Here's a tip for those travelling to the UK: you have to turn the electrical outlets on. Sure, there are some outlets in the houses and apartments I have lived in that control outlets, but in general, most outlets are just on. This, as I found out after toiling with my lamp for about twenty minutes, is not true in the UK. I was joking about this with one of my housemates: "In America, we give our kids the freedom to electrocute themselves. That way it weeds out the slow ones."
In many ways, though, this dogma is very much true. Though I don't own a gun, and though I don't think they are necessary, I often find myself debating the grey area of gun control laws with the British or others who have these misguided beliefs that most Americans tote around assault rifles. Honestly, I have a problem with the government telling it's citizens what it can and cannot posses. Certainly, there is a lot of evidence that suggests guns lead to higher levels of people dead by bullets to the body, but the claims that America is a more violent country because the gun crime is significantly higher there than anywhere else is a bit of a fallacy. While the UK has a famously low amount of crime involving guns, there is an elevated number of knifing injuries. To claim that the UK is more safe than America because less people shoot each other would be like claiming that Florida is a safer place because less people get mauled by polar bears. This is not to say that the UK and the US are on par in crime, but just to say that I am skeptical of the claims that more guns lead to more violence. More guns certainly mean more gun violence, much in the same way that more polar bears lead to more polar bear violence.
Ironically, while Americans are staunchly against letting the government tell them what high powered killing machines they can have in their homes, they have been particularly small minded when it comes to other Freedoms, like the choice to do drugs, or for same-sex people to get married. Currently, only five of the fifty states will allow same-sex marriages, and three others will recognize the union, but fail to administer the ceremony. California famously flip-flopped, which to me signaled the death of the Legalize It movement, looking to legalize marijuana consumption (California being a hot bed of this debate as well). Since the early 2000s, several states have gone out of their way to define marriage constitutionally as the union of a man and a woman. Vermont has really pushed the hardest for same-sex marriage, and clearly the other states are right to assume that the America will crumble if two same-sex people marry. Look at the horrible conditions people live in in Vermont?
The argument here is that same-sex marriage is dangerous, and degrades the fiber of marriage as a whole. While I find it hard to claim anything for the sanctity of marriage when divorce rates are as astronomical as they are, I find it surprisingly ironic that at one time it can be said that guns don't do damage, but same-sex marriage does. If we really want to uphold the sanctity of marriage, why not make it harder for everyone to get married, and make it harder to divorce. Really, nothing says sacred like a drunken ceremony in Vegas with Elvis as your witness to someone you just met earlier that evening (and from whom you can be divorced by tomorrow evening).
When thinking about how same-sex marriage can effect the sanctity, again look at Vermont. Has Vermont been turned into modern day Sodom and Gamora? Is it overrun with same-sex bacchanal parties that rage into the night, shoving indecency into the faces of God-fearing Vermontians? Has the maple syrup industry faltered at all?
The UK, on the other hand, does not allow for same-sex "marriage," per se, but does allow civil unions. And, actually, if I could prove that another man and I had a symbiotic relationship, the UK Border Agency would recognize this person as a dependent, allowing him to come with me on my student visa. The civil union here carries more weight than in America, and two people who can show proof of a shared and dependent existence can file for all the same legal rights as a married couple. This is really the heart of the issue there: equality of rights. It might not mean so much when a country doesn't require extremely expensive insurance for heath care, but still, it's nice to know that you can act as someone's better half in legal concerns. This has managed to skirt the issue nicely, avoiding the completely ridiculous debate over the moral and ethical ramifications of two people getting married.
In America, these debates have been fueled on both sides by the heavily slanted media. While it is certainly true that Fox News is a hot bed of misrepresentation and deception (Glenn Beck is a horrible person, deeply and truly), MSNBC and CNN are equally problematic. I know the idea of a state run news organization brings to mind pictures from 1984 or V for Vendetta, but this is one area I think the British have gotten it right. On the BBC, the news casters are forbidden from expressing any bias, from slanting the news in any direction. In fact, if by facial expression, delivery or other verbal or nonverbal clue, a newscaster does slant the news, he or she would be fired. Of course, this is censorship, plan and simple. The State has made it illegal for certain interpretations to be read as news. The Red Blooded American in me is looking for torches at this point, ready to defend my Amendment Rights against some deep seeded conspiracy, but the more logical side of me realizes that certain things should be censored. Let me clarify: it would be wrong for the State run news program to stifle a story simply because it caused problems for an agenda. That said, it is equally as wrong for something claiming to be fair and balanced, or claiming to be unbiased in any way.
Here's where we return to the light sockets and Freedom: it seems the UK make it illegal to do things that will only lead to painful mistakes, like owning guns or having a 24-hour news station with a hostile and aggressive agenda. See, without a media outlet, these fringe ideas, talking heads, and dogmatic thinking can't build momentum. And, in the end, that might be best for everyone involved. It's a lot harder to get mad about something if someone isn't constantly telling you to get mad about it. If presented with a situation, devoid of all bias, left to form individual opinions, I would hope that most people would see that same-sex marriage is not really a question the State should be dealing with, and that assault rifles are not necessary for protecting one's home. In the end, that's really what everyone wants from their government: the forward thinking to keep us all safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment