Partisan

Over the years, as I've posted opinion pieces and commented on various online articles, I have often been chided for being 'partisan'. That got me thinking about what it really means to be 'partisan'. Well, the best place to start when debating terminology is, of course, a dictionary. This is the primary definition of 'Partisan', according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."

Now the first part of that is pretty light-weight and would apply to any political preference. So I'm assuming that we're more focused on the second part. That's the real issue. Not that you have an opinion, but whether that opinion is supported and rational. Do you consider other views or do you cleve to your own despite all evidence?

By that reasoning, which you are free to dispute, I don't believe I am partisan, as a general rule. Sure I rail against conservative policies and Republicans, but I do so because I disagree with the point in question, not simply because they are conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support Democrats and liberals on all issues. The truth is, the reason I'm usually in opposition to conservative positions is simple; they don't make sense. It's not that I dream Democratic dreams, or that I have a man-crush on President Obama. It's that conservative policies are so often focused on effect instead of effectiveness.

For example, I do not support gay rights because I'm in thrall to the Gay Liberation Front! I support it because it is right and just to do so. Because, while I respect anyone's right to be personally grossed out by the idea of homosexuality, I will never accept the view that a gay individual is any less of a person or citizen than anyone else simply because of who they are attracted to.

I don't support every Democratic or liberal idea, but I do find myself on that side of more arguments than not. Doesn't make me partisan, just means I have opinions that are more liberal than conservative. But the important distinction is that I take each issue as it comes and then make a decision based on the information and what makes sense to me. I don't do it because Rachel Maddow tells me to, though I will value the insight I get from her opinion because she has earned my trust and respect. Others have not. Yes I have a lot to say about certain people and the noxious drivel they produce, but that's not because they are the 'other side', it's because they are wrong. Or at least they continually champion ideas that don't make sense to me.

What inspires my most frustrated rants are ideas or policies that do not seem to follow any logical thread. Or put another way, it's like someone declaring triumphantly that their equation equals 100, yet no matter how many times I look at the numbers, they only add up to 83. A great example is the financial collapse. I am amazed when I stumble upon people who will declare with absolute sincerity that the root of the problem was government interference and how the banks were forced to give out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Huh? Sure it fits a certain preconceived notion about 'big government', but it makes no sense! There were no Congressional or Presidential orders issued to the banks demanding they grant $500K mortgages to couples earning $20K a year. It never happened. It's a figment of their imaginations. Not to mention that the financial industry has tremendous lobbying power, and they would never let something like that pass in the first place. No matter how often or loudly some individuals proclaim it to be true, it just doesn't add up. Unfortunately that won't stop them from continuing to declare it as fact.

This, to me, is what being partisan is all about. Standing by a notion despite all evidence against it. Championing a theory that is unsupported by the facts. In short, someone "exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance" to a political party or popular theory simply because it fits the narrative you are comfortable with. Look, sometimes the facts are just against you. Sometimes no matter how much you wish they proved your side right, they just don't. When that happens, you step back and re-evaluate.

A Platform in Knots

I can't be the only one who gets dizzy trying to follow some of the twisted and contradictory Republican policy positions. I've always noted a few that didn't make sense, but it seems to be getting worse. I'm not sure if it's because they are trying to appeal to too many different groups within the party or not, but it sure is confusing.

The backbone of conservative thinking is 'small government'. The idea that the federal government only does the minimum needed. It's generally talked about as keeping the government out of your life. And yet, there appear to be a number of caveats to this idea. They are famously on record for wanting to remove regulations on financial institutions, roll back environmental protections and any number of other corporate related areas. Yet, oddly, the small government zeal ends rather abruptly at the edge of your personal life. And it is odd, since I would think that keeping government out of your personal business would be more important than keeping it out of corporate business.

