Time to Confront the Tea Party

I had a gentleman get on my case the other day, because I have no use for the Tea Party. He told me I wasn't being reasonable, and maybe it was time for moderates to band together and fight liberal takeover in the country. Well, aside from the fact that "liberals" are too disjointed to take over anything, I decided to educate him on just how "moderate" the Tea Party is.

In fact, TeaParty.org, in the "non-negotiable core beliefs" (non-negotiable implies a complete lack of open-mindedness), the following are stated:

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

*****************

Let me take these one at a time.

"Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally"

Won't argue the premise, but if rich people, many of whom vote GOP, stopped creating jobs for them, they'd stop coming to the US. They come because there are jobs here and not there. Those who say Mexico's problems are not America's problems are incredibly naive.

Don't get me wrong. I understand and appreciate the argument about publicly-funded benefits, but that's an easy fix, too. Work closer with Central America governments to get better infrastructure, jobs and benefits there and we won't have to deal with it here.

"Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable."

And if we had fair wages we wouldn't have Americans turning down jobs for which employers feel compelled to hire illegals.

"Stronger Military is Essential"

What exactly does that mean? I was in the military. A well-trained, well-equipped military is a boon in times of international crisis. But there is not one enemy out there that we don't outmatch in terms of technology and training. And among potential enemies, we're not going to match the Chinese in shear numbers. So from whom exactly do we need to be "stronger"?

"Special Interests Eliminated"

Which special interests? Apparently not those interested in lower taxes, more military spending (and if we lower taxes, this makes zero sense), low minimum wages, pro "traditional family" (more on that in a minute) and pro corporate interests. "Special interests" are among those codewords some in the right use for gays and other 14th amendment advocates who, for some reason, think that when the Constitution says "equal protection" and "due process" for all, it means exactly that.

"Gun Ownership Is Sacred"

I'm an advocate of the 2nd Amendment, but the terminology here is interesting. Sacred? Really? Show me that in the Bible. It seems I remember something about false idols in there, but maybe it's just me.

"Government Must Be Downsized"

You get no argument from me, but I may have major differences with the Tea Party on which parts get downsized. Obviously, I'm going to be opposed from cutting any programs that protect women and children, the elderly or the very poor. And I won't even consider scaling them back until I see scale backs on things conservatives like that I don't like.

"Deficit Spending Will End"

Too bad they didn't think about that under Bush. Clinton actually had us out of the red for a while, and Bush ramped up military spending for a needless war in Iraq.

"Bail-out and Stimulus Plans are Illegal"

Great! And if the economy completely collapses when hardcore right-wingers refuse to bail-out some industries, I'll make sure the hungry, homeless masses know where Tea Party headquarters are in every city in in every state. Gun ownership is sacred! :)

"Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must."

Great! Start with the poorest first. For once. But that's not what they want to do. They want to chop the taxes down at the top and roll out the old Reaganesque trickle down. Word to the wise, folks: That didn't work under Reagan and it won't work now. When the flow is trickling by, people tend to dam it at their level, so that nothing reaches the bottom. Thus, Reaganomics only helps the very rich and hurts the very poor and does damned little in between.

"Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory"

Great! Start with small businesses first. For once. Too many laws (including tax laws) are passed to benefit the big dogs. Time to stop paying lip service to mom-and-pop operations and do right by them, instead of using government as the lap dog of Corporate America.

"Political Offices Available To Average Citizens"

Uh, they already are. This is a complete straw man.

"Intrusive Government Stopped"

Unless you mean spying on gays and lesbians, requiring people to do official business in English, looking for green cards and racial profiling at airports. Then the Tea Party is all for that.

"English As Core Language Is Required"

No, you mean Am-ur-ican as core language is a requirement. That's what I hear all the time. "Dammit, ev'ybody needs to speak Am-ur-ican." Usually followed by a diatribe about illegal aliens working at the chicken processing plant and filling up local schools and clinics.

Look, in Europe, practically every kid learns two or more languages. I have found, in my adult life, that the insistence on teaching just one has been one of the major downers in my education. I feel deprived, just because some group of assholes didn't want to have to learn another language. Plus, in America, language is one of the major ways we identify the "other". Always has been and always will be. If we stop treating people like outsiders, we'll stop having outsiders and everyone will feel like an "American". We want to act like it's a "melting pot" culture, but we don't want to let anyone blend in with us in any type of natural way. Some Americans increasingly don't like natural anything. They want to force everything, because they want a sense of control in an increasingly chaotic world. Understandable, but nonetheless wrong-headed.

"Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged"

Which tradition? If you mean one man-one woman and maybe a kid or two, that's not traditional. That's a very recent trend. If you mean church weddings, that's pretty recent, too. In fact, in the middle ages, weddings were held outside of the church because they were considered, as they were practiced then, too vulgar for church (men would practically strip the bride, to "loosen her up for the wedding night"... It's where the practice of tossing the garter came from. Women would carry extra garters in their bodices, to toss to the men, in order to maintain SOME dignity by the time she left the premises). "Traditional" is codeword for "queers not allowed."

"Common Sense Constitutional Conservative Self-Governance"

I would replace 'common sense' with well-educated, since common sense can fail on counter-intuitive reality. Constitutional to them means "everything that I like and nothing I don't, like the 14th Amendment". Conservative means "moderates and commies need not apply. In fact, they can go straight to hell". Self-governance is a misnomer because with these core beliefs, they are not about to let me and my kind govern our own world. They are going to impose their will upon us, if they get the chance.

Nation needs an honest, civil discussion on gay rights

In the aftermath of the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8, I thought it was a good time to assert something I have believed for a while but have never spoken. America badly needs to have an honest discourse on gay rights, especially on the issue of marriage and child adoption. It needs to be happen, because we have many gays and lesbians living in this country, paying taxes and abiding by the law that currently denies them at least two specific rights, in most states, that heterosexuals take for granted. It needs to happen, because otherwise all the talk of equal protection under the law and equal opportunity is just talk.

Most of all, it needs to happen because it's not happening now. Right now, the only talk is for TV cameras, from marches and protests and proxied across courtrooms by attorneys. And until we are talking to each other and not at each other, we cannot come to a reasonable national consensus that addresses concerns while meeting the needs to protect the rights of all Americans.

In painfully slow steps, this nation, over its 200-plus year history has endeavored to work past the sins that some of its people committed against their fellow humans. A war was fought, American against American, and a final verdict on slavery was rendered. A pity that it took almost another hundred years for descendants of formers slaves to get a right to vote. We finally granted rights to women to vote, though it was 144 years from the signing of the Declaration of Independence before it occurred.

Of course, we failed Native Americans completely, baring a shameful record of treaty-breaking that would have made modern con artists swell with pride.

But this isn't meant to be another meandering criticism of America. Despite the ongoing issues regarding those in power and an unwillingness to share that power, at least we are not stuck in an outdated, misogynistic, 12th Century mindset, like some in the world. Social progress has been slow, but at least it has come.

As I said, it is long past time for America to have an honest, open, civil discussion about gay rights. It needs to happen soon. But before I close this post, let me address several possible objections to having such a discussion.

The "Bible Tells Us" argument

I know what other say the Bible says on the issue of homosexuality. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church. But perhaps people who condemn gays and lesbians from the perspective of Scripture got it wrong. Not every Christian believes the rest get it right on using the Bible to condemn homosexuality. So, if Christianity is not monolithic on the issue, the issue is open to honest debate, even among the faithful.

I understand the position of the Fundamentalists, but the truth is, this is an issue of public versus private spheres, and the discussion has to take place outside the private realm of the home, church or local community. The question Christians need to answer is whether or not a disdain for gay rights, based on one's Biblical understanding, is truly sufficient to enforce this belief on an entire nation, many who do not believe as the Fundamentalists do? Just because one doesn't want it in one's own neighborhood does not necessarily mean one has a right to refuse it everywhere.

The "Traditional Family" argument

Many who wish to avoid an honest discourse on gay rights do so by touting "traditional nuclear families." The problem is that the "nuclear family" of one man, one woman and their children is not as traditional as some think. Such families are not Biblical. In fact, such families are a very recent phenomenon. Since there are historically many alternative forms of marriage, is it really right for us to find excuses to skirt a discussion on one more?

I understand the position of those who honor what has become the American norm for families. There is much to be said for the stability offered by the ideal of Mom, Dad and the kids... that Ozzie and Harriet vision of white picket fences and problems with 30 minute solutions. But the truth is, that world never really existed. Modern marriage has averaged a 50% failure rate after five years in many areas of the country. To say that an institution that bears such a miserable track record is the only model we can support isn't much of an argument against alternative forms. Statistics seem to show that gay marriages in Massachusetts, after four years, are more stable than their heterosexual counterparts. Stable enough that favoring "traditional" family structures is not enough to reject a reasonable discussion on those alternatives.

The "Raising Kids Gay" argument

One argument that gets a lot of play among conservatives now is the idea that any and all children raised by gay couples will be "encouraged" into gay lifestyles themselves. Not that this is a valid reason for not having a discussion on gay rights in itself, but it may not even be an issue to begin with. In fact, there are a good many gay parent myths that have been refuted, and hence this is not a good reason for ducking a discussion on gay family rights.

I understand the concerns of parents, who, like myself, want to see children raised in a loving, stable environment and raised in ways that ensure a safe and easy launch into adulthood and self-reliance. But statistics show that gay parents aren't any more likely to raise children who grow up gay than straight parents, and such families have proven, in some studies, to be at least as stable as one man-one woman. As such, fears on how children are raised is not a valid reason to avoid having a civil discussion on the matter.

The "It's Not a Civil Rights Issue" argument

OK, I understand this one. Women can be discerned from men physically. Races can be distinguished one from another visually. Or at least that's the commonly-held belief. Nationalities can be distinguished by accents, sometimes. It's true that we cannot tell a gay person from a straight person just by looking at them, thus one would think it is harder to discriminate against gays unless gays make their sexuality an issue. So the argument that we wouldn't know unless we are told is one that is clung too when all other arguments fail (and I believe is the basis for the laughable "Don't ask, don't tell" compromise in the military... I was in the military, and we had several gay men in the unit. Damned good soldiers, too. None of the rest of us minded, despite what the Army seemed to believe).

The problem is, if we deny a person a basic right others enjoy for reasons that cannot be supported by a justifiable social need, then we denying them civil rights. Of course this is a civil rights issue, meaning we can't use the sentiment as a reason to avoid talking about it.

The "Devaluing Marriage" argument

There are those who say allowing gays and lesbians to marry would devalue marriage, and hence won't even engage in discourse on the matter, considering it case closed. But that begs the question about how such unions would "devalue" marriage between men and women. If the issue is dilution, it has already been pointed out above that traditional marriage is a fairly recent phenomenon, and the existence of other forms has neither slowed down nor devalued such marriages yet. Further, what do we mean by "devalue"? Is a conservative Christian really going to look at his/her spouse differently or with less love if gays gained a right to marry? How silly a notion that would be. I suggest that anyone thinking that the marriage of ANY other couple would somehow diminish the value of one's marriage already has issues in their own bonds of matrimony. Plus, a 50% divorce rate, without gay marriage, doesn't seem to indicate that there is much respect for the institution. Certainly not enough respect to wait until a couple is ready for the commitment or are willing to make a marriage work. Such people don't need to erect a straw man to fight... he/she has problems aplenty, as it is.

Further, the contention that gay marriage is somehow comparable to counterfeit money is ludicrous, at best. Counterfeit money is false money. Gays and lesbians are real people. Do not all real people deserve a right to be heard?

The issue of devaluation should be properly couched in terms of exclusivity. Social conservatives, Fundamentalist Christians in particular, want to maintain marriage as a one man-one woman institution, often for puzzling reasons (or at least unsupportable reasons... see the arguments listed in this post). The talk of devaluation of marriage is nothing more than another tactic to avoid a rational discussion on the issue. It truly makes me wonder if social conservatives are afraid of losing the debate without even having one.

The "Slippery Slope" argument

"If we allow gays to get married, then we'll open the floodgates for all kinds of strange arrangements. Like adults marrying children, or group marriages or folks trying to marry their pets..."

We've all heard this one before. And I'm not saying there's no cause for concern at all, because once you open a door, there is no telling who may try to walk through it. But there are reasonable lines that can be drawn for which no one should cross. It begins with the idea of the public good. We all agree that it is not in the public good to allow adults to have sex with children. We can show that there is no public good to be served by allowing "interspecies marriage", because animals cannot voice their concerns or express free will to join a human companion in this manner. As for communal arrangements, that already occurs in parts of the world, to no ill affect on the American nuclear family. And yes, I have seen the drop in overall marriage statistics from countries that allow gay and lesbian marriages. Yet, cohabitation is on the rise in this country, without gay marriage in the equation. As I said earlier, there is ample evidence that 'traditional' marriage already suffers from a lack of proper respect and honor. Refusing gays and lesbians isn't likely to change that.

The "Majority Rules" argument

Probably the final argument thrown out is, "Well, the majority of voters in CA (and other states) say they don't want it, so that's that."

Not exactly.

