Adventures in Travel and Political Ruminations

[unforth]

Despite the scare in the weather here on Friday (6" or so of snow) I managed to pull off my super secret plan so secret I didn't mention it on LJ. :) Plan: LARP succeeded, and I had a lot of fun playing buzzermccain's game, meeting her Chicago friends, and getting to hang out with her, sapphohestia and to a lesser extent (cause she had to leave) swan_tower. My character basically accomplished her/his goals, too, which made me very happy. The story of this, by the by, was that my mother agreed to buy me a plane ticket to Chicago that I couldn't myself afford as a thank you for my help with my grandfather. I left on Friday night and got back this morning, and everything went of smooth aside from the minor insomnia which combined with other factors to ensure that I only got an hour and a half of sleep last night. :)

This morning on the plane, I finished the best book I've read recently. One of my goals for 2008 has been to read a LOT more than I have in previous years, and I've been more or less succeeding. At my grandfathers, I was selecting books from among those that my mom has sent up there over the years, the last of which I picked up was The Alienist by Caleb Carr. I didn't expect all that much, honestly, but the book was phenomenal (though I wasn't as happy with the ending as I might have wanted to be). It made me feel all my deficiencies as a writer (and, happily, made me want to work hard to over come them rather than give up) in that he accomplished with admirable results something I started to attempt much more lamely in the last project I started - the book is set in 1896 New York, and NYC is definitively a character in the book. It was exhaustively researched and excellently written - so much so that it could have been nonfiction if I didn't know better.

However, that wasn't really the point of writing this. The next book on the queue is Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope. I voted for him, and I'm starting to really like it, so I thought I aughta read it. I'm impressed with it so far, but I decided on the walk home the last leg of my trip that I wanted to think out and elucidate some of my own political views on issues big and small before going and further, because I'm noticing ways in which I agree and don't with him already. So here goes...

It's hard to know where to begin something like this, so I'll just tackle the issue most important to me, and go from there. By the way, I'd love to hear questions or challenges to any of these as well as people are interesting in talking reasonably rather than flinging out disagreements (or agreements!) blindly. Oh, and I've certainly missed stuff - point um out, if you're bothering to read this. ;)

My number one issue is freedom of speech. This isn't that public an issue, and a lot of politicians support censorship quietly without us ever hearing about it, in the form of restricting sales of video games, cursing on television, that sort of thing. I believe in the absolute truth of freedom of speech and its paramount importance to this country. I don't believe that we have to believe or agree with everything we hear, but that doesn't mean that we have the right to say that because we disagree it shouldn't be said, simple as that.

I believe strongly in the importance of personal freedoms in general. I don't believe in legislation that touches our bodies on the social level as long as our behavior harms no one but ourselves. Thus, I'm obviously pro-choice, but I also believe in the legalization of drugs, prostitution, and other such issues, while I'm against smoking in restaurants (to name one example). I suppose this is an odd position for someone who is straightedge - I've never been drunk in my life though I'm known to have a drink once or twice a year, I've never tried a drug of any kind even once including tobacco - but I do think that stigmatizing and criminalizing this behavior has not done any good. It prevents women from getting health care,people from seeking to get clean, not to mention a whole range of social ills. Meanwhile, this also applies to all manner of religions, to gay rights and marriage, and various other areas.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, but not the war in Iraq. I haven't changed my mind, either. I remember on 9/12, I was walking across Binghamton campus when some lady part of a small protest against retribution attempted to convince me that fighting was not the answer. I thought she was nuts, and I stand by that reaction. However, Iraq was unwarranted, and I wish it'd end already.

I see a lot of issues with National Health Care. If it could be done well without costing a bloody, stinking fortune, I'd support it, but I don't think either of those things is all that likely. However, I'd be interested (as someone who doesn't have health insurance!) to see what the possibilities are.

I do not support welfare as it currently exists. Handouts are useless. I do believe in all manner of work force training, job support, and public works employment. I'm rather distressed by social security, but I don't know much about it and don't have the first clue what to do about it.

