politics & philosophy Archives

My president 2012

RT @BarackObama: "Same-sex couples should be able to get married."—President Obama

Posted on May 9, 2012 at 01:01 PM in politics & philosophy, quotes, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bigotry backed into a corner by social change 2012

RT @thinkprogress: FACT: Last time North Carolina amended their constitution on marriage it was to ban interracial marriage
AsavFDbCIAIoTpv

Posted on May 9, 2012 at 12:17 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (2)

Why does the government care about marriage? 2012

After seeing the news of North Carolina's ban on same sex marriage, my thoughts again return to the questions that came to me when California's ban was voted in: Why is government even in the marriage business? What benefit does it bring government to control it instead of it being an individual contract? And, in the face of all these budget issues, is managing marriage really of value to government?

I asked those questions on Twitter and had a lively chat with @striatic and @alanstorm (which had the background flavor of making me happy about the internet and the kind of conversations it can enable).

 @striatic said that yes, managing marriage is of value. "Unless you want ceaseless advertisments for 'marriage brokers' and all the inherent overhead dragging on the economy. And then you'd need to regulate these contracts anyway to sync them with government offered benefits."

Still not sure I see the first half of that argument—are other common contractual agreements really prone to over-advertising and, even if annoying, would that actually drag the economy?—but I do see the point that if the government is offering benefits, the management of verifying the required status is something the government is interested in.

I drew an analogy with business contracts not resulting in ceaseless ads or economic drag (indeed, perhaps having an economic contribution). @striatic said, "The majority of people don't need legal aid or ever form business partnerships. The majority of people do get married."

Well, that sent me off immediately for the numbers. According to a Pew Research Center study from last year (as reported by ABC), 72% of U.S. adults have been married at least once, though only 51% are married now. That figure is down dramatically since 1960, when the numbers were 72% and 85% respectively.

Finding numbers on how many U.S. adults have entered into a contractual agreement other than marriage (such as incorporating a business) at some point in their lives was not so easy to find. While I accept @striatic's point that marriage is a significant agreement which the majority of adults still participate in, I am holding out for data on whether it's actually exceptional over other comparably complex legal experiences.

At this point @alanstorm joined in, "Government involvement helps create a standard of fairness for the individuals getting married and enforcement of rights."

To which I replied, "Ok. Standard of fairness with regard to which rights? Tax law? But that would need to change to if gov got out of marriage biz."

He said, "Jerks could coerce individuals into unfair marriage contracts, hospitals could ignore spousal rights in an individual contract, (that is, an individual marriage contract written like a standard employment agreement)."

Domestic partners face the latter (hospitals ignoring spousal rights) often enough. Seems the former (unfair marriage contracts) has old roots in expectation of female financial dependence, though. A lot of old assumptions (e.g., taxes re: shared home ownership/parenthood are linked with married status) would need re-examination were the government to 'get out of the marriage business'.

@alanstorm said, "It's complicated for sure, Wikipedia has a list of the sorts of things I was thinking about: Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States. There's a huge legal support system for married people that gay couples deserve access to. That's what government recognition [is] for."

If the government offers special rights/responsibilities for the married, it is in government's interest to administer marriage. That is clear. What is unclear to me is why it is in government's interest to offer special rights/responsibilities to married people.

@alanstorm said, "Because marriage is complicated, and irrespective of strides in women's rights, one partner often becomes dependent on another. And government (despite its reputation in entertainment politics) is here to help us when things don't go as planned." @striatic said, "Married people want those special rights and responsibilities, which makes it in the government's interest. That's 100% fine if the special 'rights and responsibilities' are not 'advantages', and are accesible equally to all."

However, I remain unsatisfied. I'm not asking "Why are there some societal benefits to government taking an interest in protecting these special rights/responsibilities?" but "What fiscal or administrative arguments continue to make it in government's interest to offer special rights/responsibilities to married people?"

@striatic rightly pointed out that "governments have goals other than self administration, established by their constituencies .. governments aren't businesses." But I can counter back, "What other goals is it serving for government to offer special rights/responsibilities to married people?"

