See that? That's my "political compass," which puts me in the lower left quadrant in the left-of-center, libertarian block.
I'm a registered Democrat; I just voted in the Democratic primaries in my city for a Democrat for my assemblyman and other Democrats for state senators -- I chose the ones that were for affordable housing, or women's health, or against fracking in upstate. The guy I voted for is for LGBT rights, and even public health care. I don't have insurance and just checking again, I found that it would cost me $415 a month with a $10,000/year deductible, or $2500 a month for a family of three even with the cheapest company.
On most of the issues that the Political Compass deals with, I'm aligned with the lefties, radicals, and libertarian extremists at Sluniverse.com, for example. I'm four-square for gay rights and gay marriage, with no conditions. I personally oppose abortion, but I recognize it as the law of the land and a choice for others without my beliefs. Public health care doesn't scare me -- I studied in Canada and Russia -- but I'm critical.
There are things that just don't show up on this Compass that encompass my beliefs that don't align with the Shariaites at Slun -- I oppose the state mandating companies to offer birth control and abortion-inducers in their health insurance and I think Sandra Fluke is a grand-standing contrived edge-case. There is no need to make the government pay for your birth control in the first place; in the second place, there is no need to make the Jesuits pay for it. Go down the street to Planned Parenthood, also state funded, and pick up your IUD or pills there. That's all! And keep the government out of people's beliefs. No, the Catholic institutions *do* get to keep state funding *even if* they don't agree about this induced abortion policy -- because otherwise, every faith would have to meet a test for every single secular belief of the "progressive" state and others wouldn't pass on other things, and the loss to separation of church and state would be grave.
I'm for gay marriage -- but what I can't express on that chart is that I'm not for boycotts of businesses and people who don't share these views. They get to have their traditional views. That's their right, both to freedom of religion and freedom of expression under the First Amendment. In other words, I'm libertarian on this score -- I'm all for First Amendment rights, and that means not coercing people by the state -- as officials in Chicago and Boston have done by saying they won't issue business permits on the basis of a belief or practice.
I'm a human rights activist, and my views about the Health & Human Services birth control issue, and about the disgraceful and aggressive boycotts and heckling and harassment of Komen (which for a time opposed abortion funding of sub-grantee Planned Parenthood), and chick-fil-A, a business ran by a man who favours traditional marriage between a man and a women is that they are antithetical to human rights. If your VP for public relations has a heart attack and dies over public bullying; if you livelihood is threatened due to boycotts not over any documented actual discrimination against gays, but a viewpoint in favour of traditional marriage, what kind of freedom of speech do you have? You don't.
The left and the libertarian right has no concept of pluralism -- a world in which all the squares on that grid get to co-exist and live and have their being, freely and fully, without being brow-beaten, harassed, coerced, silence by threats to their livelihood or business or even safety.
The people on Sluniverse don't share this rights-based perspective, because they are happy to first heckle and harass, then mute, then ban anyone who disagrees with their rigid, shrill, sanctimonious "progressive" take on the issues.
I'm not a Republican, and I've never voted Republican for a president in my life. I usually vote straight-ticket Democrat; I voted for Governor Pataki after 9/11. I've even voted for Green Party members. I loathe Ayn Rand. I find her merely a mirror-image of the Bolsheviks she opposed, with the same rigidity and harshness and utopianism gone awry -- just like the people of this popular SL forum, in fact, their anonymity amplifying their unreasonably lunacy.
I don't like Sarah Palin, I don't drive an SUV, I don't watch Fox News or even have a TV; I don't shop at Wal-mart, although if I get the opportunity when out of state, I will. In other words, all the things always said of me are bullshit, but I don't care.
The point is, that even with my stellar credentials over the years of voting Democrat, embracing all rights, including LGBT and what are euphemistically called "reproductive rights," even with my social and ecological awareness, I'm voting for a Republican.
I don't like some of Romney's views -- I'm dead against his take on gay marriage. But when I watch this video spread as agitprop by moveon.org, surprisingly, I remain a Romney voter. Why? Because while I exactly believe what this gay veteran said -- "Why the hell" can't he have equal rights and death benefits from a partner killed in action, for example -- I find that Romney comes across as calm, truthful, and sincere, and Moveon.org's mascot comes across as contrived and politicized. He tells us he is gay, but we don't know if he has a gay partner in the military, or whether that's an edge case. He's right that he should have these rights to marriage and benefits -- and he'll have to fight to have them in his state. I'm happy my state has these rights to marriage, although benefits from the military are not available yet.
Romney simply comes across as so much more sincere and straight than Obama ever does, that there's no question of my choice, even with a diametrical disagreement with him on this lifestyle issue.
Why? Because I don't think presidents belong in our sex lives anyway, and that eventually, in time, we will have gay marriage rights everywhere. The president will not roll back abortion or gay rights, such as they are, on his term, as he will be preoccupied with other things. These matters are being decided by states -- work on your state politicians and stop endlessly obsessing on these issues in national elections. They are merely deliberately trolled and contrived to try to keep in power a stealth-socialist president and his cronies. No thanks!
I don't think for one goddamn minute that any Republican is going to take away the right of any woman to have sex when and with whom she wishes; to use birthcontrol; and to avail herself of a timely abortion. Not one minute. The entire charade is contrived and manipulated, and seems fiendishly to distract from the real conservatives of the world taking away women's rights in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, and even all these celebrated hearths of the Arab Spring like Tunisia and Egypt.
