Procrastination

I was wondering what I was going to do to procrastinate today. Well, apparently O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court today so I'll probably spend the rest of my day here...

Cinco de Que?

I've never been a huge fan of Cinco de Mayo, probably because I dislike tequila and Mexican food usually gives me gas. But I thought I should say something today because it does have a pretty cool date this year, 05-05-05.

But really, why the heck do we even care about this holiday? It's not like it's Mexican independence day; it's not like anything really important happened. So the Mexicans defeated the French at Puebla during the Napoleonic Wars. Big whoop. I mean, I guess by some stretch of the imagination you could say that that little tiny Mexican army kept the French from aiding the Confederate Army which subsequently allowed the Union to win the War of Northern Aggression. But by that same stretch of the imagination you could say that I have long, flowing hair or that the Cubs have a chance of winning the penant this year.

And yet, for some reason we still celebrate this stupid holiday. Oh well. Viva la Mexico.

Activist Judges on the March

This week, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the execution of juveniles is unconstitutional. Five unelected, robed men and women (women!) have decided, once again, what the American people can and cannot do. It should be up to the legislature to decide whether or not we can kill children, not a bunch of intellectual elites.

Our society has had a long history of executing children. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake at the age of 14 for being a witch. Are we to deny other children the honor of being martyred? We've been executing juveniles in the country for over 350 years! Before we were even a country! I'm sure we would have executed those Columbine kids if they hadn't done it themselves. Actually, that's a great point. The teenagers themselves like to execute each other so why does the government need to step in? For the few who don't want to be executed?

People will say we've been on the wrong side of this. But who are these people? Blue-staters? Europeans? Personally, I don't think we should be even looking at the Europeans for help. Their society is in such a decline that women are abandoning their husbands to get implanted with lesbians' babies just so they can have abortions! It's madness!

And it's not like executing children is discriminatory. They are being treated just like every other citizen who does something to get them executed. Where does it say that a child has the right not to be executed? Why are these unelected judicial elites inventing constitutional rights that aren't there in the first place? Where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not execute kids"? Nowhere is where.

If we want to preserve the union that our forefathers intended us to have, we must stop these elite bastards from rewritting all of our laws and morals. Pretty soon they'll be telling us that we can't execute Michael Jackson because he has the mentality of a child. Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with executing children, at least after they've been born.

The Sky Isn't Falling!

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) remains intact, as a Florida judge rejects a lesbian couple's request to have their Massachusetts marriage recognized. If California follows suit , further DOMA challenges will probably be harder to win. I do, however, wonder how the likes of Rick Santorum (spit, spit) will react if New York voluntarily decides to accept them. DOMA's very clear on this; no state can be forced to accept the marriage of another state. It doesn't say they are prohibited from accepting them.

This, of course, means that next to Virginia, Florida has to be the least gay-friendly state in the country. Where are Mrs. and Mrs. Rosie O'Donnell when you need them?

From the Mouths of Babes

Yesterday was the beginning of the so-called "revolution in evolution" in Dover, PA, and thankfully the earth hasn't spun off its orbit yet. So let's see how effective this "revolution" actually was by seeing what the ninth-graders actually thought of the 1 minute long statement about Intelligent Design:

"I really wasn't paying attention."

"If they're going to teach that, then they should teach everything — like Rastafarianism."

"It (the statement) was kind of confusing."

"I feel that, if they (the board of education) are for something, then there should have been discussion allowed. I was wondering why we weren't allowed to ask questions?"

Well ladies and gents, there you have it. The great Intelligent Design revolution. A confusing statement that no one really paid attention to and left the kids more confused than they were to begin with. I guess that's what happens when you let bureaucrats decide what goes into a curriculum....

I Don't Know Whether to Laugh...

... or cry. Or vomit.

I wish I had watched the O'Reilly Factor last night. Bill takes on evolution...

"But, what if it turns out there is a God and He did create the universe and you die and then you figure that out? Aren’t you gonna feel bad that you didn’t address that in your biology class?"

I can't... I mean it's just... I think that...

Shit.

Read the whole thing. Preferably on an empty stomach. And pay careful attention to his argument that human cloning isn't science because it hasn't happened yet...

God and Torture

I was perusing the National Review on-line this afternoon and I read two things that I need to comment on. The first was about George W. Bush and God. It's mostly about how often God is mentioned in presidential inaugural addresses. Mostly....

Despite all this history, if George W. Bush mentions God in his second inaugural, especially in a meaningful way, he can expect to be attacked by those abysmally ignorant of U.S. history, by those clueless as to the real meaning of separation of church and state, by those seeking to expunge any vestige of God from public life.

