Why You Can't Argue With Liberals

A few weeks ago I posted a rant about the craziness of "liberals". What I perceive as an inability to adequately debate with hard-line liberals is something that helped sway me away from Kerry, perhaps because in part because I very much don't want to be grouped together with ignorant Bush-haters. It's also another reason why I support and am proud to be part of the LCR, because they had the courage to stand up against their party and call them out when they are wrong.

Often, you'll be surprised to know, I read a liberal blog, Alas a Blog, which focuses on gay rights, feminism and abortion rights (only one of which I thoroughly agree with but the whole blog is written in such a rational, sane, and well-thought out way that I can't say anything bad about the moderators). This post impressed me, referencing Chris Crain of the Washington Blade taking the Stonewall Democrats (the Democratic version of the LCR) to task for not calling out Democrats on their poor gay rights records. Barry did a great job of hitting the nail on the head. If I liked Bible references I'd say something about a mote. But his commendation was met with harsh criticism from another, more typical liberal blog, This Space for Rent:

To continue with what has set me off, I think that comparing the Stonewall Democrats to the Log Cabin Republicans isn't a "good point", it's fucking ridiculous, and Chris Cain needs take that back. There just simply ians't a comparison between the Stonewalls, and the Log Cabins. The Stonewalls are brave enough to fight on the right side - The LCR just want to have their cake and eat it too.

Here's why: The LCR are not courageous by any standard of the word. They're a bunch of greedy sellouts who routinely support the party that has, built into their platform, a serious anti-gay rights agenda, because they're happy to screw poor people in order to keep more money after taxes. They're assholes....

The LCR are self-haters who value their pocketbooks over their personal dignity. It isn't as though the Republican Anti-gay agenda is some super secret stealth platform - it's part and parcel to being a Republican, much like supporting dangerous tax cuts and privatizing everything under the sun. There simply isn't anything resembling a serious debate in the Republican party about it, except amongst marginalized and impotent moderates and so-called Liberal republicans. Face it people - when you register republican, you ARE AGREEING with their platform.

So in otherwords, if you register for a party you are agreeing one-hundred percent and endorsing one-hundred percent everything that that party stands for. And if you disagree with one thing your party says, who I would hope embodies many of your own philosophies that may or may not be related to who you are fucking, the brave thing to do is the abandon the party entirely and go onto the "right side". Basically if you are a gay Republican you are (to borrow a phrase) an abused puppy who is rich, votes with your checkbook, and has no personal dignity whatsoever. It surprises me that this asswipe hasn't called for the couragous party abandonment of every single congressman who has ever voted against their party platform because obviously they should be agreeing with each and every point since they are registered for that party. Oh, wait. It's not because he's principled or anything, he just hates Republicans.

Ok, let's have a spirited, rational debate about it! That is, of course, if someone so rational and enlightened as this dickwad should even bother to attempt to be rational with an obviously self-hating, money-grubbing, screw-the-poor abused puppy. I mean, seriously, does any rational gay even think that privitization is good, even though it is mostly private companies with private health insurance that give benefits to same-sex spouses? Nah, big government will take care of us, just like it has done in the past....

Now I don't mean to be channeling Ann Coulter, nor do I mean to imply that all liberals are as bigoted and blind as this guy, but this is far from the first time that I've heard crap like this, and in more reasonable arenas. This kind of idiotic ranting is excrutiatingly unproductive. But the Republicans at least have room for descention in the ranks; I can name at least two prime RNC speakers who were pro-choice. Try to name one pro-life Dem who spoke at the DNC.

And you know, if someone truly doesn't believe in a tax cut that they've been granted by the government, they could always voluntarily pay more....

I've Finally Made Up My Mind

For those of you who don't actually believe that one week before the election a voter could still be undecided, I submit that I indeed was pretty much undecided up until recently.

Bush was attractive to me because of his moral victories in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and his willingness not to kowtow to international pressures, especially the increasingly corrupt U.N. But he continues to remain unattractive to me for his fiscal irresponsibility, his constant attacks on civil liberties, his inept policies on science and science funding, and his willingness to pander to the religious right. And his last minute admission of support for civil unions for gays is insultling.