While I can't say I like that jobs move over sees, I do fear that it is somewhat unavoidable, and that simply saying "that's bad" doesn't solve it - I can't imagine what WOULD solve it.

I believe in opening our borders for the most part and protecting and supporting immigrants. I think it's sad that people are so against this, closing the borders of the "land of opportunity." I know it causes problems, drives down wages, but I feel like strengthening our economy would be a better solution, improving minimum wages, finding other ways of decreasing this competition, rather than turning people away or making it impossible for children to stay.

I am against the death penalty. I think that the prison system is a disaster, and needs reforms beyond my ability to begin to list. I believe in gun control, though I'm torn on it, and I've heard very strong arguments against gun control, arguments that I can't say I disagree with. It makes me sick to my stomach that we violate privacy to the extent of posting sex offenders on Google Maps, and that what this says about our faith in the "Correctional" system is sad commentary indeed.

I believe absolutely in equality of chance, regardless of class, race, gender, religion, the day of the week, or any other reason. I strongly disapprove of affirmative action for a variety of reasons, though, the primary being that I don't approve of selection based on race or gender for any reason. I believe in meritocracy, and that the most capable people should be selected for opportunities. Private scholarships are different - endowing parties can name whatever restrictions they want, that's their right - but that the government does it makes me angry, and I think is unfair to those it benefits by adding to them the permanent stigma of never knowing if they were actually good enough, opening the door to the possibility of everyone who meets them wondering if they are only there because they are a woman, or African American, etc. I think that the solution to this isn't affirmative action, but is instead to work on the underlying social ills that cause it. I believe that if we're going to have a system of giving people leg up, it should be based on socioeconomic factors instead of race or gender - it's a much better measure of who actually needs help.

Global warming sucks. The environment needs to be protected or we're all gonna die. Simple. However, progress is also necessary. Some species will go extinct. There are no absolutes, but we need to find a balance.

I'm terrified of a political machine that tells me that the issues in this election are a list of 17 items, which includes items like "economic stimulus" and "taxes" with the same weight as "stem cell research" and "gay marriage." It terrifies me that things have gotten so skewed that we don't have a sense that these things aren't equivalent. (Oh, and I support stem cell research).

I consider myself an idealist. I also consider myself a cynic. As a kid, I thought politics were fascinating. Among the short list of careers I named as my future as a kid, I aspired to scientist with the lone exception of president. Yet as I've grown up I've grown increasingly jaded and certain that nothing will change. It's been delightful to realize that I'm genuinely interested in this election year and have an actual stake in things. I wonder what will happen?

Comments

[ultimabaka.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to hear Chi-town worked out - I was definitely a little worried for ya on Friday night there for a bit. *huggle*

I'm not much for politics on the grand scale you're talkin about here, but I do know that I'm a selfish scumbag, and thus think about the issues only in terms of how they affect me and those I care about. On that note,

(a) I think if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can prevent another 9/11 from happening, I'll continue paying my share for them. The first one cost our nation the better part of 5% of the nations net GDP, most of which we still haven't gotten back from the looks of the data. Though with the looming threat of a militarizing China and the Russians slowly but surely in control of the world's oil, I would feel more at ease if our military were home for a little while before we go to war with them =\.

(b) National Health Care can't be done without costing a bloody fortune. Medicare and Medicaid already cost a bloody fortune, and they only cover a percentage of the population. The more people talk about it, the more it worries the hell out of me.

(c) Jobs moving overseas are a natural part of economic evolution. It makes me smile to see the effects of what cheap American labor moving to, say China, have done to the economy out there. It went from off the low end of the charts to the 3rd largest by GDP in something like 20 years. Now, in a humourous bit of irony, jobs are leaving China for cheaper places. Think about it. No nation should want unskilled labor, due to both the cheapness of it and the unreliability involved in keeping it in place. You wanna "solve" this? Make everyone smarter, and make these jobs unnecessary.