I, for one, couldn't care less if the president mentions God in a speech and while I'm not terribly ignorant of U.S. history, I think it is very important to hear how he mentions God. Andrew Sullivan, who is sometimes a bit paranoid about these things, has brought up a few points in recent weeks. First, when apparently a GOP insider said "Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time connecting with the social conservative base of the party given his Mormon faith--just a fact of life. For what it's worth..." Second, when Bush himself in an interview said "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be president at least from my perspective, how you can be president, without a relationship with the Lord."

Having faith should not be anathema to holding public office but it shouldn't be a prerequisite. And apparently, to be a Republican now, you have to be of a particular faith because apparently Mitt Romney, who is uber-conservative, will have a hard time getting support because he is Mormon. So, the question I have about God and Bush, when the president mentions God in his inaugural address, how much do the politics of his religion (not his religion itself) affect his public politics? His intentions, not his reference to God, are what is dangerous to a secular society. We shouldn't expunge God from public life but we shouldn't try to get Him involved in politics.

The second article that caught my eye was one defending Alberto Gonzales' testimony during his confirmation hearings....

With the facts separated from hyperbole, Senator Cornyn turned to the substance of Gonzales's legal thinking. The Democrats arranged for a handful of witnesses to criticize Gonzales, but none of them truly refuted (or even rejected) his legal stance. Indeed, the witnesses — a pacifist opposed to the war in Afghanistan altogether and two law deans specializing in international law — seemed, by the conclusion of Cornyn's questioning, to have little argument at all. To the senator's principal question, "Did they agree that all lawful means to gather intelligence likely to save American lives should be permitted?," they all answered affirmatively.

This may all be fine and good; I too believed that Gonzales acted legally. But just because terrorists aren't entitled to the Geneva Convention doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to human rights. I certainly don't believe that the the level of questioning should be kept to name and rank, as the Geneva Convention requires, but we certainly don't need to haggle over how far we can go without actually reaching the level of torture.

We're America. We're supposed to go above and beyond the call of duty. We go above and beyond with foreign aid, with protecting the world from terrorism, with personal freedoms for our own citizens. Shouldn't we be going above and beyond when it comes to preserving human dignity, no matter how ignoble or barbaric the human in question might be? And when did it become un-conservative to care about human rights?

We're either that kid that everyone hates because every teacher loves him and gets straight A's and is captain of the lacrosse team and homecoming king, or we're the kid that everyone hates because he beats all other kids up on the playground and won't share his ball unless he makes up all the rules. Quite frankly I'd rather be hated because I'm generally better than everyone else, not because I carry a bigger stick.

Santorum and Intelligent Design

Don't get me wrong; I have extraordinary little respect for Rick Santorum, if any at all. Which is why I find it fitting that language he adopted when drafting an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act (which I have less respect for than Santorum) is now being used to defend the constitutionality of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. To his credit, he doesn't support Intelligent Design, but says:

"I am not an advocate for intelligent design and I do not believe that public schools should be teaching biblical creationism in the science classroom... However, I do believe that evolution should be taught as a theory — not fact. It's important to teach the controversy of evolution so that students fully understand the depth of discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory and the increasing number of respected scientists beginning to question evolution."

I have so many problems with this.

First of all, evolution is taught as a theory. A scientific theory. Which is based on virtually irrefutable facts. A scientific theory is also unifying and predictive. The theory of Intelligent Design is narrowing and predicts nothing scientific. This is not the colloquial definition of a theory. If there is any problem with the teaching of evolution it is that proper scientific definitions and terminology aren't being emphasized.

Second, while it is indeed important to understand the discrepancies regarding Darwin's evolution theory, it is even more important to understand how respected scientists have been modifying and adapting his theory for 140 years and how most of what his original theory predicted has been verified by reputable science. These "respected scientists" that Santorum references are not evolutionists of any kind. And this is important class: They are generally chemists, biochemists or mathematicians. They do not have training nor have they contributed any original research to the field of evolutionary theory or the origins of species. Not one "respected scientist" that has come out in favor of Intelligent Design has ever formally been involved with any research regarding this topic. Got that?

Look, if a judge is seeking expert testimony on the mental state of a defendant, he's going to ask a psychiatrist not a cardiologist. Just because they're both doctors doesn't mean that they can speak with equal weight on specific subjects. So why is it that IDers can't find any scientist who has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology to come to their defense? I'll let you think of the answer.