Because the Political Compass, even if it puts you down in the left quadrant, doesn't enable you to express your opposition to socialism and communism. It doesn't enable you to say that no, you don't think communism is a good idea just never implemented properly. It doesn't enable you to say that no, you don't think state health care or care for the poor or public education are socialism -- if they aren't coercive (like forcing you to pay a fine if you don't sign up) or harshly redistributive (i.e. not means-tested).Why isn't Obama's health care plan for the nation like those already in place in the states like ChildHealthcare Plus -- a) non-coercive b) means-tested?
There are no nuances on the Compass, which was in any event devised by lefties for sure, so as to avoid explosing their authoritarianism and where they'd *really* be on the square if we could get all the answers honestly.
If there were questions that asked whether the makers of the hateful anti-Muslim video should be arrested or have the video pulled, there'd be many "progressives" who would say "yes" -- and that should move them up in that authoritarian quadrant. If there were a question that asked whether people who criticized gays, expressed contempt to gays, or espoused traditional marriage from public positions should be sanctioned in some way, the "progressives" would answer "yes" -- and rightly move into the authoritarian quadrant. If there was a question that asked whether the stock market should be closed and the investors arrested, in keeping with Occupy Wall Street's demands, there would be "progressives" who said yes -- and then should move into the authoritarian part of the quadrant, as they are against free enterprise and freedom of association. And so on. But the square doesn't expose authoritarianism -- really -- except from the right.
The worst thing about all these people is in every argument, when they are challenged, or even bested, they whine that you are trying to take away their right to freedom of expression. That's appallingly outrageous. What they do in fact is try to place a politically-correct chill over expression -- and this puny whimper that they are somehow "victimized" because you refuse to be coerced into agreeing with them, is itself a violation of free debate.
Again, these people have no vision of pluralism, where people in different camps in fact remain in them; where views are not changed; where the clash of perspectives is perpetuated forever, and understandably so, given different interest groups.
This week, we've been treated to an outrageous spectacle of the left indulging in the kowtowing of essentially calling for a blasphemy law in the United States and the world -- just like the Islamists. They want to silence Romney's critique of Obama's handling of the Middle East crisis, and want to make this the watershed for his failed campaign. Nonsense. I'm with James Kirchick all the way on this on Index on Censorship. The timing of the Cairo message isn't the issue; whether you pre-emptively apologize to potential raging mobs for hurting their feelings, or apologize after they've already killed our ambassador, you're still apologing, and it *is* indeed an apology to over-empathize with hurt feelings of people who justify murder with their insult.
And there's no space on the square to again, affirm that what we need is more debate and more frank talk and more exposure of these bad decisions, not less -- we don't have a blasphemy law that says "no criticizing the president in times of national crisis".
It's precisely because I tend to care most about foreign policy, as it's always been related to my occupation, that I chose Romney over Obama. Romney isn't terrific and he seems to have something to learn. But I know he has some good advisors and his instincts, far from seeming awkward to me, are right on target. Russia *is* our enemy -- that I can attest to, personally. The Kremlin made us its enemy, and we have to return the favour. This is a country whose generals called for a missile strike against us if we deploy defense against Iran. Iran! Iran -- against whom Moscow won't make sanctions because it would harm their banking business, as they say frankly and directly in the glare of a summit with Hillary.
I could go on and on about foreign policy failures in the Obama Administration but I've written a lot on my other blogs and don't want to take the time now. The 2009 Cairo speech was an unnecessary capitulation and dangerous rejection of human rights principles, and the capitulation has continued and we see the results.
What worries me even more than Obama -- who is forced to govern more towards the center -- are the Obama supporters among rigid, shrill, ideological "progressives" who gain so much strength and funding from Obama being in power. If he comes back for another four years, all sorts of bad things will continue to happen -- bills like SOPA, dealing with copyright and security will be defeated. Bradley Manning may be pardoned -- a terrible setback for our security and for the legitimate meaning of classified diplomacy in a liberal democratic government -- and a dangerous backing of those who persecuted the WikiLeaks sources and harmed them -- and harmed them most certainly, even if this isn't trumpeted from every web site so as not to paint further tarets on their back. Tyrants in Iran, Russia, Sudan, China will gain more purchase on international affairs -- and they are responsible for allowing most of the world's killing in Syria and many other places.
The coerciveness of the health and social and lifestyle issues will continue, and that's scary, as it will lead to more backlash from the right. I was reading about Putin's cult-of-personality antics today, his flying with the cranes, and the firing of Masha Gessen, an editor who refused to send a reporter to cover his vanity stunt. He summoned the journalist and the editor and tried to explain why he took part in these charades, and even suggested the reporter shouldn't be fired. She declined to accept what amounted to a Kremlin re-appointment -- good for her.
But in watching all this, I was reminded of somebody. That somebody was Obama. He is Putin-like in his intrusion into the private sector and the civil and political issues. When the president uses his power of office to tell someone defying the Jesuits' wish not to fund her birth control (!) and makes a celebrity and demonstrative model of her, this is coercion for all of us. Where can we turn? When the US government -- president, secretary of state, generals -- tell idiots burning Korans not to do this, or even condemn a hateful video, they are using the power of their official state positions to curb speech, like it or not. The solution to bad speech in this country has always been to supply more good speech -- not to have the president come out and thunder against bad speech. Few people would keep burning a Koran after a general calls them and makes them responsible for deaths overseas -- but in fact the general should make responsible those who demonstrate violently and police who kill demonstrators. They're the problem, not some American loon.
The left has become so harsh, coercive, shrill, amplified, obnoxious, and so interfering with the rights of others that it's becoming scary. Imagine, like base and common KGB agents, setting up a system with "flag@whitehouse.gov" to report on your neighbour if his blog is out of line with the president's views. Calling everybody a "liar" if they simply don't interpret the same set of data as you. Endlessly "fact-checking" every little thing in the most tendentious and trolling manner.
Implying that there is a sole scientific truth somewhere, accessible to those of "progressive" tilt. Awful! My vote for Romney is about reversing this tilt, and chastising Democrats who have to straighten up and put back somebody like the Clintons as their leader. Hillary Clinton's speech at Eid-al-Fitr in fact sounded the right notes -- she said what so many people have said in their blogs and news comments: Christians, Jews, Buddhists don't go on violent rampages when they are insulted. Nothing justifies violence. But it took Romney's probing statements to shake the Obama Administration to saying just that finally -- when they should have opened with it.
I rarely get on my Prokofy twitter these days, I just find so many more topics interesting than Second Life, to be honest, and tend to blog more on my other blogs as a result. When I logged on the other day, I saw Cristiano served up to me as "People You May Want to Follow". Half the time Twitter, like Facebook, serves up enemies!
So I thought to myself, maybe I will follow Cristiano, because perhaps his feed has the news that is actually contained in some of the threads on his site. I do go back now and then to read Sluniverse just to find out the real story on mesh or the JIRA or whatever -- and sadly, it's where you have to go to see Rodvik's sparse commentary to the community, such as it is.
But then I discovered that his feed was filled with stupid, lame bashes on the GOP. Ignorance. Hatred. Just stupid. It's like a male bonding ritual.So I told him off -- it was really proof positive that there is no freedom or pluralism at Sluniverse.com and it is a rigid cult.
Later inworld, Cocoanut IM'd me about getting some land. I hadn't heard from her in months, I don't think she's been logging on as she's been busy with other things. She mentioned this hateful thread on Slun asking whether people would vote for Romney (silly, because we know in advance there'd be only "one" or "two" in the "yes" column), and once again that puny little loser Joshua Nightshade was harassing her ("90 pounds of boy inside 100 pounds of dick" to quote a variation on what was so aptly said about Tizzers). He was even calling her foul words, hiding behind Australian usage. Nothing ever changes there. That little cunt -- to use the British usage, you know! -- sent Cocoanut a picture of my door he got from a griefer once, and ever since has been squealing in self-justifying rage at everyone pointed out that this is *just another form of griefing, der*. Child abusers have, among their repertoire, habits like over-anticipating that their victims might be cold and putting on their mittens. This pattern of behavior is well known. Joshua either entirely concocted the story, or injected himself as "hero reporter" into the story and acted as if he was a good samaritan -- when he isn't. He never revealed the name of the griefer, which could have been useful. He claimed to file an AR. But when *I* described this all to a savvy Linden, that Linden *rolled their eyes* literally in hearing his alibi. He involved Cocoanut as part of another tactic that terrorists use -- get someone to do something that will upset their friend and be coerced into a griefing stunt. It all stinks. And the more honest and intelligent sorts on Sluniverse.com get it, because Joshua has perpetrated these stunts on others.
I didn't give any brief to Cocoanut to start a thread -- we only spoke AFTER she happened to go and get involved in this thread on Sluniverse, and only I HAPPENED to remark to Cristiano that he was a jerk on Twitter.
When Jack Abraham made a reasonable and sound statement on why he was voting for Romney, the harpies of Slun went after him. Ridiculing, associating him with their caricatures like Rush Limbaugh. Never answering substantively, then accusing him of being unwilling to debate them.
Well, leave Sluniverse to its own fate, it is not emblematic of any Better World, it is not an experiment in good governance in the virtual world, it's not even a very interesting discussion board. Not with only one rigid point of view!
If he pissed on a cross, he'd still be in bed.
P.S. I forgot to respond to Chip Midnight's screed on Slun. He thinks that he's achieved some grand "gotcha" by calling me out as a right-winger when I called him, Enabran and Cristiano right-wingers back in the day.
I'll explain.
Note that he skips over the problem of Enabran -- Enabran was always pronouncing very clear right-wing views on the old forums and seemed to be a Ron Paul type of nerd.
As for Chip and Cristiano, if they turn out to be "progressives" on the authoritarian part of the grid -- that part that the biased Compass doesn't even show -- great, but here's why these seem like conservatives, even creator-fascists:
1. Chip would constantly stump for a privileged class of creators -- yes, Second Life should be a Renaissance Fair, where the creators had special booths and privileges and the rest of us rubes just came and gawked or bought their trinkets. Wasn't Chip for the idea, purveyed by another creator-fascist Cienna Samiam, who called for creators to be exempt from texture upload fees? Chip would constantly advocate against land barons on the forums, against the more democratic and accessible telehubs, because it ruined his privileged oldbie oligarch position. Indeed he was conservative, in the sense of wanting "no business but my business". He favoured a crackdown on any free speakers on the forums who criticized his class, and he was for maintaining his class privileges. A smug and not terribly bright guy who is typical of the clutchy and oppressive merchant class in these games and worlds
2. Cristiano was much the same, but went even further in trying to control the advertisement of island parcels. He was furious that new tools made it (then) possible to put parcels, not entire islands, out to rent, and thereby enlarged the economy and enlarged the share of it going to land barons. As a creator-fascist and guild-meister of the FIC, he was outraged that anyone else get at the SL economic pie. He was also opposed to telehubs. He has all these years maintained class privilege for this strange amalgam of licentious and hedonistic hippiedom and libertarian orthodoxy that you find in the Sluniverse public.
When all you can see of a person is their Second Life behaviour and you don't discuss with them all their other beliefs, they can appear a certain way. And even seeing now that Chip is an Obama voter, for gay rights, etc. etc. I don't change my assessment -- he is a libertarian only for his own class, and oppressive as to freedom for the rest of us. He is not for a truly free economy or free enterprise.
There might be an interesting debate about whether this is merely a tactic of class warfare, and not really a political position, but who wants to have it with Chip Midnight? He's an ass. As for Cristiano, he bans people who criticize his special ones, including his buddy Joshua Nightshade and the curious harridan Weedy Herbst, who has in any event disappeared from the scene.
FWIW Prok, I have never thought Coco followed your instructions, was your surrihate, lackey or any of that bunph.
Coco is very much her own person, and always have been.
And further, while I may disagree with Coco politically, when I argue wityh her on SC, there is never any malice involved from either of us.
AS far as I'm concerned Coco is a fundamentally good person, and that's what's most important.
Posted by: Lucifer | September 17, 2012 at 05:20 PM
SURROGATE, damn, I can't type for toffee tonight.
Been up for almost 36 hours though (with a disturbed sleep of about 2 hours this afternoon.
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.
Posted by: Lucifer | September 17, 2012 at 05:22 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/devastating.php?ref=fpblg
Reagan was at least born lower middle class... but he still brought too many techno bankers to washington.. and that was 1980.
I think anyone who calls his business BAINE and is a boomer.. is trouble.
Posted by: c3 | September 17, 2012 at 07:10 PM
You should read this article:
http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/05/wall-street-journals-kim-strassel-vampire-capitalism-please
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 17, 2012 at 08:02 PM
Mitt Romney is what we Europeans, and frankly all other civilized people, call a "far-right nutjob". Nobody in Europe would take a person with such outrageous extremist views on the world seriously. The guy's family even fled the United States to avoid a ban on bigamy, and Romney himself is a "Grand Wizard" or something like that in that very cult. And btw., your hero just lost the election: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser
Posted by: Anna Leisen | September 17, 2012 at 09:00 PM
You Europeans are out of touch with reality, even your own reality.
Say, how's gay marriage rights coming along in Europe?
Looks like you don't have them -- because civil union or property recognition is just not the same thing as recognizing marriage, as we now have in New York State.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2012/0510/Gay-marriage-laws-around-the-globe/Europe
Sweep around your own door.
Also, learn some basic principles of international law and universal human rights.
The sins/crimes/actions of the father don't extend to the son. Unless you think perhaps we should make Obama a Muslim because his father was? That would be wrong.
Why can't Romney be a Grand Wizard in his club/religion/whatever? You're a Grand Wizard in your...whatever it is that floats your boat.
Are you not for freedom of belief and expression?!
As for "losing the election," well, we'll see. I don't think so.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
How about educating yourself a little? I live in a country with same sex marriage as established by the national parliament. I'm an LGBT person myself. Almost all of Europe (at least western Europe) either allows gay marriage or fully equivalent civil unions. The United States, on the other hand, does not allow gay marriage and doesn't even have any form of recognition of same-sex couples. It's the law on the national level that's important. Most of the United States has no recognition of same-sex couples. The United States on the national level has no such recognition. The actions of a small minority of local authorities doesn't change that, and they aren't even recognised in the US as a whole.
When right-wing politicians in Poland talked about reintroducing the death penalty some years ago, the reaction in Europe was strong and the country wouldn't dream of seriously attempting that. Hardly any country, not even Russia, has death penalty in Europe. Universal health care is taken for granted. Most countries recognise same-sex couples in one form or another. The United States, by comparison, kills people, (mostly) doesn't recognise same-sex couples, doesn't even provide basic health care services to its citizens and so on and so on, and is what we would call a developing country by European standards. It doesn't help that religious and far-right lunatics play such an important role in the country. If an extremist like Romney were to rule the country, it would be generally comparable to various African and Arab developing countries where religion and fundamentalist beliefs also play an important role.
Posted by: Anna Leisen | September 17, 2012 at 10:45 PM
i read it..
gotta break some eggs when you gamble the governments money:)
btw- its 10pm.. do you know what you're Romney just said? ;)
i dont want a grand wizard as president... i dont want a jedi or a priest or rabbi either...
anyhow--- i dont think he or obama can dig us out of our hole... but of the two i think obama will keep the hole open to the air longer...
what romney will bring will cover us deeper, sooner.
by us... i mean the 47% who arent making 250k or less;0 a year...:) you know the former middle class..who now are victims and dependent of our 25.00 a month food stamps.... as we pay 15% taxes on 15k a year.
Posted by: c3 | September 17, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Stop feeling sorry for yourself, c3.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 17, 2012 at 10:48 PM
im a victim..lol
Posted by: c3 | September 17, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Europe's a big place, Anna, and you're only writing abuot your own country. Civil unions are not equivalent. I'd like to see a tabulation of where there is really full-fledged gay marriage laws.
And let's stop a minute and ask ourselves: why are you getting your knickers in a twist over a fellow liberal democratic country that has the rule of law and all kinds of treaties with your country, and not concentrating your ire on what's right next door to you? Er, Russia? Why don't you put some pressure on *those* conservatives! They've just put women in jail merely for singing the wrong song in church, for two years! Can't you get more outraged at THAT?
