No Earl Grey at these Tea Parties

I stumbled upon David Weigel's blog for the Washington Post and have been reading up on his notes from the inside of the Conservative movement. This one and the stories it links to caught my eye in a special way. What is the deal with the Tea Party Movement (how I hate to even validate it by calling it so!), anyway? Is it racially driven? Who are these people? Are they as stupid as their signs suggest they are?

This Gallup poll gives us the figures. About 79% of Tea Party members are white, 6% black, and 15% other. Given that the total US population is 11% black, it seems to me that blacks are only half as likely to be tea partiers as people in other races. In addition to being whiter than average, they are more likely to be wealthier than average, less likely to hold an advanced degree, more likely to be a man, and more likely to be a homemaker. Though, your average tea partier is probably not those last two things at the same time. But hey - wealthy, undereducated white men directing their anger at a black politician and his followers...you don't say.

more more more?

The Economist and Me: Climate Change

I'm not saying the editors of the Economist read this blog, but I'd like to thank them anyway for expanding part of my climate change post into a well-structured, fiscally-focused piece for their March 18th edition.

On December 8, 2009, I wrote "...who can argue about scientific findings concerning an issue as big and as old as the planet itself? Just about everybody."

On March 18th, the Economist backed me up by writing,  "if records of temperature across the past 1,000 years are not reliable, it matters little to the overall story" and "the problem lies not with the science itself, but with the way the science has been used by politicians to imply certainty when, as often with science, no certainty exists."

There are some difference of approach, sure. Whereas I implicate the Right's haggling over climate change specifics, the Economist points fingers primarily at the Left for having sold it as such a sure thing to begin with.  I focus on the environmentalism of it, and they on the good financial sense of investing in our protection against something uncertain, but potentially catastrophic and very costly.

Seems fair. Both sides are to blame, and I'm not much more a fan of the Democrats than I am of the Republicans. Thanks Economist!

But, seriously, next time cite me! Please? Oh, fine. Phooey.

The New Old-School Environmentalism

“Climate change data might have been cooked by the researchers at blah blah blah...”

That's about as far as I got into the story about East Anglia University recently.  This all happened just ahead of the Copenhagen climate thingy that's going on now. 

If I sound poorly informed, it's because I am.  Happily so.

Are we still talking about global warming?  Does anybody else see this for what it is?  The climate change issue is, at best, an erudite scientific debate that people are hoping will dictate environmental policy that ought to be based on common sense.  At worst, it's a political straw-man seized upon by the anti-environment lobby because they knew it would be a sticky mess and divert the dialogue from the real issue. 

There, I've just written what should be the key word in this debate twice.  Everyone ready for a big surprise?  Environment.  Not climate.

Everybody talks about climate change and global warming like if we could just all agree on that one way or the other, the problem will go away on its own through our collective prayer.  Don’t get me wrong.  It’s great that we finally have something on which to blame the weather, unbridled force of nature that it is.  But it doesn't matter that this July was hotter than usual, or that you remember it snowing more when you were a kid.  Weather is weird everywhere and it changes everywhere (except Southern California).

The real issue at stake is the health of our planet and its myriad species, be they cute, hideous, or just kinda-funny-lookin'.  The global warming apologists of the world want tighter industrial regulations, protections for threatened biomes, energy efficiency, less pollution, etc.  They want the exact things that environmentalists used to want simply because they were the right things to do.  Protect life, keep our air and water clean, and find sustainable ways to exist without destroying the planet. 

Sounds good, right?  Who can argue against that?  Some, maybe many, but not most.  But who can argue about scientific findings concerning an issue as big and as old as the planet itself?  Just about everybody.  Enter environmental opponents, erect straw man.

I'm not saying climate change doesn't matter.  It makes me sad that salamanders and joshua trees may become extinct.  But the solutions we've devised to combat global warming are the same as the solutions we have for general environmental destruction and pollution, so stick to the argument with the stronger evidence and get to work.  Don't waste time arguing the finer points of our demise when the tools are readily available to stop it.

Most importantly (for an English major anyway), it’s still acceptable semantics to say someone either “believes” or “does not believe” in global warming.  I believe that anything that is still commonly referred to as a “belief” should not dictate policy.

What's So Funny 'Bout Peace, Love, and Domestic Partnerships?

53% to 47% sounds stinkingly familiar.  I guess people in Maine are, as a whole, 1% more bigoted than people in California.  I thought both states were better than that.  I think I should stop being optimistic on this issue and simply be pleasantly surprised when a state actually votes to uphold, rather than destroy, people's equal rights.