Right now, I'm going to get back to chiding Rick Santorum, who is unabashedly Catholic and who should know that the Vatican has formally supported evolution but not Intelligent Design. You don't see the Pope rushing to endorse it so why should our public schools? Come on, Rick! Be a good Catholic! You're so great at keeping the gays from marrying and eroding the culture, why can't you help us keep this obviously fundamental Christian crap-ola out of our schools? You're right, our kids should be encouraged to think independently, but they should also be taught to think correctly.

I Am Not Making This Up

Dave Barry, beloved humorist and social commentator, retired from his weekly column last week. I, for one, will sorely miss him. Slate has a nice send off piece, very befitting of someone whose 22 year career was riddle with booger jokes. When I was growing up I used to read his column religiously as well as all his books. He certainly helped define my sense of humor. When I was in high school, I had a brief stint writing a humor column for the newspaper. To say that I borrowed Dave Barry's style would be an understatement. Of course, I was leagues behind him. I do think that some of him has bled into my more satirical writing, such as my intense love-affair with parenthetical comments, as well as his qualifying statements declaring the veracity of his too-funny-to-be-false stories. He's one of the few writers who could consistently make me laugh out loud. Of course, I haven't read him much recently, but I do go back every now and then and pick up one of his books from the eighties or early nineties. Back when he used to be funnier.

More On Dover and ID

The following is the text of the four paragraph statement that will be read to ninth-graders in Dover, Pennsylvania next week, regarding Intelligent Design Theory (my emphasis):

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Pay careful attention to the bold-face type. What is my mantra, people? Say it with me, all together: The theory of evolution is not a theory of origin! While the statement is, I believe, technically correct insomuch that Charles Darwin would probably support abiogenesis over divine creation (but he's dead so we can't very much ask him) the modern theory of evolution picks up only after life began. It's a given.

It's bad enough that these poor children have to be put through this crap; it's insult to injury that the clarifying statement is WRONG. Wrong wrong wrong.

I am, however, extraordinarily pleased, pleased to the point of tears, in fact, that all but one of the Dover science teachers wrote a letter of protest requesting to opt out of reading the statement. In the letter they write:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

I believe that if I as the classroom teacher read the required statement,

my students will inevitably (and understandably) believe that

Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, perhaps on par with the

theory of evolution. That is not true. To refer the students to "Of Pandas and

People" as if it is a scientific resource breaches my ethical obligation to

provide them with scientific knowledge that is supported by recognized

scientific proof or theory.

Tears, I tell you, tears. I've taught in high school classrooms before and worked closely with teachers. Being a high school teacher is a thankless job. Dealing with administrations and school boards can be one of the most frustrating experiences ever. It can beat you down and just make you accept whatever stupid idea they throw at you because it's easier than rocking the boat. The fact that these eight teachers had the integrity to stand up and identify this idiocy for what it truly is gives me hope for the future. For someone who's life mission is going to protect and strengthen science and science education in this country, it's heartening to know that I don't have to look very far for help.

These teachers are truly unsung heroes, being called saboteurs by the anti-evolutionists. Well I say, when the anti-evolutionists have a theory that can actually hold more water than evolution, bring it on! But until then, go back to church. Or read some Thomas Aquinas.

Not So Unique Insight...

It's interesting that many of the same groups that insist that we "teach the controversy" over evolution also support abstinence-only sex-ed programs. It's as if it's ok to expose children to differing opinions on science but only one opinion on sex. Hmm.

I Am A Weak Man

Last week I made a vow to stop paying attention to politics right after the election; that I would take a hiatus until the next one, or Christmas, whichever came first. Of course, I was secretly hoping that this election would last until then so I wouldn't have to stop indulging. Well, it didn't. And I've been indulging left and right since then. Someone, please stop me. Take away my internet connection. Destroy my cable. Do something to help me! I tried watching Katie Couric on Today this morning. They had two actors on from two shows I've never watched before. Apparently they were guest starring on each others' respective television programs. I couldn't take it. I had to keep flipping to Fox News. Last night, I even turned off the TV and read a book. A book! That had nothing to do with politics! Until I couldn't take it anymore and turned on the Daily Show.

Please. I'm begging you. Someone. Help me. I fear I might fall into a quagmire of talking points and punditry, a deep pit of nothingness from which I might have no hope of escaping......

376,000 Strong And Growing...

Every candidate I voted for yesterday lost. Howard Mills (GOP) for Senate. Anton Srdonovic (GOP) for Congress. And Michael Badnarik (Lib) for President. But Badnarik did get 376,000 votes nationwide, more than the Green and Constitution parties combined. Maybe someday a little fiscal responsibilty and secular conservatism will rub off on the GOP and return it to the glory days. I know, I know. But here's hopin'!