And yet, John Kerry, for all his successes in the debates, is still a (dare I fall into talking point cliches?) tax-and-spend liberal. The No-Child-Left-Behind Act has failed miserably, but Kerry isn't necessarily better. Bush's healthcare reform platform is flawed, but Kerry's isn't necessarily better. Kerry might be able to handle the international community with more finesse than Bush, but I don't want Germany pressuring me into who I choose to lead my country. And besides, France and Germany have already said that even if Kerry wins they are definitely not sending troops. The one place where the Democrats fare better than the Republicans, usually, is on gay rights, but when it comes down to it, Kerry is, um (fuck I'm going to do it again) a flip-flopper with no clear position. And I hate to sound like some radical traditionalist, there is absolutely no reason why Kerry should have to slavishly adhere to a pro-choice agenda in order to gain votes. Of course, when it comes to the seamless garmet of life, then-governor Bush had stepped up the death penalty rather than curtail it, or keep it at its status quo.

So really, what is a boy to do? Especially a boy who lives in one of the bluest states this side of the Mississippi, where (cliche number 3!) my vote really doesn't matter. Nader? Ha! He really should stick to consumer advocacy; its more becoming than his desparate pleas for legitimacy. Cobb? Dartmouth notwithstanding, Green is so not my color. That leaves one choice, my friends.

Michael Badnarik.

I know, I know, the man is absolutely off his rocker. And he seemed to come out of nowhere to get the Libertarian nomination. But more so than not I find myself agreeing with each and every point of the Libertarian platform. Sure Badnarik hasn't paid his income tax in years, plans on blowing up the U.N. on his eighth day of his presidency, and believes that prisoners should spend their first month of incarceration in bed so that their muscles will atrophy and the guards would be able to handle them easier. Sure, he's more of a right-wing constitutionalist than your run-of-the-mill moderate-to-right libertarian, but he's changing. Now that he has an actual influential voice, he realizes he doesn't need grass-roots civil disobedience in order to get his views across. And the LP has shaped him into a respectable candidate.

But that's really not the point. The real decision will be made by people who actually like one of the two main candidates or people who are too tired with the system to bother look outside. And the Libertarian Party needs a voice. Right now there is no place for a small-government, social liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-life, gay scientist in either party. The Republicans have hope, which is why I am not switching party affiliations, and will continue to work towards inclusion in the GOP. But unlike Andrew Sullivan, I haven't been able to jump on the Kerry bandwagon, even this late in the game.

So, call me crazy. Make accusations about third party votes. Tell me I'm copping out. Tell me I'm no better than those wacko Greens or that I'm fucking up the election like Perot or Nader supporters. But at least I know that I will have voted for someone who has the balls to say that he thinks the death penalty starts and ends at 2am in an ATM booth when some guy is trying to steal your money, rather than someone who thinks those decisions should be left up to the government.

This has been an emotionally exhausting process and for anyone who still is bewildered as to how it could take someone this long to make up their mind, in the spirit of the Third of the Month and in the words of Dick Cheney, go fuck yourself.

Take That, Stanley Kurtz!

William N. Eskridge Jr., Darren R. Spedale, and Hans Ytterberg recently published a paper, a real, honest-to-goodness academic paper about same-sex marriage in Scandinavia entitled Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. And you know what? Surprise, surprise, Stanley Kurtz's disengenuous and statistically corrupt social scientific arguments are completely refuted.

After detailing three features of marriage that have been liberalized in the past 50 years, alternatives to marriage, state regulation of marital sex, and exit from marriage, they contrast it with the expansion of marriage eligibility, namely same-sex marriage. And then they (rightly) nail Kurtz:

There is another kind of problem with Kurtz’s mutual reinforcement

argument. After decades of catering to straight people’s desires to have the

advantages of marriage without its costs, through cohabitation regimes and nofault

divorce, it is unfair to draw the line with gay and lesbian couples, the group

whose choices have been least honored by the state. If you really want to combat

the expanded choice norm, it would be much more powerful to revoke no-fault

divorce or cohabitation regimes and reintroduce Features 1 (marriage monopoly)

and 3 (lifetime obligations) into the law. Astoundingly, these are the two reforms

Kurtz explicitly avoids. “So repealing no-fault divorce, or even eliminating

premarital cohabitation, are not what’s at issue.”31 As Kurtz explains the fate of

marriage, American society should swallow the liberalizations we have already

adopted to accommodate the choices straight people want to have, even though

this expanded-choice regime significantly undermines marriage and facilitates

divorce—and should rescue marriage from decline by denying gay people

eligibility for it, even though it is highly speculative that such denial would have

any effect on the institution. This is not only direct discrimination. It is hypocrisy.

