Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Conflicted about the Conflict: Ace in the Hole
I’m sure it’s purely coincidence.
There’s been this rumor for some time that the U.S. government has actually had both Saddam and Osama for a while, just waiting to announce their capture. And now they have announced that they have caught Saddam.
Since a story like this can be expected to have good for just over a week, the date of Saddam’s capture looks suspicious: twelve days before Christmas and capture on a Saturday ensures that the story keeps hitting strong for the first couple business days following, and then slopes off just right to ensure that people have a good feeling about the conflict and the Troops (and the President, of course) right up to and thus through Christmas.
A few days earlier and there would have been a news focus gap before Christmas during which something anti-Bush could have snuck in. A few days later, and the media would have had to force the story to die off quickly so as to not impact the feel-good crap that has to be projected for Christmas. (Can’t have war impact the holidays!) A few days further yet and it would have had to be reported at Christmas, which would be a double-big no-no.
Okay, fine, so they caught him. Now would you please get the country stations to stop playing that damn Toby Keith song, “American Soldier”, every time I turn around? How about a nice piece of Lee Greenwood über-patriotism instead?
[Weblog title reference: Hussein was the Ace of Spades in the deck of “most wanted” cards issues by the U.S. military, and Hussein was found in a “spider hole.” “Ace in the Hole” is a country song by George Strait.]
Updated on October 27, 2010
Friday, December 12, 2003
Punishment is a Capital Idea
The Death Penalty has always been one of the more controversial pieces of our penal system. On some level, it hearkens back to Biblical punishments: “An eye for an eye.” Some deem it a way of providing closure for victims’ families, especially in light of our system’s parole methods, whereby a killer can sometimes eventually go free before having served an entire term (although they have to convince a board that they have learned their lesson, are sorry, have changed, etc.).
Opponents like to put up four primary arguments against it.
- First, that we know our system is flawed, and we sometimes unfortunately put innocent people in prison. And given that that is bad enough, how much worse is it to kill someone for a crime that they did not commit? This is really the most cogent argument against the death penalty, that it raises major moral and ethical dilemmas. I tend to think that we should not use it if there is the barest shadow of a doubt; in my college days, I was much more willing to to discard some innocents in the name of disposing of the truly bad ones, but I know more about the real world today. Fortunately, with DNA evidence techniques and such, we are increasingly able to toss that shadow of a doubt.
- The second standard argument is that European countries have almost to a one done away with the death penalty, and so should we, in order to become more civilized. Unfortunately, this ignores the question of why the Europeans have discarded it. I don’t think it is only because they are more “civilized” (whatever that means). I think that because of their smaller societies, different diversity of populace, language, and thought, different legal structures, and so on, that they simply have a lower incidence of such extreme violent crimes. (Statistics bear this out, from what I’ve seen.) As a result, they simply don’t have either the number or percentage of criminals involved in death penalty-level crimes, and thus perhaps less need to deal with them in extreme ways.
- Third is the claim that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Hello? The person (assuming they are actually guilty) killed someone. (In most cases. I don’t know that the death penalty is appropriate for violent or serious crimes which don't result in death or maiming.) I suppose you can argue that some of the death penalty methods (electrocution, hanging) may be more painful than others, and thus more “cruel” (but then again, some death crime methods are also more painful than others), but in the end, the criminal is getting what he or she dished out.
- The fourth — and my “favorite” &mdash argument against the death penalty is that it doesn’t work. Not that it fails to kill people, but that as a deterrent, it doesn’t work. Follow that thinking through: despite having the death penalty available as an option (in most states), people still kill, and thus the death penalty doesn’t serve to stop anyone. Do you see the fallacy in there? Let’s try it with a different violation of the law and a different penalty.
There is a fine associated with automobile speeding. The more you speed, the higher the fine, and it may be increased further in construction zones, school zones, and under other circumstances. But people still speed, don’t they? Does that mean that the deterrent of the fine doesn’t work, that the existence of the fine doesn’t stop speeding? What if the fines were ten times as high: speed and you face a $2000 fine. Would that stop speeding altogether? No. What if the penalty was the extreme: death. Would no one ever speed again? Heck no. What you would find is most people would pay really close attention to their speedometer, and a heck of a lot of people would abandon their cars completely, to prevent the accident. A small minority would still speed, most of them probably only a little (like many of us do now, 3-5 miles over the speed limit), with the expectation that they would not get caught, or they would be able to legally wrangle themselves out of the extreme punishment. But so long as there were cars and speed limits, people would do it, no matter what the penalty.
So then we’re left with the much dicier question: given that the death penalty presumably does act as a deterrent, for some people and in some cases, can we measure how good a job it does? (I suppose we could try to find similar populations in states which do and do not have the penalty and compare violent crime rates, but I suspect that the cognizance of “There’s no death penalty in this state, they can’t kill me for this crime” really doesn’t enter into things to the degree that “The death penalty means I could get killed for this crime” does. Even if a given state doesn’t have the penalty, the thought probably is that the country as a whole does, and that’s sufficient.) And the parallel question: is it possible to shift the way our system operates so that the deterrent of the death penalty is more effective, such that people will both be aware of it and won’t believe that they can get off with a lesser penalty for the crime.
Needless to say, I don’t have an answer for these. So I’ll just settle for recognizing that the argument that the death penalty isn’t a deterrent is flawed and doing my best to make sure the opponents of it are aware of that. In my experience, on many social issues, neither proponents nor opponents have genuinely thought through their support/opposition to it; rather, they just parrot a simplistic phrase about the subject that they got from someone else, someone who had an agenda to conflate a deterrent which isn’t 100% effective to one which isn’t effective at all, or someone who is just over the top with regard to punishment in general.
Updated on October 26, 2010
Monday, December 8, 2003
Conflicted about the Conflict: Giving Thanks
On Thanksgiving Day, President Bush made a covert visit to Iraq, to have Thanksgiving dinner with a selected group of soldiers. The event was done under heavy security, apparently with many in the White House itself not aware of what was happening, nor the President’s own family, and only a select group of aides and reporters were taken along.
To hear Talk Radio go on about it for the next few days, you would have thought he bit the head off a puppy on live television. The lefties ranted about how the event was a superficial photo op, pure politics. The righties ranted about how Bush was a “stud” for doing this (yes, that term was used) and how the lefties were just trying to co-opt the event. (And then they went on to decry Hilary Clinton’s trip to Afghanistan as superficial photo op, pure politics. And the same thing about Howard Dean and his brother’s remains in Laos.)
In reality, they are both right.
We’re less than a year out from the next Presidential election. Everything that Bush does is geared for maximal political effect. The administration wants to direct and control the media as much as possible, and to get big impact out of every event they can. Don’t be surprised to see further big “events” occur every couple months — at Christmas, at Memorial Day, at July 4th — any time that Bush & Co. see their numbers needing to be propped up. Expect most of these to involve the Troops, which plays to both the pro-War side and the “Support the Troops” folks.
At the same time, everything that the Democrat candidates do is also geared for maximal political effect. (In the Dean case, the 30th anniversary of the death of his brother was in mid-December, but Thanksgiving week plays better.) Nothing will be done without the impacts — both Democrat-positive and Republican-negative — being carefully scoped out, maximized or minimized, and targeted to where the largest impact will be. Expect to also see some attempts by both sides to pre-empt the stunts of the other.
On the other hand, Bush’s visit to the soldiers in Iraq was, without a doubt, the right (ahem) thing to do. Discarding the political photo op side of things, it was a brave action to visit a strife zone like that, and it is bound to be a morale boost for the Troops, to know that the President is willing to take that sort of an action and show his direct support for them. (I’ll stop short of calling Bush a “stud”, though.)
(As for Hillary’s visit to the Troops in Afghanistan, some pundits said it was yet another overture on her part to test the waters for a 2004 Presidential bid, but I think that she would need to have declared by now if she was going to do that. It was definitely a photo op, and arguably a really good thing to do for the morale of the Troops who are being forgotten about in Afghanistan, what with 99.9% of the media focus having turned to Iraq for the past year. I can’t help wonder, though, if she didn’t somehow get wind of Bush’s trip, and did hers to suck some of the wind from his sails.)