Question 1 asked Maine voters if they would like to repeal the legislation passed earlier that year giving same-sex couples the right to marry.  Maine said, "yes, please!  Keep those filthy fags living in sin where they belong."

Referendum 71 asked Washington voters if they want to uphold similar legislation in their state, only take out the word "marriage" and replace it with "domestic partnership".  Results are still pending as of this writing, but it looks like it will win, thus preserving something resembling equality, by a similarly narrow margin. 

Does this mean the upper-left corner of our country is more leftist than the upper-right corner?

No.  It means same-sex marriage advocates won by luck and by compromise, leaving out the word "marriage" even though that is what they seem most determined to win. 

Here's an idea that will win no friends, but makes the most sense:  Fuck "marriage."

The word "marriage" carries with it too much religious baggage to even warrant mention in a civil, political, or public document.  If all we're talking about is visitation rights in hospitals and tax benefits, we need to call all these unions, gay, straight, or poly, what they are - "civil." 

They are partnerships under the law, not under God.  Same-sex marriage advocates don't often argue a need for the benefits of God recognizing their union, because they either don't care about God's opinion, or have found a religious niche that does, in fact, recognize their relationship's legitimacy.  Advocates demand the state to recognize their partnership.  The state.  A secular, non-religious entity.

So, why, oh why, does the state use the word, "marriage," a word so steeped in religiosity it became a point of contention during the Reformation?  There's the answer - it's been done that way for a really long time.  As the man said in Fiddler on the Roof, "tradition!"  Our nation's fathers should have tossed it out the same moment they penned the First Amendment.  Freedom of religion inherently includes freedom from religion, and we cannot be free of something if it is written into our laws and tax codes.

Let people get married if they like - in a church or temple or mosque or interfaith center of worship.  But anyone who wants legal benefits currently awarded to married couples will be, instead, domestically partnered.  We use this system for coming of age rituals.  A person is legally an adult at age 18.  However, in Judaism, a person is an adult at 13.  Just because a boy is bar-mitzvah'd does not mean he can go to a store and buy cigarettes.

I say again, the law must be kept separate from religious terminology, tradition, and recognition.

In conclusion:

Liberals, if you want true equality, abolish the legality of the term "marriage."  Advocate civil union and domestic partnership laws for everyone, gay or straight.

Conservatives, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, remove it from our corrupt and secular legal documents and take control of it in your own religious institutions once again.

February 2009 - to college and the capital

February 9th saw the first day of a new semester at Pierce College, where I was taking some courses…again.  Between Pierce and Valley, I was taking Environmental Design 101, Introduction to Architecture, Freehand Drawing I, and Architectural Drawing (AutoCAD) I.  My first concrete steps toward Architecture education.

February 14th saw the usual holiday.  I went to Santa Cruz to be with a certain someone for it.  We also did something really romantic that visit - go to Sacramento and lobby for marriage rights for queer folk.  It rained like mad, we stayed with Adam and Charlsie, and we both got quite soaked before and after our meetings with legislators.  I met my representative, Julia Brownley, who is quite the advocate apparently.  Not exactly the hardest sell I ever had to make, but it was a fascinating day at any rate.  Nothing like a California assemblyman yelling to a theatre full of queer folk and their allies, "Oh, let's just turn out the lights and have a big make out session!"  Sorry, Mr. Ammiano, I may not have captured your exact wording - I'm sure your phrasing was more colorful. 

Most of February was unremarkable though, getting used to the grind of classes and studying as well as the oddities of art and studio design based courses.  Top it all off on the 28th by my Uncle Bob turning a ripe 60 years old.  I think he's been 60 for years though, and probably will never age past that.

November 2008 - easy living and new beginnings

Obama!  Yay!  Prop 8!  Booooo!  The first week of November was spent campaigning, voting, protesting, and escaping the fires burning in Sylmar.  A very dramatic time.  We all survived, and Lara's marriage even survived ultimately, thanks to (and, in a way, despite) the stupid, stupid court decision in spring '09.

Just before Halloween I had the first guitar lesson of my adult life.  I went in for finger picking lessons but ended up being paired with a jazz player.  It didn't really phase me since I wanted to learn more of everything, so in November I was taking my first steps into the world of jazz guitar.

Lara and Sam took me to my first Derby Dolls bout, a sporting event that hardly gets its due in the mainstream, though, if it ever did, it might just collapse entirely.  I played a gig with Nate at Cinema Bar in Culver City.  It was interesting.  I mostly just remember my water bottle full of gin and tonic, and being on the stage longer than I was comfortable.  Then I stayed the night at Lily's to comfort Nicole, and my car got towed.  In retrospect, I could argue that to be the most expensive first date ever.  But I learned my lesson - Los Angeles is serious about its anti-gridlock parking zones.

