Today, a break from politics to discuss something that's been on my mind for about the past year. The Internet has enabled truly unprecedented access to information and media. The sheer amount of stuff available to be consumed on the Web is simply mind-boggling. Much of it is brand new - some of it creative, some of it crap. But I'd like to focus on another aspect of this information overload; namely, the ease to nostalgically remember our favorite pop culture of the past, and the niche industry that has grown up around this ability. It's something that, I think, has especially struck a chord with people of roughly my age. This cohort is basically Generation X, though I think it's particularly true with the younger half of that group - children of the '80s and early '90s.
Of course, it's been possible to re-experience cherished pop culture for a long time, especially with regards to such media as books, movies, and music. But the Internet has enabled access - instantly, in many cases - to almost any media or information about some long-lost pop culture trend in a way that's never been possible before. Do I want to know about every episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? I can find explicit details on Wikipedia or fan sites. Do I want to buy the TMNT show on DVD, or the Nintendo games based on it, or my favorite Donatello action figure? Cruise over to Amazon or eBay. Do I want to see commercials from 1990 for those action figures? They're probably on YouTube. It is astounding. The past is being lovingly curated like never before, and anyone with an Internet connection has immediate access to it, and often cheaply. YouTube is free. Used media often goes for pennies or a few bucks on Amazon. Netflix Instant offers dozens of old-school movies and programs for several dollars a month. And, of course, there are the gray/outright illegal areas of torrents and video game emulation. If you don't want to pay $100 to actually get a rare Super Nintendo cartridge from eBay, well, it's possible to be playing it on your PC in minutes anyway.
I think Gen-X is particularly susceptible to this "Net nostalgia" because we are old enough that we generally lost access to pop culture from our formative years for a while, but are young enough to be fully plugged in to the modern technology that makes reliving it possible. As we've grown up and gotten jobs and families in the real world, I think there's a certain longing - as with any generation - to relive the glory days. And we are the first generation to have an almost limitless ability to do that.
(Note: For expediency I'm not going to link to the sources below; however, they are all easily found via Google or YouTube if you're interested. Be advised that most of them are not safe for work, due to free-flowing language.)
Young Gen-Xer's have been at the forefront of an Internet industry that seizes on this nostalgia and entertains its audience by joyfully reliving it and often offering insightful perspectives. New media has made it extremely easy to appreciate the best of old media. For example, Laser Time is a great podcast in which the hosts examine a pop culture topic every week, playing examples and providing their often humorous takes on it. Past episodes have looked at '80s era rap commercials, hilariously bad video game music, and the portrayal of time travel in various media. Retronauts was a very well-produced and informative podcast focusing on old-school video games. It unfortunately died with the demise of gaming website 1UP; however, a successful Kickstarter project hints that a revival is just around the corner.
Some amateur critics have become true Internet celebrities through their mining of pop culture.
James Rolfe became the Angry Video Game Nerd by venting at the frustratingly bad games of his youth. He also has a side series, Board James, that has both mocked and honored classic board games such as Crossfire, Fireball Island, and DragonStrike. Although no longer active, as the Nostalgia Critic, Doug Walker lambasted a lot of bad stuff from the '80s and '90s, but also paid tribute to quality movies and TV shows, and introduced me to some things I had missed. He's enjoyable to watch until he gets into one of his screaming fits. You can skip those parts.
Referencing past pop culture has now even become a popular trend in mainstream pop culture. How meta. Homages and parodies abound in TV shows such as The Big Bang Theory and Community (if you came here via my Facebook feed, you're well aware that I find Community to be the far superior show, so I'm not going to get into that here). The best-selling book Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is the definitive referential book for nerds of my age and slightly older. It pays constant tribute (for some, admittedly, it goes overboard) to cultural touchstones of the late '70s through early '90s, while telling a fun cyberpunk-style story. Everything from the rock band Rush, to Dungeons and Dragons, to the 1983 classic movie WarGames, to Japanese anime gets its due. It's definitely a book written for a specific audience, but if you're in that audience, it's a true trip down memory lane.
The question then becomes, of course, is Generation X's new-found nostalgia a natural occurrence and a passing fad, enabled by unprecedented access to our historical artifacts? Will we no longer care about the best media of our childhood in 2020, having relived them to our heart's content in the early years of Web 2.0? Hard to tell. Moreover, what does the Internet mean for the nostalgia of future generations? While today's kids will certainly grow out of their childhood interests and move on to other things, they will never be permanently separated from them. If they want to relive them, they'll always be there. Will they then care as much about them? To twist a cliche, will the non-absence not make the heart grow fonder? I have no idea. But to an aspiring sociology or anthropology PhD, it could make an interesting dissertation topic in about 20 years.
Back in early January I blogged about the mythical persecution of American Christianity that some conservative Christians believe pervades a society filled with 78% Christians. Quite a bit has happened since then, and I thought it was worth another look, given that this paranoia doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. Combine the very real fear among some of the Right that Christianity is under serious attack with the equally crazy paranoia that Obama Is Coming For All The Guns, and it makes for some seriously dangerous beliefs. This was revealed by a new poll showing that 29% of Americans, and 44% of Republicans, believe that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years to "protect our liberties." That is scary stuff, and the conspiracy-laden propaganda spewed by right-wing media fuels it.
As I've said before, "threatened" Christians mistake their decreasing ability to impose their will and values on the entire country for being persecuted. They scan the headlines for any event they could possibly construe as being offensive to "true Christians" (which they often equate with true Americans) and make serious hay out of it. The annual "War on Christmas" is a perfect example, and this year Fox also spent a week attacking the "War on Easter" by finding a few random school districts across the country who were having "Spring egg hunts" and declaring that this means the end of Christianity as we know it. When I was in school, we had "spring recess" at Easter time. Everyone knew what it was about, and no one cared. It is only an issue because the right-wing media wants to make it an issue. Moreover, you could argue that even "spring recess" coinciding with Easter is giving preferential treatment to a religion and is therefore unconstitutional; can you imagine the reaction if there was a district-wide "recess" that fell on the same day as Rosh Hashanah or the final feast day of Ramadan?