And yet there are GOP led initiatives to deny, by law, the right of two people who love each other from getting married simply because they are the same sex. The reason for this seems to always boil down to either theological interpretations or just the fact that it makes some people uncomfortable. Neither is a good reason to deny citizens the same rights as their fellow Americans. There are a lot of things in this world that make me uncomfortable, but you don't see me trying to make them all illegal. I've always loosely interpreted the idea of 'liberty' as the right to live your life as you want, as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. Two men or two women getting married has no impact on the rights of Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee or any other conservative, as far as I can tell. So, to my mind, it's not any of their business. I'm sorry, but being creeped out by homosexuality doesn't give you the right to make gay Americans second class citizens.

Then we have the fringes of the anti-abortion debate. Since the conservatives haven't been able to overturn Roe v. Wade after 40 years, they decided to make the process as psychologically and physically stressful as possible for any woman attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights. So we end up with bills like the one Virginia proposed recently. It would have had the VA state government dictate medically unnecessary procedures, even against medical advice or the objections of the patient, to include an INTERNAL, vaginal ultrasound. In other words, a state government wanted to force a woman to undergo a procedure whereby she is penetrated against her will. That's what you call a government that's not just small enough to drown in a tub, but actually small enough to fit inside a vagina! The bill was only scuttled, after passing all the way to the Governor's desk, due to a sudden deluge of national attention and outrage. Similar bills, without the penetration component, have already passed in a number of other states. These exist for only one purpose, to coerce and psychologically abuse a woman when she is at her most vulnerable. Sounds exactly like small government to me!

This election cycle we've seen yet another example of twisted policy, this time about birth control of all things. Yes, we are suddenly debating the availability of birth control in the year 2012. When did this become controversial, outside of Vatican City? Condoms have been in use since perhaps as far back as the 15th century, in some form or another, and female contraception has a history that stretches to ancient Egypt. This isn't a 'Liberal' agenda item, it's established and accepted history. One thing it isn't though is the business of any government or faith to dictate! I'm unable to grasp how a party that claims to value individual liberty can turn around and begin making noises about the legality of birth control. But the discussion gets really psychedelic when people like Rick Santorum starts babbling about the availability of birth control being related to increases in abortion rates. Huh?! I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that contraception, by its very design and definition, prevents fertilization of an egg and thus any resulting fetus. If you're against abortion, than you damn well should be Pro-Contraception!! Just trying to parse the conservative logic on this is enough to induce a migraine.

On yet another front is the constant push to wedge theology into government and use that to dictate a specific moral view for the entire country. Santorum, and he's hardly alone in this mindset, recently declared that, "We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. ... And those truths don't change just because people's attitudes may change". First off, who's this 'we' of which you speak? Not sure if he realizes this or not, but America's citizens represent just about every theological point on the compass. In other words, 'we' aren't all 'Judeo-Christian,' shocking as that may be to hear. Secondly, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that the Constitution was based on the laws of man, not a completely unsupported theological text filled with barbaric customs that include stoning, fratricide and slavery, among many others. Shall we bring those back too? After all, they are also "biblical truth," are they not? Oh, I forgot! You get to pick and choose what parts to live by, don't you? Look, if you are for small government, you can't then be for dictating theology as policy or as the basis for national law. Faith is a personal choice and that's where it should begin and end.

It's this sort of contradictory thinking that drives me nuts, short drive that it is. I don't expect absolute consistency, but this is just a spaghetti bowl of random ideas. Maybe it stems from trying to house both ultra-conservative evangelicals under the same roof as secular moderates. But whatever the reason, it's insane. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite movies, you keep using that phrase, 'small government.' "I don't think it means what you think it means."

Legal Fiction

Most people are at least familiar with Stephen Colbert's name, even if you've never watched a single episode of The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. That's probably because the man is a self promotional machine. For example, back in 2009 NASA did a poll to decide on a name for the newest node added to the ISS (International Space Station). Colbert exhorted his viewers to vote and ultimately he actually topped the list. NASA did, ultimately choose to name it 'Tranquility' but Colbert still got his name in space. NASA named the treadmill that would be housed in that node after him. Well, to be accurate they named it the Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, or COLBERT. In his typical deadpan, Colbert responded that:

"I think a treadmill is better than a node ... because the node is just a box for the treadmill. Nobody says, 'Hey, my mom bought me a Nike box.' They want the shoes that are inside."

