I Really Hate Newt Gingrich

I'm just going to flatly say it outright here: I hate Newt Gingrich.  I've been charged with coming down too hard on the Republicans, so I want to say this first: I don't hate Newt Gingrich because he is a Republican.  I hate Newt Gingrich because he spouts the sort of hate rhetoric that validates the terrible thoughts and feelings for which closed-minded people need to be chastised.  In short, I hate Newt Gingrich because he makes it okay to be a bull-headed jackass.  He's a bully.  He's mean-spirited.  And he's given a national platform to give the other mean-spirited bullies a voice.

Let's look at this article from today's Huffington Post regarding gay marriage.  Gingrich has been on this soap box for most of his campaign.  He can't seem to wait to talk about it when asked questions in the debates.  He takes a hard line on it, often referring to it as counter to the foundations of civilization.  He's quoted as saying such in the above article: "The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization."  This is more than just suggesting that same-sex couples violate his understanding of morality; he claims that they violate the basic foundations of civilization (and, actually, anyone who is not Catholic/christian does so as well).  In this quote, which can be read in all it's inflammatory context in the Huffington Post article, connects heterosexual marriage to the founding principals of modern mankind.  For Gingrich, the Bible and heterosexuality is what got the lone hunter gathering early man to form societies.

There are a lot of problems with this statement, and I actually have a lot to do, so I won't waste your time in pointing out too much of the obvious and dissecting all the places Gingrich is clearly mistaken.  I will say, though, that there was a lot of same-sex goings-on in the works of Plato.  Gingrich might want to read Phaedrus or The Symposium before he claims that civilization is founded on heterosexual marriage. 

The point I want to make here revolves around something that is truly at the center of America: the right to Free Speech.  America has long stood firm on the issue of Free Speech.  Newt Gingrinch is constitutionally protected when he spouts this sort of hate rhetoric, as was Sarah Palin when she posted pictures with Democrats in cross-hairs shortly before one misguided person attempted to assassinate a Democrat in public.  Anyone is allowed to say anything publicly so long as it does not directly incite riots or is not blatantly false.  Both of those things are hard to prove, so really, most anyone can say anything in America (well, so long as you don't upset the large corporations or Wall St. - then you get pepper sprayed for saying what you want).

Free Speech is not constitutionally guaranteed in the UK, and I am starting to understand why.  There are laws on the books here for inciting hatred and inciting violence that would have taken both Gingrinch and Palin out of public eye.  It might be that the Freedom of Speech is a responsibility America is not capable of handling.  

The problem with Free Speech is that words have lasting and far reaching effects.  Now, while Gingrich certainly never claims that anyone should do anything to a gay person (much like Palin never said to shoot Gabby Gifford directly), what he is saying is that gay people are not part of normal society.  And as a public figure, and apparently a more popular public figure than I had previously suspected, his complete condemnation of gay people validates those same beliefs in less level-headed people.  Much in the same way that profiling institutionalized racism, making loud claims about homosexuality being abnormal in human civilization allows for people to continue to think that these Americans are not real Americans (or good Americans, or even real or good people).  Sometimes when people feel strongly about something, and they lack that little voice in their head that stays a violent hand, people will act out.  There certainly are enough bullies terrorizing gay people as is.  Gingrich might as well have patted them all on the head.

These sentiments are hard enough to take from Santorum and Perry who both came down hard on gay marriage.  Both, though, have remained faithful to their spouses which suggests that they take their marriage vows seriously (at least publicly).  In the end, their message is consistent with their upbringing, and as abhorrent and oppressive as these beliefs are, there is nothing inherently hypocritical about it.  Santorum and Parry walk the walk of their insanely moronic talk.

Gingrich, though, has extremely dubious personal morals, especially when it comes to marriage.  Besides being unfaithful several times in all of his marriages, he divorced his first wife while she was recovering from surgery in the hospital.  Because he was having an affair.  With a younger woman.  WHILE SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL BEING TREATED FOR CANCER!  According to former aids, Gingrich has said, "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."  Gingrich, though, denies saying it.  He has claimed, and rightfully so, that those were mistakes of a younger man.  That argument would hold water if he did push for another divorce after cheating on his second wife.  And then to go on and claim this: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate."  So his infidelities were not because he lacks strong moral character; his infidelities are because he works too hard for the country he loves.