(c) My bias on welfare obviously makes my talking about it unfair. Let's say I wouldn't be where I am today without them as a child. On that note, saying that affirmative action should be based on socioeconomic factors instead of racial factors is like sayin tomato when I say tomato. In major cities, the minorities are the poor, at least on a generalized basis. Once again, I wouldn't be where I am today without them, so I can't say much about it...

(d) You're pro-choice and against the death penalty? Logical fallacy or not, and nasty religious side-arguments notwithstanding, I consider both of those to be similar. So, thus, I'm for both of them.

(e) Global warming sucks. Kyoto is worse. I have no idea what to say about it.

(f) That political machine you mention is trying to speak representatively for a much larger population. "Taxes" are of tantamount importance to me right now, vastly more than "gay marriage" could ever possibly be =\. Different strokes for different folks babe.

*huggle*
-- Gerardo

[unforth.livejournal.com]

I think you're points are pretty good over all, so if I'm not commenting on it it's cause I don't disagree or have nothing to add.

b. I know. It makes me sad.

c. It's true that in cities, the minorities are primarily the poor. But that's not true every else necessarily. The rural or semi-rural white poor are a very existent group, I've got friends from that background, and I think they deserve the same help as anyone else trying to come from a background that makes it hard to succeed.

d. I know it's a bit of a fallacy. I'll add that I tend to change my mind on the death penalty from time to time. But actually, the reason I tend to oppose it is actually not at all humane and not related to murder. I just think that a lifetime in our prison system is far, far worse punishment than death and that the worst criminals deserve every minute of it.

f. You got me mixed up - I think it's retarded that we're wasting time with gay marriage on a national level, I think that it should be legal and that's that and that the people who don't like it should get the hell over it since it's not like it effects them. I know that this is close minded of me, blah blah blah. Taxes, on the other hand, is a real and serious issue, to me. Like I said, I know different strokes for different folks. And it's all free speech, so they can talk about these issues as much as they want, but that doesn't mean I have to respect it. ;)

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

a) What has the GDP cost of the war been? 2002 estimates were $100 billion for rebuilding in NYC, we've spent at least $400 billion in Iraq, and I've seen war cost estimates of $1-2 trillion. We've lost more Americans in Iraq then in NYC. And the war has probably raised oil prices, which we pay at the pump.

b) Funny, everyone else in the entire First World has national health care while spending less we do. 10% of GDP vs. 15% -- and we have higher GDP! Medicare is more efficient than privare insurers.

d) Not similar. Abortion can't kill me or anyone I care about, while death penalties can.

Wee, long, hopefully interesting

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Hey there! Hope NYC's weather is less icy than ours.
You sound like a moderate libertarian, insofar as pigeonholes work. Though I guess "moderate X" for other values of X might work too.

I'm with you on freedom of speech, and the impulse for other freedoms. I'm just as straightedge -- you taught me the term -- and pro- other people messing around. I'm not sure about affirmative action, though. There's enough libertarian in me to get being against anti-discrimination laws -- violate freedom of association -- but when there's a legacy of vicious racism like we have, maybe such laws do good. The US does seem better. Maybe it would have gotten better anyway. It's hard to have firm opinions without controlled experiments, which we don't have.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of gun control too; my impression is that Americans are basically just more violent, as attested by non-gun violence rates. Of course, one could then ask whether that means Americans shouldn't be trusted with guns.

Free trade: I'm sympathetic. OTOH, I recognize that overseas trade is often about not just lower wages, but evading labor and environmental protections, which can come back to bite us personally in pollution, and do you feel comfortable wearing shoes make in factories without enough fire escapes? Non-protectionism combined with tariffs aimed at *not* letting us export pollution and abuses seems ideal to me... though there's also a long correlation between temporary industrial protectionism and development!

Healthcare costing a "bloody stinking fortune": why do you think that it would? The US *already* spends more than anyone else, as a measure of both absolute dollars and %age of GDP, while failing to insure everyone and having lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality. People look at the overheads of Medicare (2%) and private insurers (14% or higher), and the incentives of insurers to deny care, and the costs of doctors having to fight with dozens of insurance companies, and plausibly argue that we'd *save money* with universal healthcare. Not even counting more people being seen in early stages, and that preventive care is cheaper than terminal treatment.