You have a poor grasp of how the United *States* goes by *states' rights*. Not everything is done through federal law. Actually, some other European countries in the Council of Europe are the same. Again, Russia, for example, a federated state! It's better to make progress state by state than withold rights that some populations are willing to get out of the way of while a federal law is awaited.
As for the death penalty, no argument there, but again, you truly, really, seriously need to worry about *extrajudicial killings* which you have everywhere from Belarus to Russia to Kazakhstan -- again, right next door, and upon which you depend for gas. There are hundreds of such cases especially in the Caucasus.
Actually, you have the same benighted notion about health care as most people in Europe. Again, look at states, which provide to those with low incomes plenty of health care, the envy of Europe! Especially for children and old people. And even if you don't qualify, if you land in an emergency ward and can't pay, you will be treated, and then pay over time. Not perfect, but beats the problem that you are all facing with aging populations needing more social services, and no births -- and an influx of immigrants who immediately become welfare dependent.
Romney isn't an extremist -- please save terms like "extremist" for people who massacre Sikhs or even shoot Congresswoman Slaughter's office window. Try to get a grip, Anna. No one is threatening your sex life -- you can do ABSOLUTELY anything you want. So you are free to take on the real needy of the world, like the people of Russia. Or, how about Libya or Egypt? There, you have your work cut out for you!
I have to laugh out loud at your comparison of Romney, who has a normal religion with no extremities in its beliefs that actually harm people (although it has some awful ideas, like the notion that Jewish people and those of other faiths have to be "baptised" and "saved" after they are dead). But to compare that to the backward beliefs of some African tyrant who thinks AIDS is caused by the CIA or is curable by having sex with virgins, it's a long shot.
Oh, the looniness of Europe! The continent of so many horrors from which so many of us have fled!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM
It doesn't help that spiritual and far-right lunatics perform such an essential part in the nation. If an extremist like Mitt Romney were to concept the nation, it would be usually comparable.
Posted by: Mumbai Schools | September 18, 2012 at 02:29 AM
I often think that the right of free speech/expression in the USA developed into a very perverted version of that idea. If that guy from chick-fil-A for example would have simply stated his belief and opinion: good for him! If he doesn't like LGBT rights - well, he doesn't have to marry another man, right? But he wants to impose *his* belief on the whole nation, thereby denying other americans equal rights. Other americans who have no plans to deny *him* equal rights! And he spends big money for that. Again: if LGBT get equal rights, *his* rights and life are not restricted at all - if *his* idea of society prevails, lots of people are denied rights that he himself enjoys. In my eyes, this goes far beyond free expression, this is (to use a big word) "war". The call for a boycott was a stupid PR disaster - i would have simply decided to not go there myself. But hey, he dishes out, he has to live with the echo.
Another example would be the Westboro Baptist Church - what they are allowed under the "right of free speech" simply shows just how perverted this right became. They are actually hurting and endagering other people - how can *that* be a protected right? Hate mongers like them pave the ground to actual attacks on LGBT people, they poison the minds (often of young people or other easily to influence people) and thereby encourage them to take the action that they themselfs carefully avoid. But hey, that's okay, they didn't kill Matthew Shepperd, they just like to party about his murder. Or the KKK - the US version of free speech gives them free reign as long as they don't pull the trigger themselfs. Does the USA need a historic lesson from Germany? The Holocaust didn't start by a whole people suddenly pushing a button and say "from now on, we kill the jews" - no, it started by speech, by words, by indoctrination. The word is sharper than the sword.
There has to be a balance between rights and responsibilities. But the USA is a very black&white place, with an extremist view on many things. Does it take some personal experience like losing a son or daughter to realize that "freedom of expression" is an all nice and shiny concept, but in reality an empty hull that gets abused and perverted by those playing the system?
Posted by: Daniel Regenbogen | September 18, 2012 at 03:21 AM
Daniel, you're a PERFECT example of what's so terribly wrong with the left -- and especially in Europe! -- regarding basic notions of liberties and honesty in debate.
I don't know where you got the idea that this guy "wants to impose his ideas on the whole nation". How can one business man who owns a chicken sandwich chain do that?! He's not an elected politician and his business is not that wealthy. He can *express these views* because he believes them; he can actually fund organizations that want the amendment to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman as a First Amendment act of expression and freedom of association as well. But he cannot *impose that*. He can *lobby* for it, but he and his organizations and businesses are not in any position to impose this, likely even on their own families. If you're gay, you're gay. Why do *different* opinions and the *plurality* of opinions scare you so much, and make you imagine that these people, in MERELY EXPRESSING ideas you don't like ALSO have the power to put them into law and practice? They don't.
But Obama does. He and his cronies are in power. That's the scary part.
Can you not grasp that a free and open society involves the interplay of different forces, parties, groups, ideas? And they will not be those you share, and they compete. Most decisions are compromises. The gay marriage issue is a compromise in that some states have it; some don't. So work on persuading those who get their backs up over it *because they fear their own beliefs will be stifled and they will be unable to have their own traditions*. And...why can't they? They are NOT in fact imposing them on others!