A Good Day For Stupid People

And no, I'm not talking necessarily about people who voted for Bush. He's got his bad points but so does Kerry. I'm talking about why people voted for Bush. According to exit polls, 25% of the voters rated "moral values" as their number one reason for voting. And who did you think they voted for? Bush. But why? Abortion? All Bush does is pay lip service to pro-lifers. Stem cell research? Forgetting that the president probably shouldn't have the authority to decide what does and does not get funded, again all he really did was pay lip service to those opposed. A symbolic act that has done nothing except cripple the budding ESC research industry. The war? Even the Vatican, the benchmark of all that is good and holy, has condemned it as an unjust war. The death penalty? I'm not even touching that one. Gay marriage? Ok, you got me there. Even though at the last minute Bush said he'd support civil unions....

But there are more stupid people out there! Let's check them out:

Young People. Hey, young people. Yeah, you who might have to be drafted or who might not get all your social security benefits or who might have to grow up in a world run by theocratic islamofascist fundamentalists (whatever particular way you lean). Yeah, you. You couldn't get off your stoned asses for one goddamn day to vote? When you finally do get off your asses, you're going to wonder how you ever inhereted this fucked-up world. Good job, young people. Your apathy makes me proud. And speaking of stoned slackers, that brings me to...

Alaska! Hey, you guys, up in that big-ass frozen wasteland. You voted to not legalize pot??? What are you thinking? It's not like you have anything better to do with your 3 hour long days than to smoke weed. Give me a break. Think of all the tourism you'd get! All those hot college chicks looking to score some reefer and have a shag. And it's not like you don't do it already. A friend of mine from college used to smoke up with her mayor. Her mayor! Sheesh.... But now we move on to...

South Dakota. Hey, you guys, up there in that squarish state with that funky mountain of presidents. Yeah, you. You idiots were represented by the Senate Minority leader. That's right, your po-dunk little nothing of a state was represented by the most powerful Democrat in Congress. Got that? The most powerful Democrat in Congress. And you voted him out. Why? Why would you do such a thing? Because he wasn't Catholic enough? Because he was a slimey, weasly two-faced politician? Actually, I really don't care. It doesn't matter. You voted out the MOST POWERFUL DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS. You think anyone's going to give a shit about South Dakota now? Congratulations! You've just successfully voted your state into complete federal obscurity. Way to go, South Dakota!

And speaking of losing incumbants, right here in New York, veteran State Senator Olga Mendez (GOP) lost to Jose Serrano (Dem) by a margin of 5 to 1. Olga Mendez was a senator for over 25 years! Yes, that's right, a very powerful representative from New York City was voted out. A very powerful Republican representative in a Republican controlled Senate that is generally very hostile to us city dwellers and never wants to give us money. Guess who was getting us a lot of what we needed? Olga Mendez. Guess who, as a freshman senator is going to get us nothing? Go ahead, guess... Why, New Yorkers, why can't you get your heads out of your asses for one goddamn minute and realize that sometimes it is not beneficial to have a racially coveted minority as your representative and that not all Republicans are bad? Why?? Why do you do such things? Why? And of course, lastly....

Homophobes. That's right, you asswipes who voted for 11 of 11 amendments to ban gay marriage. Not those of you who voted for it because you don't like social engineering or genuinely believe you are protecting marriage, no I disagree with you but you can have that opinion. I'm talking about you assholes who gave into the fear-mongering of the actual homophobes who are afraid (ie the "phobe") of gays, afraid that legalizing gay marriage will lead to Bible-banning and priests being arrested and the entire ruin of civilization. Why? Why are you so stupid? Why do you let irrational, bigoted fear plague your thoughts and corrupt your actions? And why don't you want me to be happy and well-adjusted? But don't worry. We're going to get ours. Especially you guys up there in Michigan and Ohio. Those amendments are going down! Because we have a secret weapon. No, it's not a powerful culture-eroding ray broguht on by gential-anal contact. No, we've got something more powerful than that...

Old People! Come on AARP! Show us what you've got!

Why You Can't Argue With Conservatives

Out of the dozen or so states that have anti-marriage equality amendments on the ballot today, most of the focus (monetary and otherwise) has been with Oregon and Measure 36, because it seems to have the best chance of not passing. So in an attempt to prove my point about being unable to argue against gay marriage without using horrible talking points and catchphrases, I bring you....

I Won't Be Redefined Dot Com.

