Gay marriage advocates do not seek to restructure the social or legal benefits of marriage, they only seek to expand those benefits to all monogamous adult couples.   However, even for those radical liberals who may oppose the institution of marriage, there is good reason to support gay marriage advocacy. The institution of marriage is so strongly enshrined and honored in world culture, that having homosexuals in recognized marriages will help to normalize homosexual relationships in a way that nothing else can.  Married same-sex couples will significantly expand the cultural awareness and acceptance of those relationships and the legality of their relationships will help drive more important legal protections (e.g., if same-sex health benefits became legally required due to marriage, then other anti-discrimination laws such as for housing and employment will quickly become universal, as has more-or-less been the case in Massachusetts).

As for gays in the military, here is a short video debate between Mattilda (radical) and Dan Choi (gay soldier pragmatist) for some context:  http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/22/does_opposing_dont_ask_dont_tell

Gays in the military advocates do not seek to restructure the military methodology of extreme and diffuse violence at political behest, nor the mindset of uncritical machismo, they only seek to expand the benefits of a military career to openly homosexual membership.  However, even for radical liberals who recognize the significant flaws of the current military complex, there is good reason to support gay military advocacy.  Military service is so strongly enshrined and honored in U.S. “patriot” culture, that having openly homosexual service members will help significantly increase visibility and perception of homosexual individuals.   Out gay soldiers will be recognized and celebrated for their service and sacrifices, and in response the most traditional and patriotic among us will give them some measure of respect.  Likewise, if homosexuals can give their lives for the country, that can help drive other legal privileges for homosexuals (e.g., same-sex relationship sickness visitation rights). In addition, having more women and open homosexuals in the military will help erode the misogynist machismo that pervades the current military complex.

That’s why us radicals who may take issue with the institutions of marriage or military, should still support allowing homosexuals into those institutions.  Not only will it help gain acceptance for homosexuality in general – thereby pushing culture in a more liberal direction and driving other, arguably more important, gay rights efforts, but to paraphrase Dan Choi, when you’re excluded from a club, your objection to the existence of the club is virtually meaningless – when you’re entitled to membership, then your objections can be heard.

In terms of leadership and purpose, the military exists to enforce policy and protect state interests, which do not necessarily coincide with interests of the population (either in the military’s home country or in the country being occupied or attacked).  The state leadership cares about status, world politics, economic and materials/energy security (e.g., oil).  Contrary to popular belief, the military does not exist solely to protect a country’s citizen population; although that is “one” purpose, it is seldom the actual purpose it is used for.

In terms of enactment, violence and killing has been consistently pursued as the desired course of action.  While American military-driven Research & Development has been off the charts, creating astounding technologies, it has been focused almost entirely on more efficient killing.  If a fraction of the same resources had been devoted to non-lethal combat (and better armor / protection for our own soldiers), we could be living in a very different world, one where we could win a war without devastating the population and infrastructure of our target country.

In terms of people, the soldiers, it chews them up and spits them out, using them for tour after unrelenting tour of duty.  It is no surprise that some soldiers go haywire and massacre Afghani villagers or “accidentally” burn Qur’ans during occupation of a volatile Muslim country. It’s no surprise there are a mental and emotional problems (e.g., PTSD) and even suicide are common in soldiers – the stress of the war machine on sentient human beings is immense. While most soldiers have the best intentions, they are drilled and virtually brainwashed into following orders unquestioningly and taught to value hyper-masculinity, conformity and violence, while compassion and critical thinking are devalued – this is an environment where bullying can flourish (as well as sexual assaults).  Then these “trained” soldier-machines are sent far away from home, into extremely stressful combat situations where they may invade a sovereign nation and be surrounded by unfriendly indigenous people whose language they understand little, if any of.

In terms of money, the US military swamps all other concerns: “budget cuts” simply means that the yearly increase is not as big as desired (but not that the actual spending has decreased). The military budget has been a significant portion of government spending for many years, with some decrease after the Cold War and then a sharp increase with the beginning of the so-called War on Terror.  Given our extreme debt, economic crisis and budget concerns, it is shocking that severe cuts to the defense budget are not being discussed. In fact, the 2012 budget has a military portion of more than $1-TRILLION (including interest on past war borrowing) and we’ve are aimlessly continuing the unwinnable war in Afghanistan even after the ostensible target was accomplished (killing 9/11/01 architect Osama bin Laden, notably found outside of Afhanistan).

