Things That Piss Me Off

I haven't blogged in awhile because I've been busy with the holidays and my birthday (turning 27 was a real drag). I just spent two afternoons in a row teaching high school students the wonders of DNA profiling and they kept calling me mister. Godammit. I am so not that old. So during break time I had to bond with them over [adultswim]. Until it was time to talk again and then I had to make them turn off their computers and be quiet. I felt so frickin' old.

Now, I'm pissed off because my tech didn't change the nitrogen tank last week because he's an idiot even though he was told and now I'm out of nitrogen and can't do any work. You'd think that that would be a good thing but no it just pisses me off because I was supposed to work all night.

You know what also pisses me off? Intelligent Design. It's so frickin' stupid. I've been working on a workshop using evolution and intelligent design to illustrate correct and incorrect uses of the scientific method. I thought all the research I did was going to make me more informed and able to better articulate how idiotic "creation science" is. But no. It's just made me angrier that there are such ignorant, stupid people in the world. Just read this idiotic display of, well, idiocy by Kelly Holowell, quite possibly the world's worst scientist. Is it possible, just possible that the Jews decided to circumcize their boys at 8 days because they noticed that they bled a lot if they didn't wait that long, instead of the other way around? How does this crap get published? And repeated? People can't have brains this small. It's not possible.

And Pakistan! Pakistan pisses me off. Check out Bernard Henri Levy's book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? and you'll see what I mean. Ally my ass. It's unbelievable that this book, or the role of the ISI (Pakistan's shadow government) and al-Qaida in everything bad happening in the world, hasn't gotten more American press. Actually, scratch that. It's not unbelievable. It's par for the course for a country as wacked as this one. Do you realize that not one major Hollywood director has publicly denounced the murder of Theo van Gogh? Not one.

Why? Why are there so many stupid people in the world? Why?....

What To Watch

Well, I've been doing a pretty good job of staying off of political blogs lately. This could be that I've been busier at work. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with will-power. But regardless I've decided to take this moment, post-election, post-World Series, to educate you all on what you should be watching on television, since I have DVR and can pretty much watch everything all at once, in whatever order I feel like it.

First, let's start with non-reality television. I have this inkling that reality television is increasing the quality of writing on the small screen, due to a decreased supply and increased demand (although not if you turn on ABC, where any day of the week you can see some mediocre sitcom with fat husband doing something incompetant and a skinny, beautiful wife berating him until he threatens to send her to the moon). So this season be sure to check out some goodies:

Arrested Development started its second season last week, and it is better than ever. An impeccable cast, completely with sharp writing and new twists on classic sitcom tropes (and no annoying laugh-track) makes this appointment television for Sunday nights. Look for Justine Bateman guest starring as a love-interest for Michael (her real-life brother, Jason Bateman). Trust me, hilarity will ensue. But if that doesn't float your boat, Portia di Rossi is still America's hottest real-life lesbian.

After that, take a quick jump to HBO, home of the best original programming on cable television, and tune into the third season of The Wire, by far the best show on television ever. Ever. Ever. Don't worry about catching up. Just watch it and get immersed into the seedy underworld of drugs, sex and politics. In Baltimore! If, however, you are a purest and you do need some background, Season One just came out on DVD. Buy it. Or buy it for me for my birthday. Season Two, while just as good as the rest, takes a side-trip into the world of drug smuggling, and so not much plot is advanced with regards to our favorite hot street dealer Stringer Bell and his soldiers, so you can skip it if you're just concerned with continuity.

Next, take a jaunt over to Comedy Central where South Park began its 9th season right before the election. Oh yeah, those boys are back, hot off of Team America and ready for poignant real-world satire. All I have to say is Giant Douche v. Turd Sandwich. And while you're there, you might want to stick around for Drawn Together, ostensibly a "Big Brother"-esque cartoon. In actuality, it's less a reality-show satire than absurdist pop-culture parody a la Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network (unfortunately Sealab 2021 is on hiatus). But it's not that bad.

Ok, now we jump into Thursdays, which has always been must see TV. But gone is the angsty nihilist humor of the 90s. Joey is, ironically, too smart for all that. No, instead you should start your night on the channel that began with trashy, racy soap opera and will no doubt die with it. That's right, kiddies, the OC has moved to Thursdays! And after you get your fix of attractive, back-stabbing teens, surf on over to NBC and watch attractive, back-stabbing businessmen and -women. My money's on Jen M. all the way!

And lastly, but not leastly, if you have the joys and wonders of DVR, or even HBO On Demand, postpone The Wire for a bit and check out My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss. Critics be damned, I laughed my ass off. Especially if you like The Apprentice. At least those contestants have some modicum of respectablity. But watching a bunch of mid-level ass-kissers praise the amazing quality of shitty champagne and being served ground-up Spam passed off as duck liver pate, you'll never look at reality television the same way again. If it continues to be this funny, I'll rank it right up there with The Joe Schmo Show.

So there you have it. If it's Sunday, Wednesday or Thursday, you know what I'm doing with my time. Hey, I spend $100 a month on cable; I might as well get my money's worth....

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......

Happy Third of the Month!

Well, kiddies, today is a perfect day to celebrate the Third of the Month in earnest! If you were like me you've saturated yourself with the election for the past year, and now you're glad that it is finally over. You may be happy with the results, especially if you don't care about your own civil liberties. Or you may be saddened by the results, especially if you don't like this new brand of theo-conservatism that's sweeping the electorate. Or you might be indifferent towards the results because you have the emotional IQ of a lemur. It doesn't matter. What matters is that under no circumstances should you let any outside force stop you from enjoying yourself.

No matter who you voted for at your local polling place yesterday, when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you should have voted for yourself. And unlike yesterday, you don't only get to vote once. Today you can vote for yourself as often as you like. In fact, the more you vote for yourself, the happier you'll be. I guarantee it. You might even get someone else to vote for you. That's always fun.

So pull out your plaid, root around for those moist towellettes and exercise your right to Third of the Month, until a Bush appointed Supreme Court takes it all away...

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.

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?