It was HUGELY contrived that the chick-fil-A guy was "imposing" or "coercing" his views -- by sharp, sharp contrast with *Obama* and his friend Sandra Fluke and the National Health bureaucrats, who *did* impose their views on how health insurance should be run *against the conscience* of Catholics *and needlessly so*. It is precisely HHS that was the turning point for me to vote AGAINST Obama -- because it goes against the heart and soul of our nation's freedom. I don't expect you to grasp this because you aren't for freedom; you're for hedonistic licentiousness for yourself -- and don't anybody get in your way, or else! But you aren't for pluralism.
The chicken guy never said he would not serve gays; he never said he hated gays; he never said "let's all get rid of gay marriage and punish gay sex" -- ALL he did was a) espouse his OWN beliefs in traditional marriage b) donate to groups that promote the same beliefs (and the effort to scarify us all into believing those organizations actually take away gay rights come to naught, as they are intact).
That's what really appalls me -- that people like you cannot accept the obvious, truthful parameters of this debate and what this guy actually says and what Romney actually says. At every turn, you shriek, moan, and wail that your freedoms are being taken away, when they ARE NOT. Instead, you are busy *taking them away from others*. And goddamn, we will push the fuck back.
Right back at you with equal rights -- which you really aren't for, as most gay activists. HE loses nothing by YOU having rights but guess what, it works in both direction. YOU LOSE NOTHING if he goes on spouting traditional marriage, donating to groups demanding it, voting for congress people who want it. *Nothing happened to you*. Have as much gay sex as you want in any state and marry in some -- that's already progress. Meanwhile, you and yours are busy with Sandra Fluke and Obama taking away people's right to *their* choice and conscience.
As for the boycott, glad you concede that was stupid -- but maybe because it didn't work? It spawned rightwing calls to go and give the chicken people business -- ooops, backfired there.
As for the Westboro people, you find that especially nasty because they preach against gays. But gays preach against them. It's all part of free speech. The court case is exactly right. Local communities are in their rights to restrict them as to time, place and manner so they don't actually get in the face of funerals. It really is a stretch to say that those loons cause attacks on gays. Attacks on gays existed before Westboro and exist where it has no reach for other reasons. And they will increase if people feel their own lifestyle is threatened and undermined and they are being bullied. It doesn't work. I was outraged when an ex-friend who is lesbian and got married, and whose marriage and rights I supported, heckled and hectored me when I objected to gay male promiscurity as a moral problem -- something she also didn't support -- and insisted that my faith and Church had to go along with the NHS "or else" we were undermining women's rights. My sense of disgust goes very, very deep on this because it is a major challenge to our basic rights and so unnecessary.
Say, do you get the difference between killing Matthew Shepperd and other gays, and just celebrating them? I don't think you do. Maybe that's why we never heard a word from you or any on the hedonistic left when the chick-fil-A PR guy died of a heart attack.
As for lessons from Germany -- say, Germans really disgraced themselves lately, given their past, with the outrageous anti-Israel venom around Heinrich Boll's poem, and with the outlawing of circumcision. Nazism didn't just start with words and indoctrination. It started with the weakness of civil society -- when it could not remain independent from the state; when freedom of thought, conscience and belief could not be respected.
There doesn't have to be any such thing as a "balance between rights and responsibilities." That's one of those socialist Soviet ideas used actually to suppress civil liberties. It's a concept constantly fought back at the UN as authoritarian states constantly use it to impose duties on citizens -- and gay rights are the first to go under that concept, believe me. The behaviour of individuals is restrained by two things: a) morals, from institutions like school and church and family and b) criminal law. Everything you think has to be some coerced responsibility the state forces people to do is in fact covered by *criminal law* and law in general in a democratic state under the rule of law. So the Supreme Court deals with cases of "incitement to imminent violence" -- and that video doesn't meet the test. Egypt should worry more about this video because they are the ones who showed in on TV.
The US is filled with lots of nuances and diversity -- way more than Europe with its multiparty systems, due to the horrid political correctness of the intellectuals. There's no such thing as "abusing freedom of expression" -- that's language straight out of that stupid statement from the US Embassy in Cairo. If someone has actually violated actual just law, then they are tried. You don't "abuse" a right by using it to its fullest. That concept in fact claws back a right. I fail to see why the death of somebody's son or daughter would mean that we must all give up our freedom of expression. It's not a cure.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 18, 2012 at 04:18 AM
Prok, as american, you should know that money IS power, especially political power. Alone what is spent in the presidential election campaigns could easily feed the hungry kids in two or three african countries for a couple of years. So, yes, this guy *is* making sure that his beliefs are pushed onto others. Focus on Family and such make sure to show *their* beliefs and influence people in actions like Prop8, deciding topics that should never be put to a majority vote. Without the money from people like the chick-fill-A owner, their nasty influence would be much lower.
And no, I'm not taking away freedom from others. Gay rights activists fight for *their* rights - not to take away rights from others. The rights of conservative christians are in *no* way influenced by gay rights advocates. They can still believe in their imaginary higher being, they can still live after the 10 commandments (which they usually do in a very selective way, depending how they suit them best). What they can not - and should never be able - is to make others to live by *their* self chosen rules.
And where do *I* lose nothing if he puts money to organizinations who very actively fight *my* equal rights? And you should know how many rights and advantages come with the federal recognition of the status "married".
So, you think it is okay to celebrate the murder of someone? Like ... the pictures of partying palestinans (which later were proven to be fakes) after 9/11? And you don't think that stuff like that can influence others into thinking "I have to follow in their footsteps!"?
