Obama's Change of Heart

I'm not exactly Obama's biggest fan, but I don't hate the guy, either. With this, I'm fairly honest and objective about my thoughts on the guy. Today, I woke up to this: Obama finally voices support for same-sex marriage.

I am something of a cynic, and being that it took him until campaign season to come out and actually support same-sex marriage as opposed to taking the politically-correct toned down liberal position of supporting civil unions but not marriage, I do believe that at least half of his announced change in stance has to do with politics.

However, he does give good arguments as to why he changed his stance. In the above-linked article, he says that he noticed his kids simply couldn't understand why same-sex couples couldn't have the same rights. Makes sense to me. Kids tend to see things much more simply, and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is usually the right one.

But ultimately, what does it matter? I'd like to believe that his reasoning is genuine, but as long as he backs it up in policy, what does it matter as to why he is doing it? American politics really are an extension of American capitalism - the one who is most willing to give the voters what they want is the one most likely to get elected. But, I will be watching Obama nonetheless to make sure his support is more than the all-too-typical pretty words to get votes.

War on Women

In general, I'm not fond of using such dramatic media/propaganda terms. However, a "War on Women" has seemed increasingly more real and less like propaganda.

It seemed to really start with the whole Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke mess. Not over abortion, but over birth control. Many may dispute that birth control is a women's rights issue, but I am in agreement with those who say that it is. I think we've all heard the sarcastic joke about how a woman's place is to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Well, birth control does give women some say in the matter. It lets women choose when they are pregnant, lets them secure an education and career... and most importantly with that, independence. And it's working.

Many of the conservatives may say to this, "well then, women should just keep their legs closed!" Ahem... let us not forget where the sperm comes from that impregnates women. Should men keep having sex with women while women keep their legs closed, and it all continues to be blamed on women? Does anyone else see the problem here?

I firmly believe that women are entitled to, shall we say, "enjoy life" the same as men are, and without men making their life decisions for them. It's easy for a misogynist to make a decision about something that doesn't concern him.

If the "War on Women" ended there, I may still be likely to grit my teeth about it being called such, though. Sad to say however, it does not end there:

See, we have the old standby's of calling her a whore, calling her ugly... whatever, that's nothing new. We see this every time there is a fight for women's rights. Susan B. Anthony faced similar adversity. Misogynists were emboldened by Limbaugh's statements of her being a slut (for having sex). Why is it that women get called sluts for having sex, but men are just called "lucky?"

Again though, it goes well beyond this.

Wisconsin lawmaker says battered women should just remember what they love about their husbands.

TN law would require detailed info to be made public about women who have abortions (institutionalized blackmail).

AZ law would allow employers to question (and fire) women over the use of birth control pills. 

GA law to potentially punish women for miscarriages (as murder).

Dildos illegal in Texas.

Mandated pre-abortion trans-vaginal ultrasounds for women in VA, even in emergencies. 

1 in 5 pharmacies hinder access to "morning-after" pill. 

Then let's not forget that the objections to abortion or even the "morning-after" pill stay intact even in cases of rape.

While yes, there is a smaller, more quiet war on men... there is no denying that the war on women has been revived. The misogynists we had hoped were gone have been emboldened, and extremism is now being seen as admirable, if not heroic.

Feminism

It's pretty easy to understand why feminism has been in the news a lot lately. There's the birth control debate (with Limbaugh throwing in his two cents, plus some), there's the abortion debate (though I can understand how some would not consider this one a feminist issue, despite my being largely pro-choice), then there's the rampant sexism, although more subtle than in years past. Things like women being allowed in the military, but having lower standards for them. To give an example, when I was in the Air Force, men were expected to run two miles in eighteen minutes or less... women had twenty-one minutes, I think. I also remember many women finding that patronizing and offensive. Those women realized that equality also meant equal standards and expectations.

Obviously, there are some things one sex can do that the other can't - men can't give birth, obviously. Men also tend to have an easier time building muscle. Women, I've heard, have a higher pain threshold (likely because they're the ones who give birth). But in the end, one sex cannot exist without the other. That's kind of the ultimate equality - it takes both to create life. Perhaps men were equipped with the extra muscle so protect and provide while the woman is slowed down from being pregnant. That's not to say that women should just be "barefoot and pregnant," but is instead a sign of equality through balance - one fills a role when the other cannot.

One of the big questions of today is what equality means. To some, it's pretty self-explanatory - equal standards, equal rights, not taking gender into consideration where it isn't relevant. However, today some men consider women's rights to be about standing up for the "little guy" in a manner of speaking. Sounds okay at first, but this is where that patronizing attitude comes in. Not to be insulting to disabled people, but this makes a lot of women feel like they're competing in the Special Olympics - they don't want to be a "special case."

Continuing on this line of thought, there are the women who don't want to be equal, but to be superior. They want to punish men. And some men are inclined toward this line of thought, also. This is where we start seeing biased legal rulings (ie, divorce, child custody, domestic abuse, etc), less than fair public opinion in disputes between men and women, and the open acceptance of misandristic (man-hating) speech while treating misogynistic speech as a taboo equal to or worse than racism.

One thing I find kind of darkly amusing however is how much some of the more radical feminists have in common with their male-chauvinist rivals - they both want to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her body. Consider their objections to things like porn or the Hooters restaurants. The women who work at these places, or choose to model nude, or choose to be in porn... well, it's their choice. Same as men who choose to do similar. Some enjoy it. And it is their body to do with as they please, in my opinion. If they want to show it off, it's their choice to do so.

Which brings us to this:

Exiled Iranian women pose nude.