Three wives and two divorces; both divorces stemming from infidelity.  All of this from a supposed Catholic.
Now, I am no expert, but the Catholic church doesn't allow divorce.  Part of their core doctrine is that the sacred sacraments are binding for life (that whole "Until death do us part" bit in the vows which Gingrich should remember, having said them THREE times).  The Catholic church has been adamant about this for some time.  In fact, Henry the VIII forced the Church of England to break from Roman Catholicism so he could divorce his first wife, and that was in 1533, 479 years ago.  This is not a new belief.

I was livid about this earlier when I talked with Catherine.  I was furious that Gingrich was bullying Americans on the public stage, and gaining support in doing so.  Catherine laughed about it, saying, "At least he's the one saying it.  I mean, he has no leg to stand on.  When he comes out against gay marriage, he just looks like an idiot, and these statements seem ridiculous."  I hope she's right.  I hope that most people are smart enough to see the inherent flaws in Gingrich chastising homosexuality for violating the sanctity of marriage while he figuratively takes a steaming dump on that same institution.  But I have less faith in humanity.  I worry that when mean people hear their closed-minded views advocated, that's when people feel compelled to act on their beliefs.

TSA, Terrorism, and Sen. Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul, (R) Ken., was recently detained at the airport by TSA agents, delaying his trip by an hour and a half and causing him to miss his flight.  Because of this, Sen. Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Republican Senator from Texas Ron Paul, has been hitting the media outlets to talk about dignity in travel and how, for frequent travelers, such "invasive" search procedures as full body patdowns and physical inspections of clothing items, seem almost draconian (my word, not his).

As a frequent traveler, and one frequently stopped by TSA agents, I can understand Sen. Paul's frustration.  I don't fly nearly half as often as he does, but I go through Heathrow and Ohare regularly.  However, I fully and adamantly disagree with Sen. Paul's solution.

In short, Sen. Paul wants "selective risk assessment" for "international travelers" and "people with ties to terrorist organizations".  There is another term for what the Senator is suggesting: profiling.

There are a lot of connotation justly associated with profiling, and Sen. Paul was smart not to use that term.  It suggests an institutionalized form of racism where TSA agents could just search someone not because they have "terrorist associations" (though, that term was loosely bandied about in the wake of Katrina to disastrous ends; read the book Zeitoun by Dave Eggers for more on that), but because they seem terrorist.  The government has come under some fire for how loosely they apply that term, and how Americans, innocent American citizens, have been held without a trial simply because someone thought that another person might have associations to terrorists.

The question, then, is how does a TSA agent, or the Department of Homeland Security, identify terrorist suspects?  How do they separate what Sen. Paul calls "normal Americans" from those that should be searched?  Interestingly, Sen. Paul has come out against the previous and current administration's unilateral power to profile and detain citizens.  In the above video, Sen. Paul questions the legality of using such factors as physical features or purchase histories as determinations.  So, again, how are these determinations made?

The problem with saying that only some people should get searched is that it creates a distinction between privileged people and those whose privileges have been suspended for some reason.  Of course, TSA full-body searches are not nearly as undignified as sitting in the back of a bus  or separate bathrooms, but there is a parallel that can be drawn.  After all, as Sen. Paul has said himself, these searches are undignified.  His suggestion for selective searches is a suggestion only to apply these indignities to certain people.

That is oppression, and oppression is always ugly.  Be it the oppression of same-sex couple who are denied marriage, the oppression of the poor by tax laws that favor the wealthy, or oppression of citizens who happen to meet whatever qualifications raise the suspicion of terrorism: you cannot deny one section of the population rights while allowing those same rights to another.

Sen. Rand Paul might benefit from remembering what every grade school teacher has told every student who has brought candy to class: you either bring enough for everyone, or no one gets any.  If the TSA decides that searches are necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks, then everyone should be searched (or, as it is done now, randomly from the entire populace).

He is right, though, that there are hundreds of stories of mistreatment at the hands of TSA agents.  Strange searches on the elderly and babies, people in wheel chairs, the terminally ill, and so on.  It would seem that his outrage and claims of indignity are justly leveled at the TSA.  What Sen. Paul fails to realize, though, is that the terrorist are not playing by any set rules.  For every story about a random search of a pregnant woman at an airport, there is a story about how bombs were strapped to pregnant women.  For every child's toy torn to pieces looking for bombs, their are bombs sewn into children's toys.  If a terrorist wants to get at America and America has a policy of not searching the elderly, it is likely the next attack is likely to come by way of an elderly American.  If the US stops searching citizens, then the terrorists will infiltrate American citizens.  In short, if the TSA decides not to search a certain segment of society, it stands to reason that would be the access point which the terrorists would use to gain entry to airplanes.

