The Real Cost of Freedom

Freedom is not free. How many times has a cowboy-hat wearing simpleton drawled this to us as if it were the very height of wisdom? Pretty often. Too often. And how are we expected to react? Invariably a sacrifice is expected. Give up this or that so that we can be more free. I agree that freedom is not free. However, freedom is also not many other things.
Freedom is not clean, safe, or polite. Being free means that sometimes we will be the victims of "terror", as if that were an entity in and of itself. Freedom means that sometimes we will have our feelings hurt by things we see or hear. It also means we are free to complain about it.
Over the last ten years we have seen a dramatic loss of personal freedom in the name of security. If the terrorists hated us for our freedoms, our greatest defense has been to remove those freedoms. Flight is highly regulated in a all-for-show circus of personnel and technology. Our internet usage is monitored. Our phone calls and text messages are prone to recording. As we have seen with the Occupy movement, we are told we can't even peacefully assemble without the vague and abused phrase "public safety" being invoked to violently end such protests.
What that cowboy clad idiot does not realize is that we have had our freedoms stolen. I have watched the Occupy movement with curiosity and eager anticipation. I place much hope in the people who are demanding that our freedoms be recognized. We are deserving of equality, social justice, economic security and true freedom. Ugly, offensive, dangerous freedom

Occupied America

     Occupation is something Americans came to be familiar with over the last decade. We've been doing it to other countries for years. We saw it happen in the domino-effect revolutions of the Arab Spring. Standing your ground has been a powerful way of saying "no more". In Iraq and Afghanistan, we made that stand (correctly or not) against terrorism. In Egypt and other countries we saw citizens claim their land with little more than their feet, signs and sometimes, blood.

     I watched the scenes from Tahrir Square in awe. I was amazed that people would stand before the police while being gassed, run down with trucks and horses, beaten, arrested and tortured. It reminded me of the lone man standing before a column of Chinese tanks... but with thousands of brave souls doing the same. (On a side note: That one Chinese guy had courage that I don't possess in my wildest delusions. Much respect.)

     As I'm writing this, I'm watching coverage of the Occupy protests in Oakland being broken up with flashbangs and tear gas. I see reports that Atlanta might be on the verge of the same. We have seen New York cops using horses, motorcycles and mace on protestors. At first I wrote off the violence against the Occupy movement as overzealous cops abusing their power, sorta like LAPD does every time they stop a black guy. On reflection though, I realized why the response has been so violent so quickly. It's because I wasn't the only one watching with amazement what happened in Egypt.

     They know that Occupation works. And they're scared. More to the point, they should be. The movement will win because of the response. Average Americans won't stand for police violence. It will be the catalyst that helps the message of injustice spread.

     I can see it unfolding now. In the next few days or weeks we will have our first casualties. A protester will get hit with a "less than lethal" rubber bullet and will die. The public opinion, already swinging against the 1%, will gain momentum. Soon the polls will tell the story and the politics will follow. Scared of losing all power, the 1% will concede a few things. Once that starts, the protests will grow. The 1% will try to hold the line with another pushback. The 99% will stand firm. Eventually the 1% will learn that we can't be appeased or bought off. We demand fundamental change and we will get it. 

    I feel like I'm watching the start of something wonderful. The Occupation is here to stay and it's just what this country needs.

The Pro-Life Lobby, Isn't

    "We Vote Pro-Life" proclaimed the bumper sticker on the white Lincoln Town Car in front of me. The vehicle had seen better days and I was certain its vintage was such that those days likely took place during the first Bush administration. The sticker was significantly newer. The sentiment of one-issue voting was very old indeed.

    I frequently wonder, when I see this particular sticker, where the line of Pro-Life is drawn. I know the intent behind it is to protect the unborn. I respect that desire and even share it. I also observe that the very political advocates of seeing the unborn become the born, are those who stop caring once an embryo becomes a child. They are the same political block that would deny us universal healthcare, public education, after school programs, social security and even the small solace of end-of-life planning. To an ironic degree, the political wing that most supports pro-life sentiments is also a rabid fan of the death penalty, believing it should be applied both for murder cases and having a lack of health insurance.