Updated on October 22, 2010
Gay Marriage: The Meaning of Massachusetts
I’m on the Legal Marriage Alliance mailing list for Washington State, and after the Massachusetts decision was handed down, someone asked:
If I interpret the decision correctly, in six months time, same-sex couples in Massachusetts will be able to marry. How does this impact out-of-state couples?I responded with a number of bullet points, and I’ve added a little more to them here.
- The court said that not letting same-sex couples marry violates the state constitution and that the legislature has to resolve this in 180 days. I don’t know what happens if that deadline comes and goes with nothing happening. Does the court fine the legislature?
- In Vermont, it was “resolve it or create a parallel institution,” and hence “civil unions” were created, but that’s apparently not an option provided here.
- Hawaii and Alaska sidestepped the issue a few years ago by amending their state constitutions. That evidently takes three years in Massachusetts, while the deadline is six months. An amended constitution could happen anyway, but with a gap where same-sex
marriage is legal. Every year it takes will surely work in our favor.
- Assuming things do progress as we would hope, this directly affects only couples who reside in Massachusetts, as the state can only grant the benefits that the state has power over. But it’s a stepping stone to insisting on those benefits elsewhere.
- According to an Associated Press piece (no longer available at the original site), Massachusetts state law doesn’t allow non-residents to marry there if their marriage would not be legal in the state where they live. A little web research indicates that there is no basic residency requirement. Given that such legal here/not legal there marriages have not been an issue for decades, this may be a law dating to miscegenation times (or earlier). If this law is still on the books, it’s not clear what value or legal weight it has beyond being a stop sign to convince couples to not get married in Massachusetts. In particular, does it have any effect when Massachusetts residents marry and then move elsewhere?
- The Massachusetts marriage issue itself is not something which should go to the Supreme Court, as Massachusetts’ definition of marriage is limited to Massachusetts. What would go to the Supreme Court is someone being denied marriage benefits in another state when they are married in Massachusetts, via a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. Framed in terms of whether a marriage in one state should be recognized in another, regardless of who the married people are, that’s the same thing that the Supreme Court has already ruled on decades ago, regarding miscegenation (inter-racial marriages) and should be a win for us. (But it ain’t over ’til the fat Justice sings.)
- One potential outcome of this is likely to be a national hodgepodge: some states allowing the marriages, all states being forced to grant the benefits. That might take decades to resolve to where the marriages could be legally done in every state.
Updated on October 21, 2010
Indeed, some of that “hodgepodge” has become the case now, several years later. Some states recognize same-sex marriages done in other states despite not being willing to do them directly. In other cases, states which do not recognize same-sex marriages have refused to grant same-sex divorces (since that would mean tacitly “recognizing” some legitimacy of the marriage, but at the same time, Massachusetts will not do a divorce unless the couple (or at least one member) resides in the state and has for at least a year, leaving those couples high and dry.
The “religion card” idea is still untested, so far as I know.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Whacko Jacko
In the long run, I don’t care if he did it. [He = Michael Jackson. It = sexually molest young boys.] But some of the media hoo-hah surrounding it this time brings up some things worth commenting on.
- Is the investigation racially motivated?
Pfft. I rather doubt it. Everything negative involving a black man is not racist. Get off the cross, we need to burn it. [For the sarcasm impaired, yes, that last comment is intended as a tasteless joke.] However, it’s worth noting that since there are fewer famous blacks than famous whites in this country, we do tend to pay more attention to the stories involving famous blacks, and thus the media may give us more of what we pay more attention to. So while I don’t think the investigation is racially motivated, the media attention may be, indirectly.
- Is this an attack on Michael himself?
Well, sort of. But less because he’s famous than because he’s eccentric. Oh, and because rumors and full-on investigations about exactly this have swirled around the guy for over a decade. Let’s face it, Mikey: it’s not like no one ever imagined that you might have done this before.
- Why does this happen when he has a new record release?