I have no problem with the searches (though the TSA agents could be nicer about it; no need to be surly and invasive), and I have been stopped and searched on about half of the flights I take.  It comes with flying alone on international flights, usually on one-way tickets.  I was pulled out on my Chicago to Seattle flight for a random full-body pat down.  My luggage is often opened and rifled through.  And honestly, I am fine with that.  For one, I don't have anything to hide.  Secondly, if there is a terrorist in line somewhere, and there are random searches, it might act as a deterrent - certainly more so than no randomized searches.

Of course, if Sen. Paul doesn't like being searched, he doesn't have to fly.  He could drive (or be driven) from one destination to the next; or if taking public transport is important, there are trains and buses available from most major cities (in fact, maybe the good Senator could throw his weight behind high-speed train travel...I have some ideas for that).  Flying is not a right, but a privilege - one afforded to Americans who can afford the price of the ticket.  These privileges come with a cost beyond the sticker price, and with air travel, that hidden fee is a possible search.

Finally, and maybe what I find most ironic, is that the small-government advocate is essentially saying that we need more government regulations of air travel.  After all, someone (or something) would need to make the determinations about who gets onto the frequent flyer program, which travelers should raise flags, and so on.  The more specialized the criteria, the bigger the governing body is going to be.  And if security is given to the private sector, where each airline is responsible for security, you can expect even more delays, price increases (someone has to pay for this added security, and the corporations certainly aren't going to dig into their own pockets to pay for their customers safety; and a frequent traveler program would not be free either - the ability to get around searches would come with a price), and if history has taught us anything, worse treatment (after all, look at how well  the banking, housing and other corporations have behaved unregulated).

Of course, since Sen. Paul lands squarely in the "haves" camp, and none of this would concern him.   He would have the tax payers of Kentucky pay for any increases in flight cost, claiming that air travel is part of his job.  This is what I find most troubling about Sen. Paul's reaction to his search: it is baldly elitist.  His outrage over the search is not because of the indignity faced by the average American; it was that he, a Senator, was forced through these same indignities.  He's just a "normal" American, after all.

The Long Road Home

I'll say it: I don't mind flying.  I genuinely prefer flying over, say, driving cross country (though, that said, the right road trip can be a good time).  If the destination is important, and not the journey, I would prefer to fly.  Even short trips, say between Chicago and St. Louis, would be better off as a short flight.

A lot of people that I know, particularly in my family, would rather drive, citing lack of control as a problem.  It is true that when I fly, I have to leave when there is a flight available.  My entire trip is at the behest of the airline pilot (and of course, the weather), and nothing I can do will ever get me there earlier or later.  While this lack of control might bother some people, for me it removes any responsibility for the trip.  Because, really, if I can procrastinate on something, I will (for example, I'm writing this blog even though I need to go grocery shopping, do some translation work, and eat...).  

Besides the lack of responsibility, while I am travelling by plane (or train, even), I am left to do what I want.  It used to be nice to drive because I could blast my music and have a little rock-and-roll party while travelling.  But now that I have an iPod, I can do that while standing in line for customs (which I did, and I will talk more about in a minute).  I spend more time deciding what books to bring with me than I do on clothing for the trip. I have often forgotten to bring my toothbrush on trips, but I never forget to fully charge my DS.  For me, an eight hour plane ride (and leaving from here, the five hour train journey), is eight hours (plus five for the train) in which I can read and play video games without feeling bad about avoiding work.  

In short: unadulterated freetime.  And as a man who sets his own schedule, it's a luxury I am often, ironically, lacking.  See, when I have time off from my thesis, I pack it full of translation work looking to make financial ends meet.  Once I finish work, I get back on the thesis horse, and whip that pony until it collapses just past the finish line.  Repeat.  But on the plane and train, I can reasonably play Mario Kart (as reasonably as a 31-year-old man can play a game system for children) and read science fiction novels (as anyone familiar with my GoodReads account knows, I did, in fact, finish Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, quite happily).  

That said, I can see why people hate flying.  Even though I like flying, the noise of the trip can grate on my nerves, particularly on long flights.  I know that some people will play white noise to help them sleep, but a constant low hum, like someone is vacuuming in the apartment next to yours for eight straight hours, tends to put my nerves on edge.  I don't find constant white noise soothing; instead, it's like someone is sanding on my eardrums with a cheese grater made of jersey knit.  Sure, it's soft, but rub anything on anything for long enough, and it gets annoying.  