While it may seem frivolous on the surface, the incident did draw more attention to the often forgotten ISS and NASA in general. And ultimately I think that's what he wanted all along. Celebrities have long used their popular reach to raise awareness of a cause, Colbert just does it with his own unique, over the top, faux conservative flair.

This election season, Colbert is using the same sort of technique to draw attention to something that is far more important to our democracy, campaign finance. Specifically the practical results of the Supreme Court's so called 'Citizen's United' decision. Over the last year, Colbert has, in the guise of his uber-Conservative on-screen persona, laid bare the real world implications of that decision. It began with his declaration that he would be forming his own 'Super PAC,' a political action committee that is allowed to raise unlimited donations from any individual, group or business. While Super PACs are required to disclose donors, like regular PACs, they can usually take advantage of technicalities to delay disclosure far longer and sometimes even until after the election itself, thus making the disclosure more academic than enlightening. In successive episodes throughout the year Colbert went through the process, always doing so with his lawyer, Trevor Potter, on hand to show that there was a serious legal footing to the segment. As Potter said in an interview with NPR in September 2011,

"It's not a joke. Because, as he has put it, he wanted to bring people in behind the curtain so they could see [how superPACs] actually worked and what they actually did."

He certainly does that. To watch these segments is to see the threadbare legal fiction that has been created to allow cash to pour into our political system with minimal oversight. Literally, it requires only a few sheets of paper to be signed in order to 'upgrade' a regular PAC, which operates under more restrictive rules, to be a Super PAC. From what I can tell, it takes more effort and paperwork to setup a one man, home business than it does to setup a Super PAC that can collect and administer donations into the tens of millions of dollars. And the home business probably requires more oversight!

One of the other fictions at work here is that a candidate cannot directly coordinate with a Super PAC. The operative word here is 'directly,' as most of the current gang of Super PACs are actually being run by close associates and, in many cases, former senior campaign staffers! Not a lot of separation there, thus making the Super PAC, functionally, just an extension of the candidate's formal campaign apparatus. Colbert pointed this out in a recent episode, with his usual comedic twist. During a very brief 'campaign' to run for President of the United States of South Carolina, he transferred control of his SuperPAC to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show. A few days later he spoke to his audience about not being able to directly coordinate with Stewart about the Super PAC's activities and then proceeded to openly ponder what Stewart might do with all that Super PAC money. Indirectly mocking Newt Gingrich's earlier press conference where he 'called on' the Super PAC supporting his campaign to not run a particular ad in its current form. This is apparently not coordinating. It seems that as long as the campaign staff doesn't meet with Super PAC representatives or call them up directly, you can coordinate via the media to your heart's content. Thus this so called restriction is merely a minor inconvenience rather than an actual impediment.

There are a lot of things we need in our electoral system, but more money sure isn't one of them. What benefit does our Republic actually gain from hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations? Does it ensure just and fair elections? Does it give us candidates who are more dedicated to serving the people? Does it help provide us with unbiased facts on, not just what the candidates say they stand for, but what they've actually done? Does it make elected officials more trustworthy? That would be a 'No' on all accounts. What it does accomplish is to ensure our elected politicians feel indebted to those who flooded their campaigns with cash and not the rule of law or service to their constituents.  It allows the candidates to overwhelm the voters with a flood of propaganda that neither informs nor educates them, but simply hammers them with repetitious soundbites and wild hyperbole. It all but guarantees that, if elected and faced with a choice between safeguarding their constituents or smoothing the way for a lavish donor, that the voter will almost always lose. There is no doubt that money is one of the greatest corrupting forces in this world and the one place we do NOT need more corruption is our government! There's a saying 'that everyone has their price' and as long as we allow private money to run rampant in our electoral system we will ensure that politicians are consistently able to achieve their particular asking price.