After all of that, they show, with little statistical uncertainty, that registered partnerships in Denmark and Sweden cannot be even casually correlated with the "end of marriage".

If state-recognized same-sex partnerships “contributed” to the decline of marriage

and the rise of illegitimacy, even if indirectly by reinforcing an expanded-choice

norm, we would expect to see (ceteris paribus) something more than falling

marriage rates, rising divorce rates, and rising non-marital birth rates in Denmark

after 1989 and in Sweden after 1994; those were the trends before 1989 and 1994.

Rather, we should expect to see marriage rates falling faster, divorce rates

accelerating upward, and a surge in non-marital birth rates. The data reveal no

such trend. Not only do the registered partnership laws in Denmark and Sweden

not correlate to super-normal plunges in marriage rates and super-elevated divorce

rates, but some of the trends move in the other direction.

This doesn't even get close to how they tear apart his derogatory mis-use of the of term "out-of-wedlock births" and inconsistencies with his various other definitions, like constantly refering to registered partnerships as marriages, even though up until last year registered parnters (hetero or homo) could not adopt children or get state-assisted artificial insemination. In short, Kurtz really needs to be taken to task for his blatant abuse of his "academic" findings, especially since he's been testifying in front of Congress with his, to put it as bluntly as I can, lies. To continue to deny that Kurtz has an agenda and his work is utterly biased should be taken as either blind ignorance or rampant homophobia.

Unelected Judges

In the debate over gay marriage, I often hear the terms "activist judge" or "unelected judge" tossed around. The former I consider to be a real problem, although I don't believe that a majority of accusations of an activist judiciary are really acts of legislation from the bench. The latter, however, really pisses me off. It's as if no one ever took civics in junior high. The last time I checked the judiciary was an equal branch of our government, our representational democracy. The way the terms get tossed about it's as if these judges emerge inexplicibly from the ether and indiscriminately pass judgement on an unwilling populus, unsure of where they came from or how they got there.

Well, pick a state constitution, any constitution. Or the federal one for that matter. In it, I guarantee you'll find instructions on how the judiciary is formed. Just because some judges aren't selected directly by the people in an at large election does not mean that they aren't a product of our democratic republic, a set of laws that can be changed at any time by the people, provided that is that they follow the Rule of Law. Now, I personally like an unelected judiciary, since an elected one like we have here in New York is often surrounded by accusations of partisan politicking.

And it's not as if these judges are the only "unelected" officials that have power in our system. I have never, ever heard Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice referred to as those "unelected secretaries", but they still have a shitload of power. In fact, Ashcroft, an unelected official, has as much power to pick and choose what cases he'd like to prosecute as the judiciary gets to select what cases it wants to hear. And if you think that the Attorney General doesn't play politics, you've got your head buried so far up your ass that I can't imagine how you even found your way onto the internet. But it doesn't matter, because every single judge in this country got there as a result of our elective process, some way or another.

So you might not like the fact that you don't get to hand-pick the judges who sit on the bench. You might not like the fact that you can't just kick them out when you don't like they way they interpret a law (which by the way, last time I checked was, um, their job). But to criticize their legitimacy based on their "unelected" status is to show a fundamental lack of understanding of our government. I'd expect that of a kindergartener, but from "educated" political pundits?

America, Fuck Yeah!

So last night I saw Team America: World Police, the latest offering from Trey Parker and Matt Stone. I thought it was going to be heavy on the politics. But not really. It was pretty much all about how much Hollywood sucks, from its crappy movies to its crappy politics to its crappy self-importance. And about how utterly worthless Alec Baldwin is. It was shear genius. Genuis, I tell you. If you have any sort of sane worldview, you will laugh you ass off. And then you will cry. Cry because it is all too embarassingly true.

Liberals Are Crazy

So last night I went to a debate hosted by FSIX, a group interested in foster gay and lesbian equality in the financial sector, and cosponsered by the HRC entitled "LGBT in the Two Party System". I had absolutely no idea what it was going to be like, but Chris Barron of the LCR was one of the debators and I like hearing him speak. For some unknown reason it was in the middle of a design showroom, so I sat on a bed and the debators sat on chairs with price tags showing.

