If logic is not on your side, try hysteria.
It never ceases to amaze me how the right continues to rely on obfuscation and misdirection in their pathetic fight against the "homosexual agenda." Men of supposed intelligence make remarks that have little or nothing to do with reality and rely instead on misinformation and stirring fear and hysteria in their listeners. The latest to voice the same tired rhetoric is Pennsylvania's Senator Rick Santorum.
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.
All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.
Where to start? First of all Lawrence v. Texas is not about privacy. It's about equal protection under the law, which is the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In fact, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the last time sodomy laws came before that Supreme Court, the Court decided that there is no right to privacy that protects such acts. Does Sen. Santorum know what he's talking about? I'm sure he is aware of the case law here, but it suits his purposes to make inflamatory statements regardless of the facts.
The arguments before the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas are whether or not the state has a compelling reason to regulate acts of sodomy between consenting adults. There are fourteen states with sodomy laws on the books. Only four, Texas among them, criminalize acts of sodomy between homosexuals but not heterosexuals. Even if that distinction were not made, I can pretty much guarantee that had the policeman had walked in on a man and woman engaged in sodomy, married or not, there would have been no arrest. Sen. Santorum tries to tell us striking sodomy laws would also give people the "right to adultery." While I imagine there are some places where adultery may still be on the books as a criminal offense, when was the last time any one was arrested for adultery? Santorum is just digging his own grave by showing just how inequitable the laws really are. That or he's trying to suggest that all people should have their sex lives regulated by that state. I'm not sure which is more disturbing.
The right seems to have learned that citing religious convictions as proof of "the inherent evil" of homosexuality doesn't get them very far. Instead they now rely on equating homosexuality with pedophilia and incest, relying on the combination of sex and children to stir negative emotional responses in their listeners. Sodomy laws have absolutely nothing to do with sex crimes committed against children. Neither does homosexuality. It is a well documented fact that acknowledged homosexuality does not imply a greater tendency to commit sex crimes of any kind, much less those against children. To continue to raise the issue in this manner is manifest deliberate ignorance, ignoring the findings of the scientific community and the testimony of homosexuals, their friends and families.
That the right cannot come up with a solid argument based in fact and reality ought to be proof enough that their position is untenable and irrational. Everyone is entitled to their religious convictions. However, your religious convictions do not give you the right to discriminate against or oppress those who do not conform to your ideals. Many of these so called Christians would do well to take a closer look at the life of Christ. Even if you believe that homosexuals are sinners, it was never the sinners who raised Christ's ire. Indeed, he often sat at dinner with them. Those for whom Christ reserved his harshest condemnation were the leaders of the community who claimed compassion and charity as their own, but in reality had neither.
I hears voices.
Have you ever been pondering some course of action and a thought pops into your head suggesting a different possibility? You ponder this new idea a moment and think, "Nah, it'll be fine." Then when all is said and done you stop and think: "I should have done it the other way."
What is this "little voice?" Is it the Spirit of God whispering directions to us? Is is a friendly spirit, a guardian angel? Is it merely a part of me that extends into the infinite and is privy to more information that can be had by my mortal faculties? Is there really a difference between these options? I don't know.
Whatever this "voice" is, it certainly seems to be wiser than I. You would think I would learn to listen a bit more often.
“Neener neener neener”
Folks, I think the joke is on us. Saddam Husien did have chemical weapons and actually was able to use them against us without us even being aware of it. And what, you may ask, is the result of these weapons? Everyone seems to have become blindingly juvenile.
Armin Burkhardt, a German-language professor from Magdeburg University, is vexed by English words, which have percolated through his country since World War II ended, displacing many familiar German and French terms. Mr. Burkhardt organized "Language in Politics," a four-member etymological policing group intent on purging English offenders. ...
...On April 8, he issued a starter list of 33 words to avoid, complete with French replacements. He promises similar lists in the future.
Mr. Burkhardt wants Germans to sit on a sofa, not a couch, at a fete, not a party, and be formidable, not cool.
Oh, grow up people! Don't you have anything better to do with your lives than devise useless and completely ineffectual ways of making some political statement? Let's assume for a moment that Mr. Burkhardt has some phenomenal power over the German population in general and teenagers in particular to affect a change in their speech patterns. ("OK" is on his black list.) Yes, that's a big assumption, but work with me here. The Germans and the French didn't like the US going to war in Iraq. I think we all got that. Is there anyone who missed that? So the Germans no longer "party" and are now "formidable." Am I supposed to care? Is this supposed to hurt my feelings?
Now, the Germans are not the only ones affected by these regression chemicals and not even the first. Anyone ever get an order of freedom fries? Did you have freedom toast for breakfast? Any of you ladies get your nails freedom tipped?
Let's hope the effects of this disastrous weapon wear off soon so we can all go back to being adults, stop hurling petty insults at one another and find something meaningful to do with our lives.
The Sekritary of Edukashun
In an interview published on Monday with the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention, [Education Secretary Roderick] Paige said: 'All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith.