Overkill

To hear organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and various software companies tell it, they are losing untold billions of dollars to digital piracy. This is, in the words of a certain MSNBC personality, bull-pucky.

Let's look at the numbers being tossed about on this. The MPAA touts on their website a study by The Institute for Policy Innovation. I poked around their site and found a movie industry report that claimed "U.S. movie companies lost $6.1 billion in 2005 to piracy . . . [which] translates into total lost output among all industries of $20.5 billion annually. It also finds that lost earnings for all U.S. workers amounts to $5.5 billion annually, and 141,030 jobs that would otherwise have been created are lost. In addition, as a result of piracy, governments at the federal, state, and local levels are deprived of $837 million in tax revenues each year."

Look, I'm no statistician, but that sounds like guesswork multiplied by wild assumptions and divided by the square root of any random Senator's IQ. I'm not saying that piracy doesn't cost these industries a pretty penny, but it's nowhere near the apocalyptic levels they regularly regurgitate into any open microphone. You see, they are basing these ludicrous numbers on the fantastical assumption that every song, movie or computer program that is obtained by 'piracy' would otherwise have been purchased at the suggested retail price. This is wildly optimistic. Many people download pirate copies as much because they can, as from any desire to own them.

For example, say I find myself with access to a pirate copy of Adobe Photoshop. I play around and use it now and then, but does that mean without illicit access that I would otherwise have plunked down $500 for a legal copy? Not in a million years! Photoshop is a cool program to diddle with, but unless you really must have the high end features it offers, there are any number of alternatives that are far easier to use and far cheaper. Some even free! So Adobe wouldn't have lost a sale to me because I never would have actually bought it! It's the same with songs or movies. Sure some guy might download every movie ever made featuring Kate Beckinsale from a file sharing site, but how many would he have realistically ordered from Amazon if he didn't have access to the pirated copies? Very few, I'll wager. In fact, probably just the ones where she's dressed in leather or spandex!

I'd be surprised if these numbers were even in the same time zone as reality. None of these industries are being bled to death by piracy, despite their piteous cries. They suffer far more from their inability to adapt to changes in content delivery than to the loss of a few sales of the latest Justin Bieber album. Repeatedly these analog industries have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital age. First it was music, then movies and now publishing. Each time it was the same story and each time the industry in question wasted, and in some cases continues to waste, years and gobs of money fighting what they should have been rushing to embrace. The real losses from piracy come from places like China and Thailand and are of the old school variety; guys selling cell phone quality DVD copies of Avatar from a back alley in Bangkok! No argument that piracy in general is wrong, but current attempts to address it by threatening entire websites due to one piece of unauthorized content are of the 'killing an ant with a shotgun' variety. I don't think we need to shut down YouTube because someone posts a funny cat video with an unauthorized Lady Gaga soundtrack, do you?

More information and links regarding SOPA and PIPA anti piracy bills can be found HERE

The Little Spin-off that Did

Quick, what series holds the title of longest running American SciFi series? Nope, it's not ST:The Next Generation, Voyager or any of the other Trek iterations. Curious? Well, way back in 1994, Director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Patriot, 2012) helmed a movie called Stargate. It starred Kurt Russell, James Spader and Jaye Davidson, fresh off his big role in The Crying Game. The film was a solid success, earning nearly $200 million worldwide, a good sum for the early 90's. Though it was a 'hit' movie, it would be its TV descendants that would leave the bigger mark.

If you never saw the movie, it was centered on an archeologist named Daniel Jackson who was quickly becoming a laughingstock for claiming that the great pyramids were landing platforms for aliens.  After a particularly bad lecture he is offered a mysterious job on a US military project. He finds himself trying to decipher symbols on a large ring shaped artifact that had been discovered in Egypt back in 1928. His breakthrough allows them to activate the 'Stargate' which promptly opens a wormhole connection to another identical gate on another planet. The movie plot takes off from there and, as you would expect, vindicates Jackson's theories and action, romance and special effects abound.

