Issues of Value

This week's Hump Day Hmm is about values. This is timely due to the situation that Senator Craig from Idaho finds himself in. To be honest, I hadn't heard of him at all until this all came about; partly because he's from way out west, but also because he just doesn't have that high of a profile in the Senate.

However, the question of his treatment in the media is certainly an interesting one. For years now, the Republicans have been campaigning as the supporters and defenders of "traditional" values. Because of this, you now have a situation where, if someone who is a Republican winds up in a situation like Senator Craig's, they are completely vilified.

The closest comparison that I can draw is when the former Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey (Democrat) came out of the closet a couple of years ago. When that happened, it was seen as a moment that should be celebrated, with him and his wife (they're now separated however) appearing on various TV shows up and down the dial. The coverage couldn't have been more different.

The discussion of values obviously goes beyond one's sexual preference, into what you believe and what you tolerate. It used to be that you could have your own beliefs and values and have the right to belong to whatever groups you wanted to. Now, it seems that if you are part of one group, you must subscribe to all of that group's beliefs.

Again, in the world of politics, it is considered to be almost taboo to be a pro-choice Republican or a pro-life Democrat. That doesn't mean that there have been, are, and will be successful exceptions to the rule, but the chances of that happening are becoming slim. I am sure that if one of the exceptions made it to the running for a national office, they would have attack ad after attack ad questioning their "values".

I personally feel that your values are yours alone; they should be influenced by your experiences and those of the people around you. They shouldn't be dictated to you by a person you've never met, or by a sheet of paper handed to you when you sign up for something.

Another example is that all around the country, you're seeing these votes come up to institute constitutional bans on same-sex marriages. In my state, we voted on it last November. I voted no because I didn't think we needed to have a constitutional amendment to reinforce something that was already clear as day in the laws of our state.

However, the people who were saying to vote yes to this measure were saying that if you voted no, it would mean that the day after the election, you'd have people clamoring to get the laws of the state changed to allow same-sex marriage.

The bit that really tipped me off to voting no on this measure was that it was a very confusing and opened the door to preventing unmarried straight couples of having the same benefits as married couples (such as living trusts and will executorships, of which I'm not totally clear of the laws on, so I might not be qualified to talk about it ;)). This is the text of the amendment:

[Article XIII] Section 13. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The second sentence is the part that created a lot of confusion. If you read it with the widest understanding, it could be conceived to block these benefits and privileges to all unmarried couples.

The really interesting thing is that although the polls were showing it was going to be a close fight, it passed comfortably at 60-40. Even though I was against the amendment, I can accept that it passed and that it is now part of our constitution. In fact, since the election, you haven't heard anything further about this causing trouble for unmarried couples, so I guess you could almost say that it didn't change anything, except reinforce the laws we already have.

Here's where some people could get confounded by the fact I voted against it. I am to the right of center on the political spectrum. I believe that the government shouldn't be getting in the way of personal business, and that they shouldn't be forcing new regulations down our throats. I also believe that, when it comes to the "big" values question - abortion - there are a lot of choices that are made on the path to choosing whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. I don't like the idea of aborting a pregnancy, but I do think that if the mother-to-be decides that it is best for her, for any reason, to end the pregnancy, she should have the right to do that.

I know it is a touchy subject, but if you wish to share your outlook on it, or on anything I've mentioned, please do so. ;)

Lastly, on the topic of exceptions to the rule, once again, The West Wing did this wonderfully with the election at the end of the series. They made the election between two pro-choice candidates, one a Republican from California and the other a Democrat from Texas. I don't like to spoil the show for y'all, but if you have the chance, watch an episode from the final season called "The Al Smith Dinner" - it confronts the challenges of a pro-choice Republican running for national office.

PC Paralysis

This week's Hump Day Hmm discusses something that bugs me quite a bit, and I'm not that old - Political Correctness. Naturally, it doesn't bother me that it does actually exist, but I feel that there is a sense of paralysis that results from the supposed need to be PC.

The paralysis comes in one of two forms - either you change what you say to practically negate any true meaning you're trying to achieve, or you just don't say anything at all for fear you might offend someone. I know that I'm guilty of doing both, more the second than the first. However, it's not all concerns of offending anyone that would keep me from saying anything - I would always assume that someone else would come along and say exactly what I was thinking.

