Tony Blair's Legacy - A PostGlobal Comment

Wrote a comment on PostGlobal. It's on the main page for now, which is pretty cool, I suppose:

I was living in London when Blair became Prime Minister. I remember the May Day celebrations that year. Finally, we all thought, finally we have one of us in charge. He was a man of the people, talking about labor rights, and about prosperity for all, and about education, education, education--meaning a reform of the public school system to ensure England would be again a world-leader. This was not to be achieved through colonialism and violent control over other countries' resources, but by looking after England's own resources: the future generation of scientists and thinkers, brought up by the public school system.

Then he put his son in a private school, and his moment was gone. He was no longer a man of the people, but one of the "Them" young people hated so much and overwhelmingly voted off power. He smiled his way into power, courting us all with the image of reform, but in the end we didn't matter at all.

His son went to a private school and England's children went to Iraq. That will be Blair's legacy. He rose up to power due to hatred of corrupt government only to redefine corruption. He gave us hope that our children were special, and then he sent them to die.

Should prostitution be legal anywhere?

Gave my two cents again:

Who are we kidding? In our hypocritical war for the preservation of perceived values we don't dare legalize prostitution (or drugs, for that matter). After all, why risk the wrath of the blind conservatives who are unable to see themselves as "the other" when we can let people do what they want while keeping the right to take them into custody whenever we choose and hide them in our leper-colony-like prisons.

How does a prostitute view the system? How does she view us who go online to debate the legality of her life like the Gods in Acropolis, high and mighty with our borrowed opinions based on borrowed world-views? Where were we when her father abused her? Where were we when she failed her exams? Where were we when advertisements promised her a life she would never have? Where were we when she lost her life opportunities? Where were we when she made a beautiful drawing above a beautifully written journal entry? Where were we when she wanted to learn to play an instrument? Where were we when she had a chance to be somebody? Where were we when she grew up to face a choice between making an easy five hundred a day or making $6.50 an hour in McDonald's?

Should prostitution be legal? I have a better question: How come prostitution is illegal while giving people $6.50 an hour is legal? And how long can we keep pretending we all have choices in this world?

Global Power -- A PostGlobal Response

Here's my answer to the PostGlobal Blog question:



From where you write, who's gaining power, who's losing it, and who is coming in fast from the outside?

China has been the big winner in international politics, silently making its way as a global power in an emerging new cold war. The signs are all here, with second and third-world countries allying themselves with China in direct opposition to the US.

Meanwhile, while President Bush is losing the American popular vote, the US is losing the popular vote abroad. It used to be that in the American continent only Cuba dared to form alliances against the US, but now it's the popular thing to do. North Korea and Iran, strengthened since Bush's Axis-of-Evil speech, flaunt their defiance at the US and at the ever-weakening UN.

And who can blame them?

But there is hope for a peaceful existence for the citizens of the US, Venezuela, China, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and Iraq. That hope lies in bold leadership in all of these countries, and an active effort to reform the UN. Right now, though, all we have is opportunistic power-grabbers on all sides and a UN stuck with creating empty resolutions used cynically to bring forth an agenda of destruction instead of the promotion of peace.

The US veto power must be checked, as well as that of countries actively involved in supporting militant organizations. Otherwise, the cycle of violence will continue forever, and the real losers in the global arena will continue to be--as they've always been--the people.

Advice for Leaders

Another Washington Post blog question:

What one recommendation would you make to the members of the U.S. House and Senate who will be elected Tuesday?

Now, being a busy man, I'm afraid I didn't have time to write recommendations for Tuesday's election, so instead, I cut-and-paste the recommendations I made in the previous elections. I hope that's okay:

Dear Sir/Madam,

It has been a great pleasure to see you in your hour of victory.

Now listen: I know it's hard to be a part of a system; a giant bureaucracy. I also know you may have to make some hard choices, at times vote against the immediate needs of the people. That's understandable. I will also look the other way when you support or oppose legislation along party lines if you believe that in the long run it will benefit the state, the country, and even the world. Go ahead, take a golf trip with a lobbyist; if you're going to talk business, you might as well do it in style, that's what I say. If you oppose the war but feel that going public with your opinions might be bad for your Party, rethink your opinions. Anyway, your opinion about the war is just an opinion, and nobody cares what you think--you represent the people, not your own personal ideology, and pollsters say your voters support the war, so you may as well be silent. It's not like you know anyone serving in Iraq, so what do you care anyway?

The next advice is not for all of you, so if you're straight feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Now, all you closeted lawmakers, nobody will ever know. This is the same advice I give Evangelical leaders, so you know it's a good one. Feel free to shout in public that gay people ruin America and that marriage is a holy institution given to us by God for some reason. Take a megaphone and drive around town calling homosexuals depraved sinners. It's for the good of the country. Trust me.

Now, about immigration... I know a large society is built on the sweat of cheap labor. The biggest open secret no one cares about. And I know you know about all that and I know you don't care. Still, for the sake of your party make an effort. Call for a fence. An electronic fence, what the hell. Don't worry, it's impossible to stop illegal immigration, so spreading xenophobia must be a victimless crime.

Sell your office to the highest bidder, lie your way to leadership posts, ride on the backs of people with dying family members and give them false hopes, support an endless war, look the other way when civil rights are taken away to be replaced by propaganda and media consolidation, let the eagle soar. If Bush and Chaney say it's good, that's good enough for me and should be good enough for you. No one ever achieved anything by being contrarian. Look what happened to Jesus, for Christ's sake.

And most importantly, have fun. After all, this won't last forever.

Should Homosexuals be Allowed to Marry?

Here's a copy of my response to the Washington Post blog question, "Should homosexuals be allowed to marry?"

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Actually, the word Allowed implies a power issue that should not be there in the first place. Who are the we that allow or forbid another group of people from marrying? Are we the majority? Does our power to allow or forbid come from the fact there are simply more of us out there?

And even if the power to allow comes from numerical superiority, isn't it our greatest task as a Democracy to maintain the rights of minorities, as Tocqueville maintained nearly 200 years ago, warning us to avoid a dictatorship of the majority?

The only question is, then, what exactly is the threat? The children, of course.

However, the same people that avoid one scientific proof after another for global warming will wave in your face a study by a social scientist claiming a child needs a mom and a dad.

The same people that cry over the number of unwanted, out-of-wedlock babies will tell you that a baby raised by a married gay couple, which clearly worked harder than heterosexual couples to have that baby, will be neglected and mentally abused.

They will tell you the child will have a better chance of growing up gay. Well, even if we take that into consideration, there is only one remaining question in this debate: Is growing up gay a bad thing? They will tell you that Yes, the life of a gay person is difficult, mainly because he or she will not have the same rights heterosexual people have.

And here the paradox is complete. By taking away the rights of homosexuals we give reason to this denial of rights. The majority in Europe denied Jews land ownership and then complained when Jews turned to money lending. The majority denied African slaves an education and then treated them like animals with no learning capacity. Similarly, the majority now wants to deny homosexuals the right to marry in order to protect children from growing up as an underclass. The solution seems very simple. Now can we concentrate on getting out of Iraq?