I see that Germany disgraced itself with being blind on the right eye, allowing a neo-nazi group to kill 10 non-german business men over a couple of years because our security services failed to do some proper investigation. About the poem: I guess you mean the one by Guenter Grass "Was gesagt werden muss/What has to be said" - now now now... He only praticed free speech, didn't he? How can that be a disgrace? And while there is *never* any excuse for terrorism - their are explainations. That the Israelean settlement policy doesn't exactly help the drive for a peaceful solution shouldn't be that hard to understand. Just as violent attacks on settlers by palestinians doesn't help either.
Circumcision, interesting topic. Personally I think it should not be allowed without the consent of the child - and that consent can not be replaced by the consent of the parents. It *does* change the function of the sex organ. A religious belief should never be reason enough for a mutilation. What if I found a new religion today that demands to cut off a piece of the left earlobe of each newborn? Would that be okay for you, too? Funnily, most of the anti-gay christians say "God created men zto be with women, men with men or women with women are not normal/natural". Well, God created men with foreskin, too. Taking that from them is not normal/natural.
There definitely needs to be a balance between rights and responsiblities - this isn't a socialist concept, it even is found in the christian belief if I'm not totally wrong. And there are limits to rights, even in the USA - as you can not shout "FIRE!" in a theatre filled with people without being held accountable for panic caused fatalities. I don't see a big difference to for example the WBC people shouting that gays are not worth to live and some weak minded group of rednecks actually believing that and attacking a gay man leaving a gay bar.
So, you are a mom, right? Now, if that gay man coming out of a gay bar being killed by that bunch of idiots was your son - and they said "We listened to Rev Phelps and his church, and after hearing his sermon, decided to do what god wants us to do." - would you still be there defending the WBCs right of free "expression"? Would you be ready to pay *that* price for a right turned into a dogma which todays status (in my mind) is far away from what the founding fathers wanted it to be? I don't think those who gave the people of the USA these rights ever planned for them to be used in such a way. Actually I'm sure they would rotate in their graves if they would know.
The capitalist system that you seem to prefer, with total freedom without any rules on responsibilities, in my eyes is doomed just as much as the communist idea. Both depend on a kind of "perfect human being" that does what is right from a deep sense of morals and ethics, living to not hurt or damage the dreams and lives of others. Sadly, I haven't seen that either in the leaders of communist countries nor in the top managment of Goldman Sachs, the government of the USA or the Catholic Church. Best alternative I can see right now is the "social market system" of the european countries, as flawed as it is. Interestingly, the countries where the people are considered the most happy, are in norhtern europe. Countries with the highest rates of taxes and fees (and countries with legalized gay marriage :-) People there might not enjoy the same level of "freedom of expression", and they might get punished by law if they did the same that the WBC does - but that doesn't seem to lower their level of happiness...
Posted by: Daniel Regenbogen | September 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM
I don't have time for a long answer now but you're still not getting it.
Please find an example where a right-winger has been able to forcibly suspend a gay person's rights in America. I'll wait.
As distinct from *advocating* something about either their own traditional values or their desire to have others follow them.
You don't grasp the difference between speech, which is protected, and action, which can't be criminalized unless it really is unlawful under the law.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 18, 2012 at 02:48 PM
I am disappointed in your analyses Prokofy. I expected to discover a few faults of the left I might have been unaware of - to perhaps make me even question my vote for the left just a little. Instead you say you're not voting for Obama because the voices on the left trying to get their rights are too strident? Change in society is never easy, and those trying to make changes can't be perfect - why penalize them because some are too much 'up in your face'? I don't condone violence, but even if some of them started setting off bombs it would not deter my vote for Obama. Most important in the vote this year is the relief for the poor that the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will bring. Finally, the working poor will have coverage. This trumps everything. You may think you have enough medical coverage at emergency rooms and clinics but you don't. Try getting a needed operation under the present system if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Luna Bliss | September 18, 2012 at 02:56 PM
You're not getting that speech *is* action already. Focus on the Family, Family Research Council and so on are actively working on denying gay persons equal rights. They place themselfs as "experts", advising politicians on lawmaking, advising voters on how to vote. They spend money on media campaigns to stop or take back equal rights for gay americans (funnily in the chick-fill-A case, part of that money comes from gay customers, one of the reasons why I understand putting this fact into the public eye).
The editor of "Der Stürmer", the nazi-german hate magazin, never killed a single jew himself - he just published articles like "being jewish is being criminal". So he only used his right of free expression and should have not been punished, right? Joseph Goebbels never killed a jew himself, as far as I know he also never personally gave an order to do so - he just used his right of free expression to sprew hatred against jews amongst the german population. He wasn't a criminal, right?
Drawing an artificial dividing line between the words that lead to an action (spoken with the clear intention to exactly do that) and the action itself doesn't work. "I only expressed myself, I'm not responsible for what happens because of that" is not an excuse at all.
Posted by: Daniel Regenbogen | September 18, 2012 at 03:08 PM
and not a single mind was changed that day
Posted by: Internet Debate | September 18, 2012 at 03:10 PM
Why are you not posting my comments?
Posted by: Luna Bliss | September 18, 2012 at 03:15 PM
I am disappointed in your analyses Prokofy. I expected to discover a few faults of the left I might have been unaware of - to perhaps make me even question my vote for the left just a little. Instead you say you're not voting for Obama because the voices on the left trying to get their rights are too strident? Change in society is never easy, and those trying to make changes can't be perfect - why penalize them because some are too much 'up in your face'? I don't condone violence, but even if some of them started setting off bombs it would not deter my vote for Obama. Most important in the vote this year is the relief for the poor that the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act will bring. Finally, the working poor will have coverage. This trumps everything. You may think you have enough medical coverage at emergency rooms and clinics but you don't. Try getting a needed operation under the present system if you don't believe me.