Which reminds me: the US *has* universal health care, in that emergency rooms are mandated to not turn people away. So, we have expensive and ineffective universal health care. The real question is do we try to be more efficient, imitating, ahem, every other developed country in the entire world, who get better outcomes for less money, or do we stop the mandate and let people die in the street?

"handouts are useless": useless for what? They do a great job of not having people starve. And even before welfare reform, I believe it was the case that most welfare recipients were there only temporarily, that it really did function as a safety net. E.g. if you looked at two different times you'd find that 95% of the welfare recipients had turned over, with 5% being long-term recipients, and a lot of those having real mental or physical problems. I don't swear by the precise numbers, but I had heard that the general pattern holds... if there's one able-bodied leech for every ten people genuinely helped, is that welfare "not working"?

I agree on the death penalty. I like the state avoiding irrevocable mistakes, and we know the conviction process is flawed. And with all the appeals, life sentences are cheaper anyway. I don't find this inconsistent with pro-choice; it's not "innocent human life" vs. "guilty human life", but "proto human being" vs. "actual human being who's probably but not necessarily guilty". Among other things. And yeah, prisons... I've thought that by any rational (or at least middle-class) accounting, even a year in prison is a high deterrent, and able to fuck up your life, even without things like prison rape (and why do we joke about that?) 20 years takes you from prime of youth to middle age, and lets you totally miss your children growing up. Anyone not being deterred by stuff like that probably isn't being deterred, period. Of course, isolation/prevention can also be a valid penal system function, not just deterrence; the punishment may not deter others but at least prevents this one from repeating... still, I feel we could be doing a lot better.

holy crap, I hit the character limit.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

ocial Security: it's not like it pays so much as to deter people from having their own retirement income, while it does help those who had trouble ever developing their own retirement income. What savings my parents had got wiped out by my mother's illness when I was young, and they had trouble getting good jobs ever after. And SS could be seen as insurance against your children choosing to not support you. Given birth rate trends, I have wondered if payouts should be greater if you've actually had children in your life, to incentivize reproduction and reflect all the money spent on children.

Finally: if you want to think on a really grand scale, what is the point of government? A lot of libertarians/conservatives seem to think it has no point, or maybe just a point in law enforcement and national defense. They'll accuse liberals/the left of wanting to expand government for its own sake, which is bollocks, or of seeing government as a problem-solver of first resort rather than last resort, which might be more valid.

As an ex-libertarian drifting toward social democrat, I'd say: the government prevents force and fraud, yes. It also manages public goods, such as waterways and the atmosphere, and perhaps eventually decisions about the global thermostat. It can operate as an insurer of last resort, stepping in after disasters where no private insurer would or could have trod. This can include the 'disaster' of crap genes or upbringing, leaving one at poor odds in a market economy. I think there's a valid function in redistribution of income, on both utilitarian grounds and on limiting-political-power grounds, because while economic wealth and power isn't zero-sum, it can be turned into political power and abuse, which is, and economic wealth can naturally concentrate. And, related to public goods, it can manage tragedy-of-commons affairs, making 'coercive' decisions toward outcomes which help everyone, but which individuals would like to defect from.

Re: holy crap, I hit the character limit.

[unforth.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that stuff about the health care debate - I guess we'll just see what happens, though. I certainly would benefit from some sort of health care system, since I'm currently one of the uncovered masses.

I can accept welfare as a safety net - I do think it's certain that the abuses are well-publicized exceptions rather than the norm, but to me they do still indicate some issues. I do think we need more public works, though. Not sure.

I've described myself as libertarian in view point from time to time. I think that government is far too big and sprawling. However, the more I've thought about it the more I've started to think that we do need more government than the libertarians think we do. Public safety and education at the least, the environment...well, I think we need a fair amount of government. But I also think we need much less than we do now. And government also facilitates the existence of things like NASA in ways that private interests would have much more trouble with. It's tough, really.

Re: holy crap, I hit the character limit.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I've made health care outcome and finance tables http://mindstalk.net/socialhealth here, from CIA and WHO data. Anti-universal people will claim our system is better at treating the seriously sick -- better survivorship rates once diagnosed. I don't know if that's true; if true, I wonder if it accounts for perhaps lower rates (or later dates) of getting sick in the first place, thanks to more universal screening. There are other contortions people will do to justify why the wealthiest nation is the least healthy, which just make me think that the problem might be with the entire American way of life rather than just our healthcare.

Have you seen pie charts of federal expenditures? 1040 booklets used to have some in the back. Wikipedia's got one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
Paul Krugman called the feds "a pension plan with an army", and it fits. Top expenditure is SS, followed by defense and Medicare. 80% of the budget is SS, defense, Medicare, interest, and safety net stuff like food stamps for mothers with children. As far as "waste", Medicare has 1-2% overhead, SS is probably similar -- all it does it cut checks and review disability applications -- the others you can judge for yourself. Everything else -- NASA, EPA, highways, pork barrels, Israel, FEMA, TSA, NSF, etc., all that big and sprawling -- fits into 20%.

One can argue for dumping a lot of the other stuff on regulatory or freedom grounds, but from a pure taxpayer POV, the only way to make a big difference is to cut off old and disabled people, followed by cutting off children and shrinking defense somewhat. Anything else is noise in the data.

Universal health care would mean combining the Medicare and Medicaid slices, then increasing them somewhat, but private premium payments would be going down at the same time, possibly faster than taxes went up given relative overhead.

It can be tempting to think we shouldn't be paying for the poor choices of bad mothers, but the children will get born anyway. Certainly some will, even if some others are born just for the checks, as some conservatives claim. And if they don't die off, the deprived children grow up to affect the rest of us.

[skygawker.livejournal.com]

It's fascinating to hear my friends' beliefs! I agree with you on several, disagree on some critical ones (respectfully), and have mixed feelings about others. I couldn't begin to tackle all of these things, so I'll just pick a few and try to write a substantial comment about those. ^^

I'm terrified of a political machine that tells me that the issues in this election are a list of 17 items, which includes items like "economic stimulus" and "taxes" with the same weight as "stem cell research" and "gay marriage."

This has bothered me too, particularly since I go along with it. It's one fo those things I've accepted as a flaw in our system (and I can't think of a system that doesn't have flaws). I guess in American-style representative democracy, because there are SO many issues out there, simply drawing attention to "your" issue is the first step in the political process (if the issue isn't already in your face on its own, like the Iraq war). The death penalty and gun control are two issues that I'd like to vote on, but unfortunately, they're not the issues of this election.

Speaking of which, how cool to hear you're anti-death penalty! Rather than just flinging agreement, though, I'll tell you my main reason (though I have many back-up reasons should I need to debate them) for being so: that's that we can't give a life back, so we have no business taking it away. I feel that morally we just don't have the right to impose such a penalty. Perhaps the way I feel about this is similar to the way you feel about censorship.

Which brings me to my next topic! As outspoken as I am, this is one of the beliefs I'm wariest to share because it's SO against the norm, especially of our peer group, but I do think there are legitimate places for limits on free speech. Which is not exactly the same as saying "I'm PRO-CENSORSHIP!" but some would call it that, I'm sure. A big issue here for me is hate speech. I realize that even if we censor hateful words, the hate is still there but even harder to address, so I am not for complete banning of it in all forms (letting the bigots reveal themselves does make some sense to me), but I think that hate speech in person, in a public place, causing a disruption is akin to harassment, a verbal assault, and therefore think it should be illegal. This is a form of censorship, so I guess I can't say I'm 100% in favor of free speech.

In regards to cursing on television or, say, posting explicit material in a public place, I think it's fair to say that's against the rules -- provided that it's in a strictly limited setting. It's similar to public nudity to me, which is an issue of public decency, decided by the majority of society but certainly not supported by all. As long as someone has the right to do what they want in privacy, or even semi-privacy -- say, on pay cable rather than on network TV during prime time -- then I don't feel there's a major problem. So I guess I'm okay with the status quo in that respect.

I'm open to revising this belief if someone points out major logical or moral holes in it.

Limiting expression of political opinion and related ideas IS wrong, DEFINITELY.

I don't approve of selection based on race or gender for any reason. I believe in meritocracy, and that the most capable people should be selected for opportunities....

There's an issue I struggle with. In principle, what you've just said is ideal, but in practice, what about people who have not been afforded the same opportunities in life because of social class? (Which is not the same as race, but blacks are more likely to be poor than whites.) Without some kind of affirmative action, can these people climb out of their social class, when they haven't had the same education the rich kids have had? If a poor kid seems to have worked hard and done the best he could with what's been given to him but has test scores lower than a rich kid, is it unfair to let him into a competitive college over that rich kid?

Of course it's a sticky situation -- I think no matter what you do in this situation, you've got to handle it with care. But then, that can probably be said about most political situations.

And I'll stop there for now, as that's probably enough to think about for one post.

[skygawker.livejournal.com]

Apparently I missed your last line about affirmative action. Sounds like you agree with me after all, then, at least mostly.

[unforth.livejournal.com]

Thanks for replying! Your points - the ones I don't agree with - are still well elucidated and I can definitely relate to your point.

Death penalty - I'm quirky about the death penalty. If we could be certain of guilt, truly certain - like if we found some child rapist serial killer who kept the video tapes of him committing his crimes AND there was supporting evidence, I think I'd say kill the bastard even if he was too crazy to know what he was doing. However, aside from such extreme examples, I think that for the most part prison life is so awful as to be more than adequate punishment for most crimes. And if we did away with the death penalty, well, without prison reform my above extreme example would get shivved within a year anyway, those kinds of people are almost always murdered in prison. What a joyous way of looking at it. :(

I am sorry, kind of, to hear what you have to say about free speech, though I actually think that what you say isn't all that bad - you just used a word that makes me wince whenever I hear it, and I think I'm letting it keep me from better relating to what you actually said. The word "hatespeech" makes me cringe. Simply put, who gets to decide what words are acceptable? I support legislation that stops people from shouting fire in crowded theaters, I believe in public decency laws, and I do believe that you are right in saying that there are times when free speech can start to cross over in to harassment - but there are protections in the law for such things. However, "hatespeech" is not defined legally, and thus is highly problematic. Two examples from my own life (two of the experiences that were formative in my opinion in this regard):
1. When I was in high school, French Connection United Kingdom ran a series of ads that were on buses and taxi cabs that said, in big white letters on a black background, "FCUK". This caused a public outcry because it LOOKED like it said fuck, and people were furious. Guiliani tried to have the ads pulled - he failed, thankfully, but it was still ridiculous.
2. My second year of college, the Pipedream (my schools newspaper) ran an editorial written by a conservative. This individual complained in what I considered a mild manner about why he didn't like homosexuals. It wasn't the nicest stuff, but all in all it was pretty okay and boiled down to "don't ask don't tell, don't shove your sexuality in my face (and I won't shove mine in yours) and I hope my son isn't gay." Biased, definitely, but not a big deal. Liberals on campus went MAD. In the following issue was a letter in which one such liberal wrote that he was all for free speech, but that article was HATESPEECH (he capitalized it) and should not be allowed to exist, much less be published in our paper. (this is also why the word hatespeech sets my teeth on edge)

Now, that said, I do think there is something in what you said. I even think I could be brought to agree with it, but the law would have to be VERY carefully written - I do think that current harassment, slander and liable laws would cover some such things. Hmm...I'm trying to think of an example I actual would find defendable in such a context, and I'm not succeeding. Can you think of any good examples of the sort of thing you mean? Wait, I've got one, maybe - when pro-lifers do some of their more extreme stuff that is still legal, I think that'd count in my mind, it ruins the lives of the doctors without being prosecutable. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Lastly, as to affirmative action, I do think we're mostly on the same page - I strongly approve of socio-economic based support, especially in education, related to merit. It seems much more reasonable to me than current affirmative action rules, which often end up benefiting minorities that DON'T come from underpriviledged backgrounds while neglecting "majorities" who do face severe challenges.