Is this taking advantage of Jackson’s other current media attention to get this higher play? Or the conspiratorial reverse, is this intended to distract attention from his new record and damage his sales? These questions play into both the racial and personal attack screeds. Frankly, when I heard that the police search of the Neverland Ranch occurred while Michael was in Las Vegas shooting a new video, it seemed apparent that the investigation probably was timed… to be done while Michael was out of town and couldn’t interfere with the search than to specifically target his fame.
- And finally, did he do it?
It’s really tempting to say “Yes, of course, I always knew he was a pervert,” but what we “know” is largely innuendo and supposition and accusation, all supported by a media who would love to crucify him (there’s that cross thing again!). Him or anyone else equally famous they could dig at.
On the other hand, Jackson has enough eccentricities that it could be just one more. Maybe this all truly is a fabrication of a sex-crazed media, and he really does love (platonically) children and wants to embrace his inner child so very dearly (perhaps in response to his own media-stolen childhood), and thus when he “sleeps” with kids he really does just sleep with them, cuddling them like teddy bears. And nothing else.
Updated on October 19, 2010
And as of summer 2009, we will perhaps never really know.
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Gay Marriage: Marital Misdirection
The opposition to same-sex marriage is composed of almost exclusively misdirection. In the end, there are no rational reasons for the opposition, only emotional ones, and thus the arguments put forward are typically intended not to counter same-sex marriage but to derail the discussion, driving it off course and getting it stuck in a swamp.
First is the partial misnomer, “gay marriage.”
The proper term is “same-sex marriage.” To call it exclusively “gay” is a convenient shorthand, but it also allows (even encourages) the discussion to focus exclusively on the male-male side of the question, and thus male-male sex, which is a subject which squicks a lot of straight America (certainly more than are squicked by girl-on-girl sex). In focusing on the male component, it also thus renders half or more of the marriage seekers somewhat invisible — and its those “invisible” ones who are often in the most stable relationships and thus more likely to be raising children within their relationships. And speaking of “invisible”, let’s not forget the bisexual men and women who might be in a longterm same-sex relationship: just because you can’t visually tell whether they are exclusively homosexual doesn’t mean that they are.
(Even more proper a term is “same-sex civil marriage”, which takes the religion component out of the picture. So long as the government certifies marriages for opposite sex couples without requiring a religious component, religion doesn’t deserve any say into whether government can do the same for same-sex couples.)
Second is the “slippery slope” argument.
If same-sex marriage is approved, won’t that lead to triad (or more-ad) marriages, to intra-family (mother/son or sister/brother) marriages, to adult/child marriages, or to human/animal marriages? The answer to this is that those questions are different from (but parallel to) the same-sex marriage question. One type of marriage will not automatically lead to another type, just as mixed-race marriages didn’t lead to other changes when they became fully legal, nearly 40 years ago. The laws which specifically prohibit same-sex marriages (DOMA, et al) don’t address these other types of relationships, and there are already separate laws relating to those which don’t touch on the same-sex issue.
The opposition likes to put this strawman up as a question to same-sex marriage proponents: “Well, if gay marriage is accepted, what will you say to the man who wants to marry his sheep?” The best answer is “I don’t care. That’s a different type of marriage. Let him fight his own battle.” Keep the discussion properly and narrowly focused.
On the other hand, maybe same-sex marriage would lead to other marriage shifts, but in a completely different way. (And by extension, the mixed-race marriage issue may be a lead-in to same-sex marriage after all.) Without passing judgment on any given type of relationship where those involved might like it to be a full-fledged marriage, we see in both the mixed-race and same-sex cases that some of the laws governing them were (are) regressive, hateful, and downright wrong. Once we take the time to examine those laws closely and see them for being the bogus laws they are, we may also find that other laws governing other sorts of relationships are equally as regressive, hateful, and wrong, and thus also need to be changed. (Or we may not. I don’t foresee marriage being approved for those who cannot give informed consent, such a children and animals. But that’s merely one example, and there are many other laws relating to such relationships.)
Third is the “marriage is for procreation” argument.