Lately, however, most of the perceived persecution has revolved around gay issues, as I touched on a bit in my post on marriage equality. While entitled to their personal beliefs about homosexuality, conservative Christians refuse to accept that they are losing the fight on gay rights, and interpret this as an attack on their religion. As I've noted, in the face of American law, gay rights and Christianity have nothing to do with each other. Again, it's only an issue because they make it one, and then think their way of life is under attack because a lot of people don't agree with them. This spirit of victimhood came to the fore this week when Jason Collins came out as the first openly gay player in the "big four" of American men's team sports, and this "witty" cartoon was a popular reaction.
Sigh. Where to begin with this? Supposedly a "gotcha" moment of "liberal media" hypocrisy, it's actually yet another example of false equivalency BS. First of all, it's comparing two things that are completely different; one is a personal choice (faith), the other is not (sexual orientation). It's actually possible to be both gay and Christian (I know some). Second, the idea that Tim Tebow or other Christian athletes are silenced by the media is ludicrous. My interest in the NFL is basically less than zero, and even I know all about Tebow's faith. His name has entered the vernacular as slang for praying on one knee, for Pete's sake. Third, how many openly Christian pro athletes are there? Hundreds? Thousands? Do they face possible awkwardness or outright discrimination in the locker room or among fans and employers because of their faith? Doubtful. Given the numbers, it stands to reason that a majority of pro athletes are Christian. Tebow has the right to talk about his faith all he wants, but doing so isn't exactly taking a heroic stand. Last, I agree that in an ideal world Collins coming out wouldn't be a big story. Eventually, gay athletes won't be. They will be as "normal" as Christian athletes. However, Collins was the first, so of course it's going to be a big story. His openness helps to counter the stereotype that gay men are "wussies" (as assumption clearly seen in contrast to the fact that lesbian athletes tend to be more accepted), and will hopefully help to normalize the existence of male gay pro athletes. So yes, Collins coming out is a significant event, and it has nothing to do with how the media treats Tim Tebow. He is not being persecuted. Get over it.
One more example of perceived persecution: recently an Air Force memo came out that reminded officers to "avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their
personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend
preferential treatment for any religion." This is in line with standard Department of Defense policy that proselytizing is not allowed in the military regardless of faith and upholds the separation of church and state, as the military is, naturally, a government body. But for some on the Christian Right, of course, this is an attempt to destroy Christianity. The headline on Breitbart.com screamed that the Pentagon might court-martial soldiers who share their Christianity. Family Research Council VP Jerry Boykin called it a "direct assault" on his faith and an attempt to destroy both the military and traditional American values. This is where I'm afraid we're at an impasse. I believe it's a traditional American value not to impose your religious beliefs on someone, as enshrined in the First Amendment; Boykin disagrees. It's this sort of stalemate that leads to a persecution complex and thoughts that a little revolution might be necessary.
Now, in contrast, let's look at some real examples of religious demagoguery and fearmongering, shall we?
Posted on Facebook by a duly elected Tennessee county commissioner. Also in Tennessee, the building site of a mosque under heavy protest was set on fire. And again in Tennessee, some legislators were worried that a new mop sink in a Capitol building restroom was meant for Muslims to wash their feet.
Select quotes of Pat Robertson:
Islam is "an evil system that is bringing death and destruction throughout the globe.”
"It’s Islam, it’s Islam. Every time you look up — these are angry people,
it’s almost like it’s demonic that is driving them to kill and to maim
and to destroy and to blow themselves up. It’s a religion of chaos."
"I think the Antichrist is Islam. I really do, and I think it’s a system. ... It’s centered on Mohammed, who defied Jesus, he said Jesus wasn’t the son of God, I mean that’s Antichrist."
Duly elected U.S. Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX, Tea Party star): "But this administration has so many Muslim brotherhood members that
have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America." Gohmert also believes that al Qaida terrorists are being trained to "act Hispanic" in Mexican camps, thus throwing in some anti-immigration xenophobia for good measure.
Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter: The dead Boston bombing suspect's wife should be "arrested for wearing a hijab." She later claimed this was a spontaneous joke. Hardy har. Don't you get it??? Head scarves, amirite?? I love how conservatives get to explain away their racism and bigotry by claiming that liberals don't have a sense of humor, and then get put back on TV to continue making big bucks.
Conservative religious groups got Lowe's to pull its advertising from the TLC show "All-American Muslim" which dared to portray Muslims as average Americans.
And last, of course, we have the consequences of vile words:
Mohamed A. Salim, a Muslim cabdriver who served in Iraq and at the U.S.
military facility at Guantanamo Bay, claims a passenger he picked up
last week in Northern Virginia attacked him for being a "jihadist,"
comparing him to the two men that allegedly carried out the Boston
marathon bombing.
“If you’re a Muslim, you’re a [expletive] jihadist,” the passenger says. “You are just as bad as the rest of them.” The video ends with a blur of motion and audio of Salim asking, “Why are you punching me? Sir, why are you punching me?” The passenger replies: “You’re a [expletive] Muslim.”
Get the picture? Most, if not all, of these people proclaim themselves as good, God-fearing Christians. They bristle and whine and spew outrage at any perceived offense at their religion they can possibly find. And yet it's perfectly ok for them to demonize an entire religion - 1.5 billion people, second only to their own faith. Because apparently, they have all the answers. Now who's being hypocritical?
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 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?"
"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.
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.
(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!
"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.