I've now learnt that this isn't always the case and that there are usually people who are in the same spot as me - they want to say something, but are afraid to do so or just don't bother because they assume that someone will pick up their slack. However, there are some circumstances - such as when the person you're speaking to just doesn't like you, or they think that you have some kind of secret agenda - where it is best to say nothing because if you do, you know that the discussion will likely wind up being one of the past and of the present.

In fact, that was one of the reasons why I started blogging again - so that I could say whatever I wanted whenever I want. There isn't the worry about my words having direct consequences over my participation in one site or another. I've also found that, more recently, I'm not visiting the same sites that I used to before I started blogging - for example, I find that I'd rather be reading through various blogs in my Google Reader where I have a wide variety of viewpoints, rather than in forums where it's seemingly always the same four or five people posting their ideas.

However, where you really see the paralysis is out in the political world. However, it's not the bloggers or the talk show hosts that show the paralysis - it's the politicians themselves. A lot of the blame for that probably should be shifted onto their staff as the reality of politics now is that it is a show run behind the curtains. It's best shown toward the end of season 6 of The West Wing, where the election is ramping up and all the candidates are getting their names out there. In a couple of episodes, there are situations where a candidate chooses to say what he is thinking and gets raked over the coals for actually saying it. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who will never have seen that episode as they felt that the whole show was just a vehicle to promote "liberal" ideas. I'll admit that I thought the same thing myself, but once I watched three or four episodes, I was hooked and haven't looked back. In fact, I even found an old episode on a VHS tape and watched it (at least until the tape ran out because it was part of the overrun recording that I had done).

The reality is different of course for our politicians today - they are all concerned about polling numbers, and making sure that they vary their message depending on who they are talking to. There is an element of this as well in the West Wing, but the writers did give the characters the opportunity to speak their mind.

Where do I stand on being PC and saying the right thing? I certainly think that if you're comfortable with saying something, you definitely need to. Otherwise you might not have another chance to say it. Even if you don't think you're comfortable, you should write up what you want to say and possibly run it past a friend - they'll likely give you tips on how to improve your message and possibly remind you of things that you should include as well. I also think that you should, within reason (as in not making a direct personal attack or resorting to racial or ethnic slurs) say what you want to say in the manner that you wish to say it.

There's a lot more that could be said, not only for the words we say, but also for the actions we decide to take - especially when it comes to shielding ourselves from things. However, that's a discussion for another time.

I don't think I missed much

So, the State of the Union address was tonight. I watched classic baseball instead, thanks to one of the channels here airing older games from the Brewers. Tonight's installment was a game from August 1992, against the Toronto Blue Jays (apparently not Bluejays as I had said yesterday) at Skydome. Of course, since it was on you know that the Brewers end up winning - with a (then) record of 31 hits - 22-2. One comment made by the CBC commentators was that the next day's game would be much closer. It was, but the Brewers still won, 7-2.

As far as the SOTU goes, it's not like you don't hear about these things for days if not weeks to come, especially as the Presidential campaign for next fall has already started. Another thing - we all know what the reaction will be - Democrats will say that the President's policies are misguided, Republicans will say that the Democrats are full of it and nothing will get done. Just about everyone else (myself included) will say that they're all full of it and that they all just care about what the people who give them money want.

You'd think that as someone who got a Christmas card from the White House in 2004, I'd care more, but I don't. :)

Phone calls

Well, even though I didn't do any calling for candidates, it doesn't mean that I have been insulated from calls from their campaigns. This evening alone, there have been two calls for different candidates - one is (I believe) standing for Governor - the fact that he is the person that I intend to vote for doesn't matter; the other call received tonight was from a candidate for the House who is running in a different district to the one I am in. Interestingly, this was the second time that someone called from a campaign that isn't even close to where I live - the other one was for a state legislature district about 30 miles from here or so.

Even stranger than the calls for out-of-area candidates is the fact that the call or the gubernatorial candidate came up listed as a 213 area code number - which is Los Angeles (the ID was STH PRK HTL, which I would presume means "South Park Hotel").

The good part is that this will all be over by Wednesday or so; depending on if there are any challenges to the election.