Posted by: Luna Bliss | September 18, 2012 at 03:17 PM
Nobody's "not posting" your comments, Luna. Sometimes they get caught in the spam filter and I can't take them out all the time. I'll get to it.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 18, 2012 at 04:10 PM
Prokofy, maybe it's time for an update? Heinrich Böll died in 1985. Did he write an "anti-Israel poem"? Not that I know of, although there are of course good reasons to oppose what Judith Butler and other liberal-minded calls state violence, and other conscious persons do, not only in Europe. In Europe, those uncritically supporting Israel are almost exclusively found on the far-right and/or Christian fringe.
And "circumcision" is a form of genital mutilation and considered barbaric not only in Germany, but also in other European countries where the associations of paediatricians, children's ombudsmen, and other relevant authorities, recommend a ban (e.g. in Norway). Female genital mutilation (FGM) was also only banned during the last few years, and then the Somali communities screamed about their "tradition" being outlawed. Why should we treat male genital mutilation (MGM) any differently? If people want to mutilate penises, they can do it elsewhere, just not in Europe, and preferably on themselves, not innocent babies who do not consent to have their penises mutilated.
In Europe, we have a much stronger enforcement of human rights than any other part of the world, with specific legal instruments, and a much stronger human rights tradition, which includes the right not to be mutilated. Policy in Europe is, unlike countries like the US, not based on fundamentalist beliefs held by extreme Bible belt groups who hold grossly disproportionate influence, but on a modern society, democratic values, human rights, enlightened debate and science. Europe is the world's most enlightened and advanced continent, and should serve as a model for your country, both when it comes to civil libertities, human rights (death penalty, anyone?), discrimination issues, health care and other areas of public policy, social affairs, and adherence to international law. The US is a very backward country where extremists and nutcases who would not even be taken seriously in Europe wield much political power, and where large parts of the population live in poverty.
Posted by: Anna Leisen | September 18, 2012 at 04:31 PM
Oh, stupid American alert! I mixed up Heinrich Boll and Gunter Grass. But the principle applies. And I *do* know better!
I actually personally believe that baby boys shouldn't be circumcised. But I'm not going to adopt the politically correct stance on this and campaign against "genital mutilation" regarding a procedure that has performed safely on millions for hygenic reasons and religious reasons both, that millions found valid.
I do find it fascinating that you Germans are willing to go stumping against Jews on their widely practiced and safe procedure, but not stump as vigorously and with the same seal against female genital mutilation in Africa, which is far worse and has no hygenic purpose.
The Somalis screamed, and *some* liberals fought against FGM, but most did not. That's the fact. I've followed this issue. People hated even discussing it.
I have to roll my eyes at this characterization of the "strong enforcement of human rights" in Europe. So strong, that there have been numerous cases of attacks on Jews as well as Muslims and of course Breivik's massacre. Victims of terrorism just don't matter as much to you Europeans, I guess.
As for enlightenment without religious values, well, hmm, that's not something I agree with. The Enlightenment without religious morals is what gave us the Nazi and Soviet horrors, you know. Did you learn nothing? You don't serve as a model, no. If it hadn't been for us coming and taking over your newspapers literally in Germany after the war, the whole thing might have restarted.
Again, take your liberal sensibilities and indignation to your immediate neighbours in Russia with extrajudicial killings galore. Belarus still has the death penalty. It's far more worrisome when it's practiced in a dictatorship such as Belarus. Or Iran. Work on those cases, we have plenty of lawyers here doing their jobs.
People like you who froth endlessly about "the Bible Belt" are completely out of touch with how policy is made. Police in Europe is very top-down and state-heavy. Civil society is not in fact as richly developed, and there is not as much philanthropic activity to keep it *independent of the state*. It's actually quite weak and easily swayed. The Bible Belt has no grossly disproportionate influence except in the liberal media and your mind. In reality, like I said, everyone is free to have sex with anyone they like as they like, get birth control, and get abortions. Some Bible Belt!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | September 18, 2012 at 04:44 PM
I'm Swedish, not German.
As far as genital mutilation is concerned, people regularly die from complications (in Scandinavia, the discussion on a possible ban was restarted after a child died this year). Other people experience other complications. There are, as scientically established and per recommendations of competent authorities here in Scandinavia, no reason to perform this procedure that is not related to superstition. The fact that the procedure is old is not a relevant argument -- so is female genital mutilation, foot binding, bigamy, stoning, hanging people, slavery, and much more.
I actually consider Russia to be a dictatorship worthy of strong criticism and with an urgent need for a regime change. But the fact that Russia is a dictatorship, doesn't mean the US is excempt from criticism. The US should be compared to western European nations like the UK, Germany or Scandinavia. And even when compared: *Not even* Russia has the death penalty.
As for Romney: He is opposed to the environment, he is opposed to your cherished gay rights, he is opposed to international law, he is opposed to even the most basic principles of a modern society such as universal health care, he is a Mormon fundamentalist, he is thouroughly opposed to human rights, he is opposed to peace, and so on. Everything about the views of this guy is backwards and extremist. For world peace, human rights, the environment and even much of the US population that he despises, he is much more dangerous than Putin (who is not a saint).
Posted by: Anna Leisen | September 18, 2012 at 05:12 PM