And, if you fly alone like I do, the Russian Roulette game of seat neighbors can be pretty obnoxious.  I've gotten pretty lucky, and in more than one flight, I've been the only one in my row.  But, just as often, my row neighbor, as he was in my Heathrow - Ohare flight, is a massive, vile person.  There are a lot of ways that people can be vile, and in this case, his vileness was not his own fault, but it still doesn't change the fact that he was vile.  I can take talkers (headphones) or even fat people (I don't take up much room, as is).  But what I can't take is someone who smells.  

I've never understood how they could have a smoking section on an airplane.  It's a circular system, sealed and with limited oxygen.  No matter how far away you get from someone smoking, you are eventually going to breathe the same air.  Even in first class, beyond that magic curtain that separates the airline royalty from us plebeians.  The same is true of someone who, riddled with a stomach bug, keeps crop dusting (thanks Kiernan) the entire coach class.  Granted, his illness was not his fault, and it did keep him in the bathroom for long stretches of time, including when we ate - all good things.  But when he came back, the sour smell of vomit, and the downright choking odor of...well...backdoor vomit was hard to take.  Couple that with his size, causing him to back into our row of two, pointing his still smoking gun at me, and I suddenly could sympathize with other people's hatred of flying.  

I was rewarded, I feel, for my calm sense of endurance by getting my own row of two on the ride back, blessedly with arm rests that went up, so I could curl into a little ball and lose myself in Mario Vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Mario Madness.  Again, though, most blessings come with an asterisk: my seat was the last in the row and shared a wall with the toilet.  Luckily, only one person used that closet to dispose of what I could only assume was a dead badger, judging from the smells.  For most of the ride, that bathroom was too far away for people to think about.  

Another thing that helped was the harsh turbulence we experienced on the flight, which left a few scant minutes for people to get up and move around.  We were moving, of course; every time the plane suddenly dropped a few feet, or felt like it was snatched from the air by a curious Godzilla, I felt my heart stop and my stomach drop, as I am sure most everyone else did.  But no one dropped much out of their seats.  And since I was alone in my row, I was okay with that.  

A big complaint that people have with travelling is the lines: lines for security, lines for customs, lines to get on the plane, etc.  There is a lot of pre-boarding time spent in the airport, but I feel that, if prepared, these lines aren't too big a deal.  For one, don't try to smuggle things past security.  It's no surprise that you aren't allowed to bring liquids with you past security, so don't go and buy a six-dollar gallon of Coke to drink at the gate.  And don't pack your $40 bottle of hair product in the carry-on.  In fact, why do people pack for an entire trip in a carry-on when the flight goes overseas?  More than likely, international travelers have packed a bag.  What could you possibly need on the plane that takes up an entire suitcase?  I get that airlines sometimes lose bags, but there is nothing that you can't buy at your destination; while it might suck to have to shell out for a cheap toothbrush while my bags are located, I find that preferable to cramming a huge suitcase into the overhead bin, sometimes miles from my seat, causing me to fight upstream to get my bag once the plane lands. 

Generally, being well-prepared, I have gotten through all the lines, security and customs, fairly quickly.  I have all my forms ready, my laptops slides in and out of my bag easily, and I smile at everyone.  This time, though, landing in Heathrow, I was faced with an massive line for customs, using every queue line, and stretching up the stairs and down the hallway, this line took two hours to get through.  TWO HOURS!  But, again, it was something I had to do (and the flight go in early, as is), so I put in my headphones and had a little rock-and-roll party featuring Tom Waits, The Black Keys, and The Cold War Kids.  I have to admit, though, that waiting two hours to jump through the same hoops (I know that four months is a long time, but I a student.  Yes.  Aberystwyth.  Yes, in Wales.  Research PhD.  English Literature.  I am going to take the train from here.  Yes.  From Euston...etc.) I jump through each time I arrive was a little annoying. 

In the end, though, it was a small price to pay for a huge metal bird to get me safely across an expanse of water to a different continent.  Sadly, it'll be another four months until I get the chance to ignore some random strange next to me for eight hours as I watch three movies I never got a chance to see in theaters (though, on my Chicago-bound flight, the TVs were in the ceiling, and only played Monte Carlo...), play Golden Eye, or read whatever novel I'm currently enjoying.