Well, I'd say they are certainly in a position to appreciate feminism in its truest sense. In Iran, they may well be risking their lives in doing this. But, I have to admit that I did see some irony in the fact that the photos are still censored here. They may not be arrested for posing nude for photographs in the west, but they still aren't afforded the same rights as men, either - they would be arrested for being topless in public, but men are not. Do people see women's breasts as being objects of sexuality? Yes... as a guy, I will readily admit to being turned on by the beauty of a topless woman. However, women also get turned on by attractive shirtless men, don't they? Don't bother lying about it, I see it regularly. Just that it's more common, so it's not as big of a deal. Why shouldn't this be true for women also?

Going back now to the subject of birth control, it seems that some in power are catching onto my question of why we're making such a big deal of birth control, and its coverage on insurance, but not erectile dysfunction drugs: Ohio lawmaker wants men to get a second opinion from a psychological professional before getting ED drugs.

The bill is rhetorical, certainly. But the point of course is valid. Why should women have to go through that, and the coverage of birth control pills be questioned when that of ED drugs is not? This debate has brought out the knuckle-dragging mentality a lot of people still have.

Erosion of Liberties

In truth, this is nothing new. Liberties have been eroded or ignored since before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. Figure, slavery was rather contradictory to the Bill of rights, but it endured for decades after. Then we have workers' rights, women's rights, ending segregation, equal rights for gays... the list goes on.

It's undeniable that some significant gains have been made in this direction. Women can now vote, segregation is no longer institutionalized, and there are laws recognizing these things. Granted, the laws aren't always observed by everyone, but they are in place.

Just as gains are being made, we're taking losses in other areas. Perhaps most notably in privacy. It's no secret now that what we post online under our own names can come back and bite us in the ass. It's the same as if you stood on a soapbox in a large park to rant and rave. The only thing is that on the internet, the whole world is quite literally your audience. That can include law enforcement, the government, your employer, potential employers, etc. This is why I choose to blog anonymously. I don't want thoughts I post here to interfere with my life, nor do I want my life to interfere with how people interpret my thoughts. I am aware that if someone really wanted to, they could find out who I am, but I'm not going to worry excessively about that.

But let's move on from the obvious. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said "they that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither." That's exactly what we've been doing... giving up liberties for a feeling of some safety, especially since 9/11. When we see cops in movies that make their own rules, we treat them as heroes. We grant law enforcement more and more power. But what happens when they abuse it? In some areas in particular, with how much power they've already been given, it's increasingly difficult to take it back:

Seattle sues an attorney over request for dash cam video

The short of it is that an attorney in Seattle has requested a dash cam video of suspected police misconduct. These dash cam videos are supposedly public record, but Seattle has cited privacy rules. To me, this seems like a pretty clear case of retaliation. To add insult to injury, the city said that they don't have to release the video for three years... which is when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city, and when those videos are routinely erased.

But, the modern day of erosion of liberties does not end there. Sad to say, much of it can be attributed to people wanting all the rights for themselves and fewer for those who disagree. Religion is one of the biggest culprits in this, I think. We hear often from over-zealous Christians about how their rights are being violated when they aren't allowed to force their beliefs on others in one way or another, and it seems increasingly obvious that Christianity is having a stronger hand in foreign policy, as well as in domestic policy. This is something that is popular with many, while others are afraid to even point it out. Start looking for double standards here, and you will find them in abundance.

If you try to put a frog in a boiling pot of water, it will immediately struggle to get out before it dies. However, if you put a frog in just a cool pot of water and gradually increase the heat, it will not struggle. It will simply sit in there until it is killed. Well, we're in that pot of water, the temperature is going up... how far are we from being boiled alive? If something is wrong, make noise about it. Do something about it. Learn your rights, and be aware of what happens around you. And again, this is nothing new.

Wag the Dog

There is a phrase often used in politics - "wag the dog." No, I'm not referring to the movie. I actually haven't even watched that movie yet. It refers to when an issue of secondary importance is pushed up to detract attention from a perhaps more important issue. It comes from an old saying  - "a dog is smarter than its tail, but if the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

This tactic is not at all unusual in politics, although while certain issues are rightly secondary issues, one can still, in a sense, wag the dog by overstating the importance of the more important issues to the point of attempting to make someone feel guilty by even bringing up the secondary issues.

This is what Bachmann seems to be doing in a perhaps outdated story I read, as she has dropped out of the election after the Iowa stuff: Bachmann throws a hissy-fit when asked if she still holds her stance

To summarize, a CNN anchor asked Bachmann if she pulls back any of her very strong stance on social issues, most specifically that of homosexuality. She goes on to list a couple of quotes from Bachmann on the subject - "Gays live a very sad life," and "it's part of Satan."

Bachmann was quick to respond, saying she thought it was a bizarre thing to bring up when the economy is in shambles, then going on to say that she came from a family that was below poverty, and that she had to earn her way out of poverty.

To me, that honestly seems a cop-out on Bachmann's part. While certainly the economy is an important issue, so is that of equal rights, I think. If she made the economy somehow perfect, this issue would still exist just the same. We all know her stances, but I'm fairly sure she was trying to wiggle out of having another flare-up before the Iowa caucuses.

If not for how strongly she voiced her opposition to equal rights for gays, and the fact that she linked them to Satan, then I may be able to overlook this. With her passionate hate for them however, I know that the economy is certainly not taking the level of priority in her own mind that she suggested by her rebuttal to the CNN anchor.

My point is that no matter how important you think one issue is, don't ignore a candidate's stances on other issues. It will bite you in the ass.