Barron debated Rachel Maddow of Air America's morning show "Unfiltered". And I came to the conclusion that liberals are, um, crazy. First of all, Maddow began by claiming to have no affiliation with the Democrats and was not there to slump for them. She ended up saying, and I'm not making this up, that no gay or lesbian should ever vote for a Republican, period. Why, you might ask? Because even by supporting gay-friendly Republicans, you end up giving control of the legislature to the Evil Republicans and only their agendas get pushed through. So we shouldn't reward the good Republicans because Bill Frist might stay in power. Um, homo say what? To paraphrase Barron, why should I give up my views on scores of other issues that are important to me, like trade, national security, healthcare and taxes, issues that have nothing to do with my sexuality? No, we just can't let the Republicans have any power.

But what about reaching across the aisle by having friends on both sides? According to Maddow it's not necessary because gay Republicans are like abused puppies, sorry dogs, that just keep going back to their owners who kick them. And her answer to reach out across the aisle? We shouldn't have elected Republicans in the first place. Not slumping for Democrats, my ass. And while she begrudgingly agreed that we should reward moderate Republicans, she rebuked us for not attempting to punish the bad ones who vote against gay equality. But when Barron pulled out a slew of Democrats who voted for the FMA and who are championing "traditional" marriage and asked how her party was punishing them, she didn't have an answer. Oooh, I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. But, she didn't really see it as hypocrisy because, according to her, ounce for ounce Democrats have a better record than Republicans. Oh, and she firmly believes that a gay rights organization should have the word "gay" in its name. Give me a fucking break. She also managed to stereotype Republicans as rich bankers. What a way to push for non-discrimination. But what do you really expect from a butch dyke from Massachusetts? (Hey, she insinuated I was a banker, I can call her a dyke).

And the questions from the audience? A conservative audience member pointed out that it was through gay Republicans lobbying Pataki to strong-arm Joe Bruno that the legislater has finally provided domestic partnerships statewide, and he asked how that would have been done without allies in the Republican party. What was Maddow's answer? Don't elect Republicans in the first place. Yeah, try telling that the conservatie majority who live upstate. But what were the liberal questions like? Well, not questions really. One lengthy comment was to brow-beat Barron into admiting he was an abused puppy and all his efforts to make the Republican party more inclusive were fruitless, while another one tried to get him to admit that he had Freudian issues with his father's (Bush's) approval.

I fucking hate liberals.

The Internet Has Everything...

Sexually transmitted diseases are a big problem, especially among the gay community in big cities. So you've already hooked up with dozens of people when it turns out you've come down with the clap. You get a pang of guilt. How do I tell all these people I might have caused them to burn like hellfire when they take a whiz? I can't do it face to face since it's too embarassing. E-mailing them would be better but I don't want to be ostracized. Whatever is a boi to do?

Well, San Francisco has the answer. Anonymous e-cards! Hey, you've been screwed!

The sad thing is, there are enough people in this boat to warrant this website. And it's not a joke. I don't mean to make light of people's plights, and young people especially make mistakes since they often feel immortal or liberated right after coming out. But dude, if you're going to be a slut, wear a fucking condom. And if you don't want to wear a fucking condom, find someone you like and get married. Oh wait....

And Speaking of Nobels...

Go ubiquitination!

Another One Bites the Dust

First it was Rosalind Franklin, back in the day. A few months ago it was Crick. Now, sadly, Maurice Wilkins, that other guy who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA passed away this week, at the tender age of 88. I'm beginning to believe they're going in order of talent. And if I'm correct that means Watson's going to live forever...

And in the South...

Today a Louisiana judge threw out the anti-marriage equality (don't you love that double-speak?) amendment passed last month, based on the constitutional requirement that all amendments serve one purpose and one purpose only. I can almost hear the screams of liberal judicial activism right now. Wait. What was that? The judge was a Republican? Wait, he must have caved in to some emotional Brownshirt manipulations by sympathetic gay plantiffs. Wait, what was that? He said, "This is a matter of law. Emotions do not, will not play a part in this court's ruling"??? But... but... but...!!! Ah judicial activism judicial activism judicial activism!!! Whew, I feel better now. Wow, my mommy was right; if I say something enough times I can force myself to believe it.