He said, "altogether nuking marriage is a solution looking for a problem. The problem isn't marriage, but who isn't allowed it."

I'm not proposing nuking marriage. I'm just questioning which aspects of it should be managed by government.

@alanstorm concluded whimsically, "Fiscal argument? Because we pay taxes and deserve it! (I'm glad we managed to resolve 200+ years of policy in one twitter night.)"

But I'm not satisfied there, either: "Well, except that taxes are biased toward the married, which for unmarried committed couples (by choice or exclusion) ain't great."

That last round brought in @lrgc, who said, "Assuming it's in society's interest, then government is society's administrator. Now I'd need to think if it's in society's interest."

 

And can I just say, '140 character limit means you never have serious conversations', my lily white ass! :)

Posted on May 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM in Current Affairs, politics & philosophy, Religion | Permalink | Comments (0)

Stop the { } mixing! 2012

RT @FourthAndFirst: North Carolina, Then and Now:

FJE8

(via @patrickneville)

Posted on May 8, 2012 at 09:31 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets, warnings & kvetches | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friendship is not a business transaction. 2012

RT @mortari: "Friendzoning is bullshit because girls are not machines that you put Kindness Coins into until sex falls out."

 

Brilliant essay. Here's another bit:

I cannot state this clearly enough: if you really believe in equality, then you have to acknowledge the fact that women have a right to say no. That no matter how pure and true your feelings, your ladylove is under no obligation whatever to reciprocate them, because friendship is not a business transaction, and women are allowed to want male friends. Yes, it is difficult and sad and heartbreaking to love someone who doesn't love you back, and doubly so when that person is a friend. Believe me; I speak from experience. This is not a fun thing to endure! But discounting the woman as a bitch, a user, a timewaster, a whore with no taste who only wants to sleep with arseholes instead of Nice Guys like you is not on. It is pure, unadulterated sexism: the attitude that friendship with a woman is only ever a stepping-stone to getting into her pants, such that if the pants-getting is off the table, then so too is the friendship.

Which, frankly, is bullshit. If you don't care enough about someone to enjoy their company and respect their decisions when sex is off the table, then that person is right not to sleep with you, because enjoying someone's company and respecting their decisions is pretty much how sex gets on the table to start with.

Posted on May 7, 2012 at 11:16 AM in linky goodness, politics & philosophy, sex, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Who's really stalling things in Congress? 2012

Guess what? It wasn't the Tea Partiers

Posted on May 7, 2012 at 01:31 AM in linky goodness, politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds 2012

RT @stewart: S'funny when Cracked.com has top notch tutorials for political media literacy

Posted on May 6, 2012 at 10:16 PM in linky goodness, politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reboot the Romney-bot 2012

RT @SteveMirsky: "by admitting that his head swivels around on a titanium base, Romney would wipe out Obama’s advantage among young"

Posted on May 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM in linky goodness, politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

This reflects a not insignificant difference between this fall's presidential candidates 2012

RT @BarackObama: POTUS: “I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons."

Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM in politics & philosophy, sex, tweets, warnings & kvetches | Permalink | Comments (0)

The potential to effect change is better than ever 2012

RT @mulegirl: Dear GenX, a suggestion for your pending reactionary midlife crisis: Revive your youthful passion for human rights. The fight is still on.

Posted on May 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Put your money where we need it, BART. 2012

Here's a good petition: Tell BART to fight for American jobs & get a better deal for taxpayers = win-win #bart4america

Posted on May 4, 2012 at 09:31 AM in Current Affairs, politics & philosophy, San Francisco, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

xenophobia + perception of anonymity 2012

RT @anildash: Looks like elapsed time from a TMZ link to the first death threat being received via email is about two hours. Unsurprising, but still sad.