See, there was a time when the majority of men didn't want women voting, owning property or working outside a home. There was a time in the American south when the majority of whites didn't want those of African ancestry voting. There was a time when the majority of whites thought it was perfectly OK to take land from indigenous tribes, even if every tribal member had to die to get that land. And there was a time when the majority of company owners thought it was OK to work their employees nearly to death for long hours and miserly wages, while lining their fat pockets on the broken backs and sweat of those workers.

I understand the basic principles of democracy and applaud those who champion them, but let us not forget that democracy isn't a cheap ploy one can use to avoid a difficult social discussion. Just because the majority wants a situation to play out a certain way doesn't mean the majority is right. We have plenty of examples in the past and around the world where the majority was and is wrong. Democracies don't work unless the minority is protected from majority bias. Majority rule doesn't mean the minority gets shafted.

So, there you have it. We need a discussion on gay and lesbian rights to marry and raise children. It needs to be honest and civil, and it ought to take place soon. I'm not saying we ought to make gay marriages and child adoption happen, but we need a damned better argument against allowing it than we've seen. And if we can't find a better one, we need to step out of the way and let it happen.

After all, sooner or later, we ought to do a thing because it's right, not because we had to have a revolution to do the right thing.

**************************************************************

How to convert your home to use greener energy. Find out not only how to save money, but maybe even make some. Click Here for more information!

Intelligent Design is a religious philosophy, not a science

I am continuously astounded by the ongoing controversy surrounding the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. It's not that I have an issue with Christians wanting to be heard on the matter or that I think they have no right to speak on it. But I do have a problem with anyone trying to peddle bad science just because they disagree with the accepted theories in a field. And the idea that Christians are being shut out of the science classroom by some monolithic science cabal is laughable: (a) scientists welcome new ideas, if they represent good science and (b) science has no problem with those who challenge currently held ideas, for that's the only way a science improves.

As for ID, religion has no place in the science classroom. This is not a debatable issue: science and religion are two different species of human endeavor and while there may be some overlap, it is a thin one. And regardless of the semantic quibbling that some proponents of ID have made, it is most certainly religiously based, which means by Supreme Court edict that it cannot be taught in the science classroom.

Let me explain what ID is not by explaining what science is. Natural science is built upon theory, based on observation and experimentation. Science does not pretend to be an arbiter of truth, but rather an arena of fact and logic. There is a distinction.

No real science pretends to be complete and final. Theory is not "truth". Science relies on a theory only as long as something does not come along that defines a better model. But a model is not deemed better simply because it is preferred by some. To be a better model than what is accepted at the time, a theory has to do a better job explaining phenomena in the field of study. That is, a new theory has to describe the processes and mechanics of what is studied in a way that is predictable and falsifiable and do it better than previous theories have done. "Predictable" most understand.

"Falsifiability" is where ID fails as a science.

See, falsifiability is a notion hearkening back to philosopher Karl Popper, a former pro-Communist advocate. He ended up denouncing Marx's philosophy, as a science, for the tendency of its proponents to tweak the "theory" in ad hoc fashion when the theory failed, rather than insist on a better model. Communism, in Popper's mind was on its way to becoming a tautology as a result of never-ending tweaks, and no real science (in his mind) does that.

Consequently, we conduct experiments, based on well-defined hypotheses, or make careful observations, not merely to support our positions, but to provide a basis for disproving them. As long as the experimental results continue to support the model, by not failing, we continue to accept the current model as the best candidate for explaining the universe... or rather the portion that the theory covers. The theory is not "truth" nor the final word on the matter and no real scientist would ever pretend it is.

This is why evolution is the only fit model we currently have for explaining the development, rise and continuation of living things and why the theory serves as a basis for all biological sciences. Evolution does not say there is no "designer", but because such a designer would by necessity be supernatural, such a designer could not be part of any natural model (i.e., a supernatural 'designer' is not necessary for explaining the processes and mechanics of the rise and change in living things). There is room for an alternate or competing theory, but only if such a theory can withstand the same scrutiny and maintain the same standards of predictability and falsifiability that evolution has endured. ID does not meet the standard.

ID does not provide a framework for valid experiments. ID assumes a final, immutable truth on living things. ID has no room for improvement and no way to challenge assumptions made in the theory. ID has no way to "measure" or physically factor in a "designer" and cannot provide a means for how the designer fits the model. In fact, ID cannot survive without the notion of an unseen, unknown and immeasurable "designer", even though such a designer cannot be part of the physical model.

Therefore, ID is no science, but rather a philosophy. And as such, belongs in the humanities.

****************************************************

Want to know how to get over 3000 worldwide TV channels on your PC? Want to know how to get the best streaming video? Click Here for more information!