An Unlikely Ally

Proponents of same-sex marriage bans, especially the poorly worded ones, like to claim that their proposals are only meant to protect marriage and won't have any other over-reaching effects on private contracts, etc. Then why, pray tell, is the AARP opposing the SSM amendment in Ohio? Yep, that's right, the AARP. As in old people. As in people, when polled, are generally around 80% in favor of banning same-sex marriage. Why on earth would they propose an amendment that is in-line with their opinions. Oh wait:

“State Issue One would deny property ownership rights, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples," AARP Ohio said in a statement.

But I thought it was only supposed to stop gay marriage?

Intelligent Science?

I have no idea how this little piece of information slipped under my radar, especially since I've been preparing to give a workshop on Intelligent Design v. Darwinism (don't worry, I'm going to come heavily down on ID if I can), but it appears as though a peer-reviewed journal has published an article in support of ID. Now granted, it is in a very low-impact journal for taxonomists, and has adequately been debunked, but it gives credibility to the movement which is largely just Creationism warmed over.

What I can't understand is how legitimate scientists get caught up in this trap. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory because it asks specific questions that can be proven or disproven. It makes no claims on the origins of life. I understand how some religious people may feel uncomfortable about evolution being one big string of epistatic accidents, but why put limits on the power of God? Since He's omnipotent and omniscient, why couldn't He have perfectly planned the architecture of life with random chance as one of its driving principles? Why do we have to constantly be finding jobs for God to do and try to fit Him into our feeble, limited worldview? And why do we have to co-opt science to make ourselves feel better about our faith? I can understand this crap from the Fundies, but there are a lot of other people jumping on the band-wagon, apparently because reconciling molecular evolution with a divine creator is too challenging. Well so is the Mystery of the Holy Trinity and Jesus's divinity and I don't see anyone coming up with stupid pseudo-theological theories about that (besides the Mormons, or course).

Intelligent Design is not science. It is a flawed misinterpretation of science and an incorrect application of the scientific method. It has to frequently ignore scientific evidence in order to proport the things it does and by allowing it into a scientific journal it does more damage to science than leaving it out does damage to religion. Some people can look at evolution and philosophize that God does not exist. Some people can look at evolution and be even more reassured than before that God indeed exists. And some people can point to evolution and say it was aliens who made us. There is no limit to the philosophies of the human mind. But no one can point to evolution and say confidently that it is proof of their philosophical position.

A casual observer might note that evolution seems to remain silent on the philosophies of Man. But that is exactly how science is meant to operate. It should report only what is testable and remain neutral to the philosophies of its handlers. Intelligent Design, however, does not, which means that ID has absolutely no place in a scientific journal, let alone in a science classroom.

Happy (Belated) Third of the Month!

I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to wish you all a Happy Third of the Month on it's actual blessed day, but I was in Boston. I celebrated the beauty that is me yesterday by not taking the bus back, a bus that no doubt would have been full of people crazier (if possible) than on my ride up. Instead I gave myself a treat and went business-class Amtrak and by golly it's really the only way to travel (short of the shuttle which I can never afford). Yeah, I know it's pricey but when you get back instead of being tired because you've been sitting next to some insane woman reading self-help books and taking diligent notes or behind a man who insists on having his seat all the way back, even though he spends half the time leaning forward, you are actually rested because you've had a nice, leisurely snack of cheese and crackers and wine have watched the sun set over the Connecticut coastline. And you get free soda! It really does make everything better. And then when you get home you can watch The Wire and not be grouchy.

So remember, whether or not it is the Third of the Month, or the fourth of the month, or the twenty-fourth of the month, love yourself. Love yourself, because everyone else loves you and you wouldn't want to be the only one left out. Love yourself because love is what the world needs now and there's just so little of it and you wouldn't want to spread it around too liberally and not have anything left over for yourself, now would you? Love yourself because you can't trust other people to do it for you, even though they really should cuz you kick ass. And love yourself because when you're used to loving yourself it helps make loving everyone else just a little bit easier. And like I said before, the world needs love. Love, sweet love.

And plaid. The world definitely needs plaid. And moist towellettes. Oh, and cheese. But not the kind with weird fruits or nuts or stuff in it; that shit's just weird.