Um, homo say what? First of all this attempt to be edgy and appeal to a younger crowd is fucking ridiculous. Just look at their video. First of all, they have some horrible emo/christian rock band with a "cute" spelling of their name, Kutless, for their background ("I am not what you see, oh no / Not much more than a slave I wish to be", which if it had been sung by Xtina, the religious right would have had a field day, but that is a whole other topic of discussion). They also have faux-hip retro-lettering. Pulling out all the stops, I see...

So anyway, the video starts out with young, hip kids being interviewed about how they, as the church, have failed homosexuals in many ways (aw, thanks guys) but obviously voting "no" to this measure is not the way to "show that we care." Uh-huh. So how exactly is it that you're going to show us that you care? Keep us from making the mistake of getting married, obviously. And really, it isn't the church's fault. "I personally don't think you should bring politics into the church but what do you do when a moral issue becomes political?" Uh, yeah, thank you guy with the tacky Justin Timberlake hat.

But let's talk purpose. Let's talk 5000 years of history. Let's talk the woman in the oh-so-1993 glasses and her oh-so-articulate observation that God "purposed [men and women] to have a destiny together" as she gazes lovingly into her dopey boyfriends eyes. You just know that these two are "promise keepers" and, while they've never technically had sex, she's probably sucked more dick than I have.

Oh, but of course, it isn't all about what God created us for and for the happiness of heterosexuals. It is important for the bi-racial couple holding two very beautiful children to not have to explain the intricacies of life to their three-year-old. Because, oh, actual parenting is too difficult and apparently their moral convictions aren't strong enough to survive two queers getting married, not to mention the fact that this asswipe should shut his mouth because if it weren't for some minorities trying to "redefine [his] culture" then he wouldn't be married to his little blonde wife, now would he? Would he? No! Stop! Sodom Sodom Sodom!!! Ok, back to the video...

Now let's talk civil rights. Apparently, sexual preference isn't a civil right. The idea of the gay gene has been totally rejected by the medical community, says the little raver boy, so you aren't born gay. Uh-huh. Can I get some statistics there buddy boy? Or at least your phone number? (Stop it! Bad Michael!) Maybe nobody told him that, um, the entire medical community hasn't rejected the idea. Or that pre-natal and post-natal environmental factors predispose one towards homosexuality and that just cause their ain't a gene, don't mean it's a choice. Just ask Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian...

But what's been missing so far is how to the blacks feel about this being called a civil rights issue? Bingo! Cue black woman! Of course she and her older relatives are appalled that gays are making that comparison! Appalled! Because didn't you know that the NAACP tradmarked civil rights back in 1964 and no one other than the almighty African-American is truly discriminated against!

But wait! There is another group that stands to be marginalized! It's not the blacks! It's not the gays! No, it's the religious! Cue token accusation of Bible banning: "Scripture could become illegal and outlawed." "Portions of the Bible will be declared as hate literature!" "Maybe I could go to jail someday if I don't [marry two homosexuals]." And if that's not enough fear-mongering for you, the opposition has also recruited young adults to drop out of college to slump for their cause of gay marriage! They're taking your children out of school for this!

And then, three quarters of the way into it, just as we're getting close.... bam! Money shot! "We can't let 2% of the population redefine marriage for us." Cue screen-filling shot of slow-waving American flag and patriotic sounding Chrisitan rock! But wait! We get bonus multiple angle footage! Cue emotional speech ending in idiotic platitude: "If you don't stand up for something you'll fall for anything!" Boo-yah!

Let's fade out with some audio of inspired Christian rock about being a "history maker," followed by the voice of the large crowd singing along and clapping in unison! Kumbaya! I WON'T BE REDEFINED!

Ok, fine. I won't redefine you. I'll keep defining you as an irrational, backwater, oppressive, fundamentalist crackwhore like I always have. Excuse me now, while I go watch the election results with some other godless sodomites, and as I tear at the delicate connective tissues of society, I'll be sure not to redefine you into anything that sounds like you might have an original or rational thought....

If I Were In A Swing State...

... I think that this election would have actually paralyzed me. But I'm done. I've exercised my rights as a citizen of the greatest country on the planet and now all that's left to do is to sit back and wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.

So get out there and get your vote on! Or I forbid you to enjoy the Third of the Month tomorrow...

-----

A Modest Challenge

Every issue has its talking points and catchphrases. I would like to see an honest, well-thought out challenge to gay marriage without using the phrases "redefining marriage," "judicial activism," "judicial elites," or "traditional marriage," or any derivation thereof. I mean, seriously, judicial elites? Talk about spin...

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.