Nicole and I spent more time together in the ensuing weeks, eventually beginning something bigger than guitar lessons or even Derby Dolls.

For the bulk of November I was cradled in the lap of luxury at Chez Krawiec.  His parents had asked me to house sit for them again, looking out for Wiley and such.  I never have a problem doing so considering their house is spacious and gorgeous with views from atop a hill.  Add to that a spa bath and always generous compensation (for the imposition of living richly for three weeks, I suppose), and they had themselves a house sitter.  Wiley and I had some arguments about just when and how he wanted to play, but beyond that it was a flawless experience as always.

At my urging, Foxman and I found a beautiful, classic apartment just off the Blvd in Tarzana.  Staying in the Valley wasn't my first choice, but given my income (state unemployment checks) and his commute, it made sense.  Cathedral ceilings, hardwood floors, space space space, a huge deck and brand new kitchen appliances drew us in.  We were due to officially move in Dec 1, but we made it a few days early for the sake of harnessing the weekend.  I did something I never thought I would do: sign a lease for a Los Angeles apartment.

How the Fox Hounds Us!

So we've all heard it. "Fox News: Unfair and Unbalanced" pretty much says it all. But as someone who has never really watched the Fox News channel before this morning, I was still surprised at the sheer gall and partisanship of their anchors. If you've never watched, please do - whatever your political persuasion, you will be surprised (and possibly pleased) at the blatant right-leanings of their cast.

Tuning in this morning, I heard a commentator rant about the rampant anti-American Marxism of a couple of Seattle school teachers because they banned legos for a brief period as part of a lesson plan, and then the remark that "San Francisco has banned plastic shopping bags...as well as common sense." This was all in 2 minutes, before I changed the station.

Despite the suggestions of its slogans, including, "We Report. You Decide," Fox News is clearly unconcerned with an even-handed approach to the news. This would be fine, if not for the aforementioned war cries. Whatever you have to say about left or right biases elsewhere, in other media outlets, most other major outlets either clearly state their intentions, or else cover up their leanings with a bit more panache than Fox seems capable of mustering. I don't think they even have journalists working there. They have anchors, pundits, commentators, columnists, "fans," and spin doctors, but journalists? I don't think that's their business.

Let's run some quick comparisons here. I'll compare the Fox News website to a couple other major outlets, with similar presentations. Both CNN and the BBC are global news sources with television channels to supplement. On the main news pages for each of these sites, what do we see?

1) On the BBC, we are greeted by the current top stories, spanning the entire globe - from the British-soldiers-in-Iran situation to a a Nigerian village burying victims of a tanker fire. There are 14 pictures in all, representing people, animals, maps and diagrams from all parts of the world.

2) On CNN, there seems to be less information, but equal in scope. The top story is one concerning a storm in middle America, and there is a long ticker of other top stories, with the international and other categories of news nearer the bottom of the page. Only 8 pictures here, including an ad for a TV special with Lou Dobbs.

3) Fox News gives us a headline concerning a former Gonzales aide who plans to defend him in court. A large picture next to it shows us our president, first lady, and Karl Rove (as well as comedian Colin Mochrie, of all people), dressed in evening wear, attending some formal dinner party. In total, there are 28 pictures, the vast majority of which show off the array of young, blonde women (the one exception is Lauren Green) and business-formal-dressed men that write for the outlet. These "columnist's" headlines? "Iran and the American left," "...liberal bloggers...spew hate...," and "...death of Anna Nicole's son."

BBC gives us news of its soldiers being held by Iran, CNN gives us news of a deadly domestic storm, and Fox gives us... conjecture on a court case and our president's night out? Is that even news?

Without beating this too far into the ground, allow me to share another fun section of the website. The subsections under the "World" heading, as opposed to the BBC and CNN's strict regional groupings, include such white-house-accommodating specifics as "Iraq," "Iran," "North Korea," "War on Terror," and, my personal favorite, "Colonel's Corner by Ollie North." My only guess is that, since no serious journalists want to run their credibility into the ground by writing for Fox News, they have to find a man so rife with integrity that he lied to Congress because he thought illegally supporting a foreign paramilitary group was a "neat idea."

NB: While researching (if you can call it that) this article (if you can call it that) I found this website whose name bears a similarity to the pre-ordained title of this entry (that's more accurate): http://www.newshounds.us/ - very entertaining.