![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Adventures in Travel and Political Ruminations
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 ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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?
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?
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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!)
no subject
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.