[skygawker.livejournal.com]

The word "hatespeech" makes me cringe. Simply put, who gets to decide what words are acceptable?

That's a really good question. I didn't realize some people felt so strongly about the term, but you mention points that I question, too. Would you say that hate speech COULD be a legitimate legal problem if it were not used too liberally?

Okay, examples: I don't know details about the pro-lifers' activities (though from the bits I've heard, those could likely fall into this category), so let's say a black family moved into a mostly white neighborhood, or a gay couple moved across from a very conservative family. What if the white family put up signs in their front yard with horrible racial slurs? If it had a blatant threat it would already be against the law (right? Wow, I don't know exactly how that law works) -- but what if it was just the slurs? Is it free speech for that family to put those signs on their lawn? Is there a law out there that already makes that illegal? (I clearly should research existing harassment laws before discussing this in depth!) Is there any law we could make up that would prevent this for some OTHER reason besides a vague definition of "hate"? Or do we want to protect the family's right to put the signs on their lawn?

I don't object to public expression of hatred being against the law -- but I do wholeheartedly agree that a law of this sort would have to be very carefully written. One crucial criterion would be whether it had any redeeming value in promoting discussion. How that would be weighed against mere intent to harass or scathingly insult people would be up to a judge, I suppose. Wheras your example of the homophobic column in your school paper is clearly NOT hate speech in my view -- first, at least from the way you described it, it's not expressed in a way specifically meant to harass gays, and second, it's a legitmate matter of public discussion.

Again, defining this would be tricky. I think it could be done, but I certainly would listen if other people suggested problems I haven't thought of. It would have to be done on a case by case basis, because the key would be the intent of the words. (It'd be like trying to decide if a murder was premeditated or not, I suppose.) A judge or jury's gut feeling might be enough -- I mean, it's usually easy to tell when someone is doing something solely out of vilest hatred.

I would say that just because someone calls something hate speech when it's not doesn't mean that real hate speech can not exist. Would you disagree? (Your campus' overzealous liberals remind me why I, as a hardcore liberal, was thrilled when the College Republicans opened a chapter at my very liberal school. Come ON, people -- use your brains!)

As for that French Connection thing, I think that brand's use of the acronym is tasteless shock value, trying to get attention in a juvenile way ("Look what I said! Haha, you can't stop me, I didn't REALLY say it! Neener-neener-neener!") But in this case, the "censorship" best suited to make it go away would be not to support the brand with our money if we don't like it (or boycott them, even) rather than to make it illegal. However, in the case of advertising -- well, if the majority of people of a community agree that they don't want that acronym plastered across their city, I think they have the right to demand the removal of such advertisements, just as they'd have the right to ask that a work of art that most people hate not be placed at the center of a public park. The artist is free to express himself through his art somewhere else -- just not in their park, if the majority of people don't want it there.

My saying that I'm not totally anti-censorship is more to express that I've thought about it and realized that I can't make that blatant proclamation the way many of my peers do. Still, I do think censorship presents dangers and the issue gets into murky waters really fast. And since I guess that's where I am, I'm happy to hear other people's thoughts to help filter out some of the murk. Any more thoughts? (Especially since you've been through library school and I'm going to apply to it, and censorship is a huge issue in the world of libraries!)

[skygawker.livejournal.com]

And this, posted separately because of those darn character limits.

I'm quirky about the death penalty. If we could be certain of guilt, truly certain - like if we found some child rapist serial killer who kept the video tapes of him committing his crimes AND there was supporting evidence, I think I'd say kill the bastard even if he was too crazy to know what he was doing.

My objection to the death penalty is on a moral level that's about what we allow in ourselves as much as what we inflict on other people. Revenge of any kind is problematic to me, so even in that case, I'd be opposed to the death penalty. I know that's not an argument that will hold weight with people who don't hold the same view of what harms society and the human spirit, however, so that's why I have a back-up supply of other great reasons to be against capital punishment. There are so many good ones.