oasis

guests


I'd rather live in China...

By Paul Roberts, xphoenix@swbell.net

On the whole, I think I'd rather live in China.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like they don't commit human rights atrocities left and right; it's just that they don't try to cover it up with yes men and sniveling, which is much more than I can say for the US of late. Sure, having someone who agrees with their manipulators is really nice...for the puppetmasters, but what about the rest of us? Not that some of us would care, since the passage of Proposition 22 in California and the 'Super Tuesday' win of Bush Jr pretty clearly demonstrates the obvious gullibility and narrowmindedness of most voters in this country.

What we have here is more or less your usual WASP crowd attempting to exert its authority over things that aren't their own idea of what the 'norm' is. I mean, look at California; we have a stereotypical turn against 'youth violence' that doesn't exist, a ban on any marriage that doesn't scream 'breeder', and oh, incidentally, an inspiring triumph against tobacco tax. Well, at least it wasn't a total loss. We can now go to California and have epithets hurled at us based on age and be discriminated because of sexual preference, but if we want to buy a pack of cigarettes, we don't have to pay the fifty-cent increase that was proposed. Kind of makes me want to take up smoking just so I can get something out of this bum deal.

Not only is California seen as something of a gay Mecca, but it's also supposed to be one of those most progressive states in what passes for a Union nowadays. Well, it looks like they just shot that in the butt. Here we find a sad throwback to the days when women's place was in the home and little Johnny *would* grow up to marry a woman and probably foster two-point-five children or else he'd be disinherited. Everyone went to church whether they believed or not, and based on this tradition I envision anyone's rights, if they're not white, to go down the tubes as well. After all, we can discriminate for anything else, can't we? Since teenagers can't vote, we can discriminate against them, but the same people will tie themselves to large trees since 'they can't defend themselves'...and somehow teenagers who did no crime is different? Please. I'm all for preservation of wildlife, but there's a difference between the two, and if you'd chain yourself to a tree and not support right for every human as well...then frankly, there's something wrong here.

And obviously, since gays are outside the WASP political 'norm', they don't have rights either. I foresee, most likely, a stripping of any sort of rights despite what the scientists and experts say, despite the fact that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder over twenty years ago by the American Psychiatric Association...none of that for these old-fashioned sticks-in-the-mud, no, they have to still see it as some sort of bizarre sexual deviance that endangers their precious 'family values' that just mean that they can beat their wives and sleep around as much as they want to, then lord their domain over their children until they pass away as they dribble into their incontinence pants some day at a rancid rest home.

So let's go ahead and pass more youth curfews, even though the statistics plainly show, if you want to access them, that it doesn't curb any sort of crime, and doesn't do anything to curb adult crime, which in my opinion is what they should be trying to work on reducing, since adult crime accounts for a greater amount of damage to both lives and property; let's make sure that, since children have no ability to vote and most parents now don't listen to their children or pay any attention to them (why else would we need ratings on TV?), that we oppress them as much as possible. After all, what better way is there to stretch our old-fashioned white heterosexual muscles than to exert power over those that we think can't fight back? I'll tell you when the riots start.

The interesting thing is that people have read the books in school, most likely, and they know the foreseen consequences of what they're doing. Logan's Run, 1984, Brave New World, Anthem, Fahrenheit 451...can we all look back for just a moment on these classics? Now, why were most of us required to read at least half of these in school? I'll give you a clue: it wasn't because of their compelling writing style, at least not entirely. Although I may not have thoroughly enjoyed a couple of these books, I truly respected their message, about the consequences of oppression. Logan's Run, for one, was a world run by those under the age of twenty (or, in the movie, to avoid overly young sexual situations, thirty), and all who reached twenty were to go 'to Carousel' for renewal...well, we all know what that means, or at least the ones of us that paid attention up to the point that Michael York took his clothes off. It means that they were killed, not renewed, and all this came about from insulting the young. It's not a really good thing to do, in general, because the young become the old, and then you really have a problem on your hands. Who do you think is going to take care of you when you're older? You're certainly not going to support yourself...so go ahead, insult the ones who will inherit the earth after you're gone from the political scene.

I hope someone writes a gay-themed anti-oppression novel as well, if there isn't already one or three out there. And there should be. There should be more than that, and one or all should be required reading in schools. Nobody teaches sensitivity, but it seems like since youth today are, on the whole, a little bit more progressive than their fathers' generation, they're being punished for it. Nothing teaches intolerance better than those that oppress their children on one hand and use their religion (which they don't understand) as an excuse to support that stance.

Well, prop 22 has passed, but I look forward to its many court challenges that will cost taxpayers thousands if not millions of dollars to support. I also look forward, if there is further oppression, to the masses that I frankly hope will rise up in open protest, even riot, for their rights. Eventually the government officials will learn that, hick idiots or no hick idiots, they can't oppress social groups that they don't like just because they exist. You can't push something indefinitely without having it push back eventually, and if you wait long enough, the push back is going to bowl you over with force. But that's what we need. We need someone who isn't afraid to push back and get something done, even if it is through not-so-nice means. I personally am tired of seeing good people go through 'the system' to try and get things done, to get people's rights recognized that deserve it, only to be completely abused by that entire system. No, someone is going to have to go outside the lines a little bit and start something in motion, even if it doesn't come to pass in our time, maybe the next generation of people who deserve to be heard fairly will at least get the rights that they need.

But you know, we're saving fifty cents that we otherwise would've had to spend on cigarettes, so I guess it balances out. Except of course that the piddly fifty-cent tax is nothing compared to the money that the California government is going to have to leech out of its taxpayers from all the lawsuits, protests, and civil disobedience that is going to result. Let's get all the gays, non-Christians, non-whites, and youths, and perhaps hold a rally. Maybe that would scare them into giving us the fifty cents that they saved on their cigs, or at the very least show them that voting on a wildly oppressive legislation so that you can get a break on your habit is a very bad thing.


©1995-2000 Oasis Magazine. All Rights Reserved.