In summary, the military could be lean and efficient, reserved for defense of the home country population with priority on development of non-lethal technology, while foreign policy focused on communication/negotiation, but instead, it continues to be the “big stick” in Teddy Roosevelt’s legacy, severely damaging its victims (other countries), banging up the stick itself pretty good in the process (our soldiers) and pretty darn heavy to carry around (costing a fortune).

Pop culture sells the idea that police exist to protect the people and serve justice, always trying to catch violent thugs and protect the innocent. I’m sure that many, perhaps most, police officers do some of that – I’m sure that’s what attracts so many well-meaning police cadets.  But in fact, police officers are meant to to enforce laws, which are crafted by politicians in service of a great many interests, not always those of the “people”.

Government is, and has always been unbalanced, favoring the vested interests of the elite and powerful.  In ancient times, the elite were those with personal or genetic connections to the rulers – now, they are usually those with the most money and prestige, and sometimes special interests who control large voting blocks.

The “justice” system (including police, lawyers, politicians and judges) does work to protect people, especially rich, mainstream people, but it also persecutes people when enforcing kyriarchist and oppressive laws or more neutral laws but with kyrarchist interpretations. This is perhaps most obvious in the so-called war on drugs, where the elite (high in the kyriarchy totem pole) suffer infrequent and mild punishments while those who are a minority or otherwise disadvantaged, end up disproportionately imprisoned for extremely severe sentences.  Law enforcers also abuse power all too frequently with few, if any repercussions.

Sometimes, it seems to be but a matter of a transit officer having a bad day and shooting an unarmed and prone man (of color) in the back.   Or cops assisting an extremely drunk woman by proceeding to hang out in her apartment for hours, admittedly cuddling with her in lingerie and allegedly raping her. Other times, it involves collusion of all elements of the so-called justice system (politicians who wrote an unfair law, police and judges to enforce it).  For example:

In 1997, a woman in the wrong place at the wrong time was  handcuffed and driven away in a squad car, when a man she’d just met that day subsequently shot and killed a police officer (and then himself).  The woman, despite being in custody at the time of the shooting, was sentenced to life in prison without parole for “Felony Murder“.   It seems unbelievable, but it’s true.  This happened to Lisl Aumen who became the subject of Hunter S. Thompson campaign to free her (which fortunately resulted in the conviction eventually being overturned, but the law allowing conviction of non-participants was upheld and remains on the books in Colorado).

This is not to say that all law enforcers are bad – I’ve met friendly and helpful lawyers and police officers, but it is to say that law enforcement is a job which comes with a lot of power and the laws it enforces are not entirely altruistic nor incorruptible. The idea of of law enforcers as “all heroes” is myth. Injustice is served all too often, good intentions or no.

Try an internet search on:  police shoot unarmed
(or search on: police racial)

one size fits most

laws protect power
and you, it may hit or miss
that is (in)justice

Imagine a society with a strong preference for men, a preference for baby boys, for “sons” – then imagine that same society without the stigma against abortion, where abortion is considered a free choice that anyone (woman or family) can make, for any reason.

You would have a culture where many of these son-preferring folks would exercise their freedom to choose, by selectively aborting female fetuses in favor of bringing male fetuses to term.

You would have India

“…The shortfall in the number of girls under six compared to boys has risen sharply from 4.2 million in 1991 to six million in 2001 and 7.1 million this year.”

You would have China

“In 2005 , they found, births of boys in China exceeded births of girls by more than 1.1 million. There were 120 boys born for every 100 girls.

…The trend toward more male than female children intensified steadily after 1986, they said, as ultrasound tests and abortion became more available. “Sex-selective abortion accounts for almost all the excess males,” the paper said.

The researchers, who analyzed data from a 2005 census, said the disparity was widest among children ages 1 to 4, a sign that the greatest imbalances among the adult population lie ahead.”

I want us to move towards a society where women will be given equal opportunity and prestige.  I think women should absolutely have reproductive autonomy. However, given the pervasive misogyny, er, “preference” for men in our culture (even among women), I think having a stigma against abortion is far preferable to having low or no cultural barriers to abortion.  This is especially true of the anti-abortion extremists who already see women as 2nd-class citizens – let them oppose abortion, I say.

Can you imagine a world with 20% more men than women?  That’s what’s going to happen in India and China, the 2 largest countries by population in the world.  This is a scary thought!  Let’s hope that doesn’t ever happen in the USA.

Misogyny minus Abortion = Lady Positive?

Culture Thinks Boys Best
More Girls Saved By Anti-Choice
Baby Equity

She’s right on.  This holiday-as-meme is a slippery charlatan, slathering cheap wax onto “romance”, stepping spike-heeled and careless over those who can’t fit the heteronormative and disposable income model, and driving those who can into a frenzy of stressful shopping for the “necessary” luxuries and planning the “perfect” date.

Wait in line to dine, drink too much wine, desperately be mine.
Or just skip it, that’ll be fine.

Occupy VDay tumblr posts

I finally found an option online (Green Street), then I had to find a shop that sold it, which I finally did (online only). Since I was ordering online, I thought I’d best order a bunch at once to save on the shipping environment impact, so I bought a few as gifts (4 spatulas and 2 large spoons). When I got the box, however, it was 20 inches long by 12 inches wide and 5 inches high – WAY bigger than needed (they could’ve fit diagonally in a box less than half as big – the spatulas were only a little longer than 12 inches and the spoons were shorter).

Here’s a pic of the last two utensils with the box:

———————almost 2 feet long ———————-

I heard in the news the other day that Turkey is having a fit because France has made it law that people in France cannot deny that Turkey committed genocide against the Armenian people. The newscaster went on to say that Turkey admits to killing a large number of Armenians, but steadfastly denies that it was genocide.  Is the term “genocide” really so important that it can make the historical slaughter of large numbers of an ethnic group significant or not?

This is the same with so-called “hate crimes”.  If you attack an individual for reasons specific to that individual or for reasons of convenience, that is somehow substantially different than attacking an individual due to some bigotry of the group that individual happens to belong to?

I can see that intentionality matters in terms of regular accidents (e.g., a car crash in icy conditions), but in terms of war or other acts of violence, intentionality should be irrelevant, but is instead used by as complete justification, as if a lack of intent to specifically kill the individuals who died completely excuses “collateral damage” in the case of missiles, drone strikes, carpet-bombing and other weapons of mass destruction.

That said, a mindful intentionality can help reduce the negative effect of one’s actions. If one deeply considers the effects of one’s [unintentional or habitual] actions, then one can change behavior to minimize unintended negative effects.

Basically, rich countries (including the USA) declined to consider any legally binding efforts and what good ideas were discussed were decided to try to agree to in 2015 (not to take effect until 2020).  Also, the Kyoto Protocol (the only global legally binding environmental treaty) is expiring next year and Canada, who failed to meet their agreed-upon standards is exiting the Kyoto agreement without paying the fines that they would owe, so even that treaty has proved ineffective.

Here are some links with details:

• Climate Activists: Durban Deal is “Very Weak” Agreement, Lacks “Ambition, Equity“
• COP 17 ends: Earth, and Africa, still headed for disaster

What does this mean?  We cannot count on world governments to help with environmental destruction at the global level – we need to focus our efforts locally and individually.

What can you do?

• Conserve materials - use less, reuse more and if you cannot reuse, be sure to recycle or compost.
• Conserve energy - change your habits to use less energy and institute efficiency enhancing measures in your daily life.  Walk more, use gasoline power less.
• Use renewable energy - choose renewable sources of electricity and heat sources whenever possible (e.g., hydro-electric, wind, solar).
• Invest in green technology (e.g., if you’re buying a car, make sure it gets high mileage and emits little pollution) – be sure to research before buying.
• Advocate – speak up about the efforts you are making to conserve resources and share information with others that will help.  For example, you could work on instituting a recycling program at your workplace.