    At a Republican debate late in 2011 Texas Governor Rick Perry was roundly applauded for his record of 235 executions on his watch over three terms. One person in Texas was put to death once every 2 and a half weeks. At the following debate the crowd was eagerly shouting "Let him die!" when a question arose about an uninsured individual. I suspect that if the question of reproductive rights had come up the phrase "Let him die" wouldn't have been part of the repertoire.

    In the news we bore witness to the down-to-the-wire drama of Troy Davis' execution. I browsed a half dozen pro-life web sites to see what their reaction to this questionable act would be. I admit to not being surprised that none of them even mentioned saving a potentially innocent man's life. On the right-wing, Ann Coulter's Twitter statement on the matter was "ONE TROY DAVIS FLAME BROILED PLEASE." The all-caps are hers. The disgust should be universal.

    At the heart of the pro-life movement lies the issue of abortion and by extension, reproductive rights. I strongly considered writing to Operation Rescue, the Army of God and other groups to learn their side of this battle. Thankfully, the entities I would contact have made their views loudly heard and blatantly displayed across the political landscape and, more to my purposes, the internet.

    I learned much while examining the pro-life side of the debate. For one thing, I learned that there is no debate. Life begins at conception. I also learned that since there was no debate, that extreme measures were often warranted and encouraged. There was frequent license for harassment and violence, including fake "wanted" posters, complete with a "Dead or Alive" subtitle. However, it should be noted that the main weapon used by the pro-lifers is legislative. Their target is almost universally an organization called Planned Parenthood. To hear the Pro-life lobby tell it, Planned Parenthood facilities are abortion mills. They depict dingy, unclean, unsafe and soulless abortion factories staffed by people who delight in the premature death of tiny babies.

    I decide to visit one.

    On what I believed to be a nearly perfect fall day, I sat down with Sarah Gillooly, the Kansas Public Affairs Manager for Planned Parenthood at their clinic near my house. I can assure you that what I witnessed there flies in the face of the concerns of the pro-life lobby. I can't help but note that to enter the clinic I walked past a parked patrol car and had to enter through a secure door. The pro-lifers would be proud that their campaign of intimidation has resulted in heightened security. I met with an intelligent, polite and compassionate woman who expressed passion for the organization that she defends.

    My first question may not surprise you, and I am certain did not surprise Ms. Gillooly. Why Planned Parenthood? Her answer: Planned Parenthood is one of the most visible providers of reproductive care in the nation. Now, this gave me pause. She didn't use the word "abortion'. This caught me somewhat off guard. Her focus was on women's health. Her emphasis when it came to Planned Parenthood was on the "parenthood".

    In the time she shared with me and in my research since then I learned some things worth thinking about that I would like to share with you. My view of the pro-life lobby quickly evolved into the anti-choice lobby. I hope your view changes as well.

    Even though Kansas is third from last in the nation for infant mortality among minorities, no bills were introduced in the 2011 legislative session to address this. Twelve bills were introduced to restrict reproductive services in the state. Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care for low income women. If the anti-choice lobby wins out, these women will have to rely on county health services at a greater cost to the taxpayer and at much reduced efficiency. Planned Parenthood supports sex-ed programs and awareness of birth control measures that reduce unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of STDs.

    The anti-choice lobby isn't just targeting Planned Parenthood because some of their clinics do provide abortion services in a safe manner. As Texas Representative Wayne Christian said in a recent interview, "Of course this is a war on birth control and abortion and everything." The anti-choice fanatics simply don't want you to have a choice. This isn't about life, or reducing cost, or protecting women. If it were, Planned Parenthood would be their strongest ally because that organization does care about life, reducing costs and womens' health.

    The sad truth is that the allies of the anti-choice single-issue voters are the same people who won't reconsider the death penalty, won't end expensive and dangerous wars, won't protect not-for-profit healthcare, won't defend social security and turn a blind eye to the factors that regrettably force a woman to make the choice that they want to take away.

    I am not impressed by your bumper sticker.