There is absolutely nothing about procreation itself which is improved by the presence of a formalized bonding of exactly two opposite sex, unrelated people; the wife is not more fertile as a result, nor is the man’s sperm more aggressive. And there is nothing about marriage which requires that progeny result from the union. This is actually a confusion of procreation with heredity. Procreation is deemed to be best when it occurs within marriage because then the spouses have better control over one another (more specifically: the husband knows who the wife is having sex with), and thus the line of descent (and of inheritance) is made clear. In the end, ensuring proper inheritance is a goal of both opposite-sex and same-sex marriages.
(Note that this does not make any statement about the raising of children by anyone. I’ll discuss my thoughts on that at some point. The stated opposition here is only about procreation, so that’s all I am addressing in my counter-argument.)
Fourth is the “thousands of years of tradition” argument.
These traditions never actually applied to exclusively “one woman and one man,” because two of a single gender just wasn’t a social option. When society is unable to conceive of the existence of homosexual people, much less of ongoing relationships between such people, society doesn’t have rituals which apply to such people and situations. Let’s face it: society changes over time, and when it does, so do its traditions. Holding to “thousands of years of tradition” would have our sailing vessels never leaving sight of land. It would have us using human and animal power for all our transportation needs. It would have our systems of government be non-democratic monarchies. It would have us treating women and children as property. It would feature multiple wives for each man. It would have us worshipping a multitude of different gods. It would have us huddled in caves, painting on walls.
Updated on November 11, 2003
Updated on October 14, 2010
Added bit about “same-sex civil marriage’.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Pick a Number, Any Number
You know what annoys me? (This week, anyway.) The abuse and misuse of math, specifically in number metaphors.
Lately, I’ve been hearing an add for Seattle-area car dealership Carter Subaru which claims that they are in the Top Three (which means they are #3, because otherwise they would say they are #1 or #2) out of 500-and-some dealership teams in the nation in sales. All well and good. Then they go on to brag at least twice in the commercial about how proud they are to be in the top 99.5% of the sales teams in the nation. SCREEEECCHHH! Everybody except the bottom 3 or so would be in the top 99.5%; it’s nothing to be proud of. (What they really mean is that they are in the 99.5th percentile. Ah, the subtlety of a single syllable.)
Twice in the past month or so, I’ve seen misuse of “360 degrees”. Once was in The Stranger, comparing something to a drag queen making a 360-degree spin on one heel and going the other way, and once was in the Seattle Gay News (never noted for their skillful editing anyway) about Mary J. Blige’s latest album being a 360-degree change from her previous one. (Unfortunately, web searches won’t bring up either reference.) Girls, “360 degrees” is a full circle; you can’t go the other way out of a 360-degree spin, and a 360-degree change means that Blige’s latest album is no different from the previous one! (What they both meant, of course, was 180 degrees.)
In the same vein, but not using numbers per se, are Disneyland references to when they used to use ticket books for the rides rather than an all-day pass. (They changed around 1980, I think. I had been to Disneyland maybe a dozen times as a kid, and I recall being enthused about not having to have a ticket book when I went to Dollywood in 1979. We had a simple pass when we went to Disneyland again in 1982 or so.) The ticket books featured A Tickets, B Tickets, and so on up to E Tickets, each type being good for a different class of rides. The really cool ones (the Matterhorn Bobsleds and such) were E Ticket rides (and you never got enough of those tickets in the booklet!), while the A Tickets were the extremely tame rides like the King Arthur Carousel and Sleeping Beauty Castle. Today, 20-plus years from the end of the ticket books (and even a decade ago, only 10-plus years out, when I wrote one of my earliest letters of comment on the subject), people forget this and they assume that “A” was the best thing, perhaps like getting grades in school. And thus, when someone refers in print to some experience being “a real ‘A Ticket’ ride,” I can only roll my eyes and bitch quietly to myself.
Updated on November 23, 2003
Updated on October 13, 2010
According to the tickets shown on this site, Sleeping Beauty Castle was a C Ticket in 1957, reduced to a B Ticket in 1959.
This site indicates it as an A Ticket in 1972; I would have been at Disneyland as early as 1969 (age 3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