As successful as the movie was, no sequel ever materialized and in 1997 the story was revived as a Showtime series as Stargate: SG-1. It would, after season 5, move to the SciFi Channel for the rest of its run. They took the general plot and made a few tweaks that opened up the 'universe' a bit and allowed the kind of freedom a series would need to thrive.  Surprisingly though, the vast majority of the structure remained, including many of the core characters, though all but a couple supporting actors were recast. The updated storyline had the secret project becoming 'Stargate Command,' a super secret operation that was run from twenty some odd levels beneath Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado.  The 'SG-1' of the title refers to the first, and most elite of the Stargate teams made up of the two primary characters from the movie, Dr. Jackson and Air Force Colonel Jack O'Neill along with two newly created characters. Captain Samantha Carter, an Air Force officer and astrophysicist, and T'ealc, an 'alien' who joins the team following the series pilot. 

Much like the way Star Trek: TNG continued for a few more seasons after Deep Space 9 debuted, SG-1 still had two seasons ahead of it when they spun off Stargate: Atlantis. Atlantis was based on an alien city located far off in the Pegasus galaxy and actually spent its first season cut off from Earth. Atlantis ran for five seasons before being shuttered to make way for Stargate: Universe. Universe took place on an alien starship that was on an automated, unmanned exploration mission far off in the universe. The humans arrived onboard, via stargate, while escaping disaster and becoming marooned on the ship with minimal supplies and limited understanding of the ship and technology. Universe only managed two seasons before being cancelled. There was also a short lived animated series called Stargate: Infinity, which I never saw.

Both SG-1 and Atlantis held to a similar, successful formula that focused on a small group of interesting and likable characters exploring and often fighting for their survival as well as the survival of Earth itself on occasion. Universe was a completely different beast and I believe that's what spelled its doom. Whereas SG-1 and Atlantis were both adventure series, spiced with humor and sprinkled with a bit of drama, Universe was a heavy drama spiced with adventure and an occasional pinch of humor.  I was only able to manage about half a season before I gave up on it. Personally I found it way too dark and brooding where every character was deeply flawed and there seemed no real good guys. Think  'Stargate: Galactica'. I much preferred the lighter tone of the first two series. Both SG-1 and Atlantis had some interesting characters with their own quirks that were fun to watch. The writing was very good and the special effects were excellent, especially for cable TV show. Even the various sets were much better than you might expect. Another thing that set the first two iterations apart from some other science fiction series was that they weren't above taking gentle shots at sci/fi in general and Stargate in particular from time to time. For example a later episode of SG-1 had one character comment about a really corny line, a line that that character herself had delivered verbatim in one of the first episodes of the series. 

If you haven't seen Stargate: SG-1 or Stargate: Atlantis, or if you never really gave them a chance when they were in production, I highly recommend checking them out on Netflix sometime. Both series are available via disc and streaming. The first few episodes of SG-1 are a little rough in places, like pretty much every sci/fi series, but it quickly settles in as a top notch bit of science fiction. They may not have gotten as much attention as Star Trek, Babylon 5 or others, but SG-1 and Atlantis are well worth your time!

Unintentional

Mississippi is set to vote in less than a week on a state amendment that would redefine a 'person' as existing "from the moment of fertilization, cloning or functional equivalent thereof". Yes, it includes cloning. It's the latest round of attempts to undermine the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Keep in mind that Roe v. Wade has been 'on the books' so to speak for almost 40 years now, yet has not been overturned.

Proposition 26 is, pardon the pun, the poster child for unintended consequences. It's one of those ideas that sounds interesting in a philosophical discussion about where life begins, but is a disaster waiting to happen if actually applied. The problem is that it opens the door to all sorts of complications that the simple minded folks who drew it up never considered.