Posted on May 3, 2012 at 10:19 AM in politics & philosophy, The Web, tweets, warnings & kvetches | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and "Protection" Act 2012

RT @thelancearthur: Infographic of the Day: "WTF is CISPA?"
CISPA
Created by: Paralegal.net

Posted on May 2, 2012 at 11:16 AM in politics & philosophy, tweets, warnings & kvetches | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Bin Laden Freakout 2012

RT @sullydish: Obama bragging?? If Bush had killed OBL, he would have jumped out of a helicopter in a jump-suit with fireworks

Posted on May 1, 2012 at 01:01 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

the polarization that's always bubbling underneath the surface 2012

RT @jsmooth995: New video, looking past the news cycle on Trayvon Martin

Posted on April 30, 2012 at 02:53 PM in Current Affairs, politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Finding the Limits of Empathy 2012

RT @cshirky: Degrees of empathy & political engagement are correlated directly among liberals, inversely among conservatives.

Posted on April 30, 2012 at 09:16 AM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

How America Came To Torture Its Prisoners 2012

"I read nearly 140,000 formerly classified docs about America's abuse of prisoners since 2001. Here is what I learned."

Our highest government officials, up to and including President Bush, broke international and U.S. laws banning torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Worse, they made their subordinates in the military and civilian intelligence services break those laws for them.

Posted on April 29, 2012 at 09:31 PM in Current Affairs, politics & philosophy, tweets, warnings & kvetches | Permalink | Comments (0)

Understanding Hipster Racism 2012

RT @questlove: wow. Lester Bangs/Hipstrer Counterculture/Music Critcs/& wherever you fall on the "Girls"debate: read and absorb.

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 06:04 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

making neighborhood connections 2012

IMG_2688

Posted on April 27, 2012 at 05:37 PM in politics & philosophy, San Francisco | Permalink | Comments (0)

"a very moving manifestation of Norwegian culture" 2012

RT @thelancearthur: 40,000 Norwegians raise their voices to sing "Children of the Rainbow" to annoy mass murderer Anders Breivik.

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 09:16 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wow. Just wow. 2012

RT @carlzimmer: Creationist ex-chair of Texas board of ed on the Colbert Report. Tragicomedy.

Posted on April 24, 2012 at 03:46 PM in politics & philosophy, Television, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Case Against the Death Penalty 2012

RT @thelancearthur: If you can't decide if you want to keep killing people, the ACLU has a long article about why it does't make any sense.

Posted on April 23, 2012 at 05:31 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

California Death Penalty Ban Qualifies For November Ballot 2012

RT @thelancearthur: Attn. Californians: In November you get to vote if you want to continue using your state taxes to kill people.

Posted on April 23, 2012 at 05:31 PM in politics & philosophy, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

* 2012

RT @Annaleen: Love this. RT @para_sight: What do we want? image from http://t.co/kXxMeFMQ

Posted on April 21, 2012 at 04:46 PM in politics & philosophy, Science, tweets | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oppose the Protect-IP Act; it's bad for American business and American values. 2011

I've been participating online since before the web and for the past 15 years it has been a vital part of my day-to-day work. If these acts pass, if service providers become liable for the content their users post, it will stifle both economic and creative expression. That's the last thing we need in this economy.

Imagine if Johannes Gutenberg could have been shut down because someone didn't like the content of a book his presses printed.

Contact your elected officials through FightForTheFuture.org or better yet call them directly to register your opposition to this dangerous proposal.

Posted on November 16, 2011 at 04:47 PM in politics & philosophy | Permalink | Comments (0)

Blog (noun) A weblog or similar brief journal usually containing links and commentary thereon. Term coined by Peter Merholz.

Visit Typepad or Blogger to start your own. (I began with hand coding, then switched to Blogger when it first became available, then to Movable Type when I wanted more control over my weblog and to have it hosted at a place of my choosing (Hurricane Electric). Since 06/2003 I've used Typepad, a hosted service built by the same folks who made Movable Type, which I love because I don't have to maintain the underlying system).

You may write to Dinah @ this domain.

Except where otherwise noted all content is copyright 1965-2014 Dinah Sanders. Please do not repost my writing or other creations elsewhere. Instead, copy a tiny bit and link to the rest. Thanks! Images are copyright of their original creators. MetaGrrrl logo and photos by Dinah are copyright 1965-2014 Dinah Sanders. Inkspot Books and the Inkspot logo have been Service Marks of Dinah Sanders since 1993.