Some weeks back, I overheard a news story about the earthquake in Turkey. They were talking about how a small family (mother, baby and grandmother) had survived the collapse of their building (their couches had provided space for them to lay) and were found alive after a day or two.  They were interviewing a man who was some kind of cousin or something and he said it was a “miracle” – that God had specifically saved them.  I was shocked – over 300 people died in that Earthquake and this man was saying it was a “miracle”?  I’m glad those 3 survived, but that’s a small relief, nothing close to an act of god – unless, of course, God is (mostly) hate and destroyed hundreds of people.  Calling a tragedy a miracle simply because it was less than 100% deadly is promoting hate.

The other recent thing that struck me was that I found that the Salvation Army believes that homosexuality is not a choice, but that it is a sin and homosexuals must not act on it. I already knew they opposed homosexuality, but what surprised me was that they realized it is not a choice and still opposed it. So, basically, God chose to torture some people with a sexual attraction that is sinful and must be avoided at all cost, while others may freely enjoy heterosexual sex (within context of marriage) as they desire.  So, again, God chooses to hurt some and please/save some.  That’s not benevolence; that is hate.

I never could countenance the idea of some omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god – it just doesn’t make sense in our complex world.  While I can see how some people might choose to ignore or rationalize all the suffering in favor of some pleasant dream, I can’t see how some stoop to incorporating random suffering into this concept – a benevolent God who crushes some (literally or figuratively) while saving others?   No, that’s just hate.

I can imagine that there’s some divinity in all of us – a spark of creation. That life is precious and that death is part of what makes life precious.  But there can’t be some benevolent conscious being pulling strings above our heads, affecting all that happens in this complex and often tragic world, a being who afflicts so much and yet is the ultimate positive.  A force of good would not wreak random tragedies – it would not punish innocent children by having them be born poor, without healthcare or an outlier of normal cultural and legal protections (e.g., transgender) – it would not elevate other children by having them be born into riches or normal (e.g., able, cis-gendered, heterosexual) and have the world tipped in their favor.

I think this talk of miracles and people born into sin is just another way of people justifying their own privileges.  This way, they can take credit for their incredible luck, without having to feel responsible in any way for the disadvantageous effect their privileges might have on others.

• No need to worry about all the gay kids who are bullied and commit suicide; God wanted us to be heterosexual.
• No need to worry about those crushed by acts of nature – God specifically saved my family.
• No need to worry about those struggling with 3 jobs and no healthcare – God gave us trust funds and a two-house, two-parent-plus-butler-and-nanny family.

Yes, we can feel sympathy for the poor suckers who are spurned by our God, but we, we are special – God has special plans for us.  He gave us such wonderful things and we deserve them.  There is no kyriarchy - we who have power and privilege were simply meant to.

twisted by faithful
slaughter equals miracle
divine mystery

This time of hardship should’ve seen the rise of exceptional leaders, but instead has resulted in extreme partisanship, obstructionist politics and a great number of incompetent or completely stymied and powerless politicians.  Yes, there may be a few great leaders out there, but in the sea of incompetent or selfish leaders, the great ones are effectively blocked.

Americans have lost trust in our politicians.  The banks  and automobile companies get bailouts and the CEOs get raises, oil companies make record profits and still receive tax subsidies, but the American people get foreclosures and rampant unemployment while many local governments face bankruptcy.  Moreover, the politicians lie with impunity about nearly everything under the sun, in their mad scramble to compete with each other and get elected for the next term.

We need to trust our leaders – the first step is for them to be held accountable for the things they say.

That’s why I created this petition (on White House site, due Nov. 12, 2011):

Promote Accuracy and Accountability in Political Speeches/Campaigns

We citizens expect our elected representatives and candidates for office to present accurate statements with regard to factual events and information (along with their opinions and viewpoints) in public speeches and campaign materials. However, some candidates and elected officials present “factual” material to the public that is inaccurate or missing crucial detail, and therefore misleading.

We ask that regulations be established requiring federal representatives and candidates to be held accountable for their public statements in the areas of: voting records (their own and those of others); economic data; science; and history. Statements found to be demonstrably misleading would require correction in a forum of equal or greater public exposure than that in which the statement was made.