Let's for a moment assume that this proposition was passed. We shall also assume, for the purposes of discussion, that it's not struck down immediately after introduction due to Constitutional conflicts, certainly a possibility. Based on the language, "moment of fertilization," could effectively outlaw some common forms of birth control such as the IUD. Some have even claimed that it could effect the Pill. Now there seems to be some disagreement on exactly where the birth control 'cut off' would be, though at least some personhood amendment supporters have expressed their belief and/or hope that it would ban the Pill. That in itself should worry you as it means that at least some of these people will fight to try and ensure it does include the Pill. Don't even think about any kind of birth control for victims of rape. This amendment would all but guarantee that these brutalized women would be forced by the state to carry their attacker's child.

What about a miscarriage or even a stillbirth? Does that trigger a mandatory homicide investigation? Sounds silly, but think about it. We've already had a woman in Mississippi charged with murder following the stillbirth of her baby, and while she did reportedly use cocaine there was no evidence that this had anything to do with the stillbirth.  So as crazy as it sounds, it's not a hypothetical question anymore. What if a woman smokes during pregnancy, could that be grounds for child endangerment charges?

But let's move outside the semi-obvious for a moment. Depending on interpretations this could effect in vitro fertilization and therefore endanger fertility treatments in general. On the same subject, will fertilized eggs be considered legal people? How will that effect inheritance law? Will this become part of census data, where every pregnant woman will need to note the number of fetuses she's carrying as members of the household? If the woman is injured or ill and you have to choose between her life or the life of her baby, will the judicial system step in to defend the rights of the fetus against the mother? What happens if the husband or her family choose to save the woman at the expense of the fetus? Would that be first degree murder now? While some of these examples may seem extreme, that doesn't mean they won't come into play. After all, we Americans have a knack for pushing the envelope in just about every facet of life.

I know we would all love a chart that clearly noted where 'life' starts, but it's not going to happen. It seems like it should be a simple question, but it's not. It's another of those annoying gray areas where everyone can come up with their own answer and make a case that they are right. This is why the abortion debate will not be solved in our lifetime and probably not for centuries, if ever. This "Personhood Amendment," while it may sound reasonable to the anti-abortion faction, is a bureaucratic, social and judicial land mine. Not only will it not clear up the question, it will muddy the waters far worse that they are now. Sometimes it's just as important to know when NOT to do something as it is to know when to do it. This is a good time NOT to do something.

Why Occupy

I keep hearing talking heads act dumbfounded by the current Occupy Wall Street protests/sit-ins. Really? Is it truly that much of a mystery?

Some of the nit picking is due to the lack of a simple, easily packaged mission statement that will fit in a headline. After all, that's the only thing most news shows and pundit parades have time for. They want a one sentence description they can wrap their pea brains around so they can then pontificate.

You want to know what it's all about? Try this little exercise. Google (or Bing, if you like) US unemployment statistics for the last few years.  National deficit estimates, mortgage foreclosure statistics and personal bankruptcies for the last year, just as a start. After you've spent a little time with those happy articles, search for US corporate earnings, middle class earnings of the last decade and earnings of the top few percent over the same period. Does anything strike you as strange about all this? Notice a trend?

Well, it sure seems odd to me and the crowds of people meeting for the Occupy Wall Street protests! It's odd that many of the companies who caused the economy to implode, and were then bailed out by American taxpayers, are doing great! Earnings as high or higher than before they mugged the economy and bonuses hitting record levels. Now compare that to the financial status of the bulk of Americans.

What are they protesting? They, and I, are watching as the top tier is slowly sucking dry the real engine of the economy, the middle class. We see a financial system guilty of massive greed and corruption yet, with few exceptions, puttering along as if nothing happened. What are the Occupy protesters looking for? How about Justice for those who don't make 6 or 7 figure salaries? How about making those who do take responsibility for their actions? Or is that too much to ask?

2011-10-30: Matt Taibbi has a good piece on this subject over at Rolling Stone. I encourage you to give it a read.