans use it as an excuse for a tax cut, thus bringing back deficit spending?

And hopefully by now you won't be surprised to learn that's exactly what happened.  In 2002 Dick Cheney proudly proclaimed that "Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter."  Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was fired after warning of a $500 billion projected deficit for 2003.  To add to the structural deficit created by the tax cuts, the "war on terror" pushed the idea that the U.S. could sustain an indefinite worldwide war without requiring any meaningful financial sacrifice on the part of everyday citizens (compare that to rationing during World War II).  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Financed with borrowed money.  They usually weren't even included in the regular budget but instead funded through supplemental appropriations.  The Bush administration originally predicted the cost of the Iraq war would run about $100 billion.  Now the Congressional Budget Office estimates the war will cost $1.9 trillion through 2017, with other estimates from independent economists and universities running to the $3 to $4 trillion range.  But hey, the war was totally worth it, right?  Got those WMDs after all.

Note that it wasn't just the wars and tax cuts - the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drug benefits was one of the biggest growths of a social program in US history.  Isn't is supposed to be those dang liberals driving up deficits through government handouts?  The total cost of that program is expected to be $727 billion from 2009 through 2018; however, Medicare is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies over prices like the VA is - by some estimates, allowing this could save the program at least $50 billion a year.  But, you know, Congressional architect Billy Tauzin (R-LA) had to leave Congress after passage to become a Big Pharma lobbyist making seven figures, so, you know, priorities.  Macroeconomists often talk about the "guns vs. butter" problem - how do governments balance military and domestic spending?  Under Bush, you got guns, butter, and a cherry on top in the form of a tax cut - no problem.

The economic collapse of 2008 - the roots of which are too complex to get into here, but suffice it to say Bush economic policies contributed to it (wait, you mean the Bush tax cuts didn't create indefinite economic expansion???) - exacerbated the debt problem significantly as tax revenues fell off a cliff.  However, as soon as Obama took office, the Republicans ripped off their Bush/Cheney stickers and replaced them with tricorner Tea Party hats, basically acting as if the government hadn't spent a dime before January 20, 2009.  "Won't somebody think of the debt???"  became the rallying cry of millions who literally months earlier had been totally OK with (or blatantly ignorant of) the immense deficit spending of the Bush administration.  Meanwhile, Obama was trying to revive the economy in a way that most economists agree is sound policy - stimulus spending.  The resulting picture of the federal debt looks like this:



The Obama stimulus is represented in light blue, and it never would have happened if not for the 2008 financial meltdown.   But, you say, Obama has continued to spend, spend, spend!  It's out of control!  Well, first I would direct you to the first chart above, showing that spending growth under Obama is the slowest in decades.  Here's another chart confirming the same:



Yes, that's some runaway growth there.  Oh, I'm sorry, I was looking at the Bush years.  Now, after the fiscal cliff deal that rang in the new year, the federal government is poised to cut its deficits by $2 trillion over the next 10 years.  The large majority of this savings has come from spending cuts rather than revenue increases - $1.5 trillion for the former vs. $600 billion for the latter.  Yet to hear the Tea Party talk about it, you would think the President is writing blank checks to anyone who dials him up with an Obama Phone.

This all brings me around to my main point: fiscal conservatism does not equate with fiscal responsibility.  There are times to be frugal, and times to increase spending on sound programs.  Clinton reduced the deficit during a robust economy.  Now, we have conservatives clamoring for radical spending cuts at a time when arguably more stimulus spending is called for.  Our infrastructure is in bad shape, and interest rates are currently so low that creditors are practically paying the government to borrow money from them.  Why not take advantage of the situation to repair bridges and roads, invest in clean energy and the like, creating good-paying jobs in the process?  Doesn't that sound financially responsible and reasonable?  But no, instead we have Paul Ryan proposing budgets that drastically cut social programs and lower taxes on the wealthy, which will supposedly cause the Confidence Fairy to wave her wand and spur the economy.  Meanwhile, the Dow is at record highs (so somebody must be doing well), but the median income for us middle-class schlubs is in the doldrums.  And Ryan mysteriously plans to balance the budget through closing loopholes and such.  How?  "There's math involved, you probably wouldn't understand."  Maybe Ryan really is a hipster.

Ryan's new budget, just approved by the House GOP on March 21, claims to balance the budget in 10 years.  He supposedly does this despite providing $7 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations without any plausible way to believe this lost revenue will be made up, even though he nonspecifically cuts spending to record lows.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office refused to give him an analysis of his budget using their own numbers because it just wasn't feasible.  And he is the Very Serious Conservative Thinker, scion of fiscal responsibility.  If you wouldn't base your family's budget on "well, I'm sure we'll make this up somehow," then perhaps it's time to reevaluate our opinion of the Republicans as guardian angels of the national treasure.

P.S. For a more balanced approach to budgeting, please check out the plan put forth by House Democrats, which combines a mixture of spending cuts and new revenues to reduce the deficit by $1.7 trillion while still providing for some stimulus spending.  It's rather similar to the mixed plan that Very Serious Centrists and DC Pundits seem to want, and yet when anyone points this out to them, their only response is that Obama needs to LEAD HARDER to get Republicans to come around to positions they regard as anathema.  Sigh.