Faithless

     David has done it again. He has written a wonderful blog post full of thought and intellect. And again, in my "wisdom", I'm going to disagree with him. As before, you should read his post first.

http://muirnin.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/armo/

     My first point of disagreement is that atheism is a religious belief at all. This is a common assertion and one that never ceases to bother me. The common response that rings through my head is simple. Atheism is a religion in the same way that "off" is a channel. To me, the very act, if you can call it that, of non-belief is something passive. It is not a choice, as any of the faithful will admit you must make to believe. Atheism is not the belief in the non-existence of god, it is the result of a lack of evidence to convince one to choose to believe.

     As an atheist, I am willing to admit that I might be wrong if presented with enough evidence. A believer, of any stripe, will not admit that they may be wrong despite any level of evidence. That is a fundamental difference and the main reason I am opposed to religion in general.

     Like David, I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household. I was a missionary. I believed the planet to be 6000 years old. How that all changed is currently irrelivant. What matters is that it changed. Through sometimes painful methods, it changed.

     Faith is the roadblock on the way to change. It is the lock on the door, behind which lies real knowledge. Faith is the blanket we wrap ourselves in to shield us from the bitter chill that is the admission that we are ignorant. Those of us who embrace that first fearful moment break through to the other side where we can truly begin learning.

     I am willing to ignore almost all the evils of religion. The child rape, the murder, the ethnic cleansing, the genital mutilation, the abuse, the humiliation, the extortion, the gleeful anticipation of the end of all life.... However, the commandment to remain ignorant is the one I will not overlook because all the others eventually flow from it. The celebration of non-thinking stunts our progress as a species and allows for all manner of excuses for the wrongs we choose to do to one another. Why mourn the dead who are in a better place? Why end suffering when those who suffer will be rewarded in Heaven for their faith? Mother Theresa spewed forth this vile example.

     So why oppose those who believe and yet seem to keep their faith benign and private? What objection could I possible have? So-called moderate belief gives cover and acceptance to the extremists while still requiring the same practice of well-manicured stupidity. More to the point, what exactly is moderate belief when it requires the suspension of reason and honestly?

     We should all strive to better ourselves, even if that means facing hard truths about reality.

Why I, as a Straight Man, Support Same-Sex Marriage

     I do not have a Human Right Campaign equality sticker on my car. You've seen them around, I'm sure. They're the little yellow equals sign on the blue background. If I could find a red equals sign on a black background, I would have one on my car. But let's face it, blue and yellow would clash with my black car. Yeah, I'm shallow.

     But I also do support the cause of same sex marriage. You should read this excellent article before you finish reading mine: http://muirnin.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/haakellot/

     David makes a lot of amazing points. His reasoning for not supporting marriage is unassailable. However, I also find much of it irrelevant. While I'm certain he will disagree with me, and is the more likely of us to be correct, here is why I feel this way.

     Marriage has historically been a matter of legal contracts and subjugation of women. However, traditional marriage is already dead and it wasn't "the gays" the killed it. I've seen weddings performed during both sky- and scuba-diving. I've seen Klingon weddings and later this year a friend of mine is having a pirate wedding that I will watch via webcast. My cousin married a strong woman whom I wouldn't dare cross swords with and she kept her damn name. Perhaps nobody felt like it was safe to ask her to do anything else.

     David is correct to point out all the symbolism that he is appropriately scornful of. Straight couples are changing quite a lot of that symbolism these days and therefore, I don't find it important.

     I am a straight man. I am also single and will be the rest of my life. There is no reason I should have the ability to marry and a same-sex couple in love cannot. When I see two people in love, that is all I see, just two people and love. The marriage contract grants the legal rights we provide to those who have made that lifetime commitment to one another. The marriage ceremony is how they choose to express that commitment and love.

     To David and my many homosexual friends and to those of you I don't know but might read this in any case: I'm not going to give up on my efforts to see equality in my lifetime. You deserve all the legal and ceremonial recognition of your love for another. I agree that traditional marriage is traditionally distasteful. But do what the straights are doing and create your own traditions.

Aaaarrrgh! (Admit it, the pirate thing is a good idea)