Danger! Danger, Will Robinson! Right here Mr. Paige should have had the sense to stop and think: Hmmmm...there are many people of faith and good character outside the Christian tradition. Maybe I shouldn't be implying that it takes a Christian school to produce quality adults. But no. He wasn't content to nibble on his toes. He had to shove the foot all the way in and start chewing.
The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system. In a religious environment the value is set. That is not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values.
This is where we sit with our mouths agape and wonder how someone who is presumably smart enough to be a member of the Cabinet can really be so dumb. He obviously didn't stop to think that there might be a few who would take exception to his implication that a Christian education is the best kind of education. I can imagine there are a few Jews who might have something to say on the subject. Probably one or two Muslims, and every single Unitarian in the country. Does he honestly believe that Christianity inherently creates better people? He might take a look at Fred Phelps and reconsider his opinion.
In his own defense Paige said the interviewer asked for his personal views on child rearing and that his personal views have no bearing on his role as the chief education officer of our nation. I'm sorry, Mr. Paige. You don't get to separate the two. What's the point of having personal views then? Amazing how often personal integrity comes up in today's world, or maybe doesn't come up is more correct. Essentially he's saying he is running an education system that he wouldn't want his own children to participate in. If that's the case, how committed can he be to improving the system at all, never mind improving it for all? Since a Christian education system is his ideal, anything he produces is, by definition, second best in his mind. I don't think I want someone with that kind of attitude at the helm of our educational system. Whoever is there should be driven by passion and vision to create the best educational system in the world. Mr. Paige has just shown us that he is not.
…than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Nicholas De Genova, a professor at Columbia University, recently spoke at a teach in on said campus. Speaking of the war in Iraq Mr. Genova said "If we really (believe) that this war is criminal ... then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine."
Okay. He's entitled to his opinions. Two problems here:
- It is the U.S. "war machine" that has kept this country a place where he can have his cushy job at a university and spout such nonsense.
- I don't see the Iraqi people fighting the US. The Republican Guard is, by no stretch of the imagination (except maybe De Genova's) "the Iraqi people." Even some of the Republican Guard don't seem to have their hearts in it.
Not content with wishing our forces defeated, Mr. De Genova had more words on the subject. "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." For those of you who don't know what a Mogadishu is (I didn't), it refers to the dismembered bodies of American servicemen that were dragged through the streets of Somalia in 1993. So apparently it is not enough to wish our armed forces defeat, they must be savaged and humiliated as well.
Since there really is no discussion to be had about the appalling nature of such a comment, let's skip that part. What I want to know is why is war criminal, referring I assume to the hundreds and maybe thousands of Iraqi troops who will die in the conflict, but it is okay to wish death on our own troops? Does that strike anyone else as, oh, hypocritical? Isn't that just the flip side of Bush calling Baghdad an evil regime except that you're naming America as the evil regime? What's that old saying? Something about a pot and a kettle...
You know what? If America is such an evil place, why don't you move to Iraq? I'll even help you pack.
Oh, yeah. I’m smooth.
Last night I shut my jacket in my car door. What I didn't realize until this morning is that my cell phone, at the time stashed in the pocket of said jacket, was also shut in the door, smashing the LCD and basically rendering my phone useless for anything but receiving calls. Just peachy.
A word of advice: When researching cellular service providers find out if they give existing customers a break on the phones. T-Mobile does. The longer you're with them, the better deal you get. Sprint (my provider, of course) does not. Replacing my phone is going to cost me about $140. That in and of itself would have been enough to make one fit to chew nails, but since I could not view my phone book, I was afraid I had lost all the numbers programmed into my phone to boot. Now that really got my shorts in a wad and made me somewhat grumpy.
All's well that ends well.
So I went to the Sprint store and bought a new phone. They were able to print out my phone book from the broken phone, which alleviated the whole grumpy thing I had going. (Now it's just a matter of taking a hour or two to program them into the new phone.) One other small bonus is it was only $20 more to get one of those new fancy, schmancy color phones, so what the hell right? Now I can put cool images like this one as wallpaper on my new phone.
Praise for Madonna
Recently Madonna decided not to release anti-war video to promote her song "American Life." "It was filmed before the war started, and I do not believe it is appropriate to air it at this time," she said. "Due to the volatile state of the world and out of sensitivity and respect for our armed forces, who I support and pray for, I do not want to risk offending anyone who might misinterpret the meaning of this video."
Wow. A celebrity with sensitivity and concern for someone beside themselves. Whether or not you agree with the decision to go to war, once that decision has been made I believe we owe it to our troops to be nothing but supportive of their efforts to 1. honorably acquit themselves on the field of battle and 2. survive. We are not talking about the decisions George Bush has made anymore. Now it's about the 18-21 year olds, barely more than boys, fighting and risking their lives and in some cases dying. Whether you are fundamentally opposed to war in any form, or whether you are opposed to this particular war, that's a sacrifice that deserves our respect. Period.
One pundit claims Madonna did this in order to avoid becoming the next target of a boycott a la the Dixie Chicks. ('K. Now that was dumb.) Since when has Madonna given a rat's ass about anyone's opinions but her own? Madonna is worth millions. Hundreds of millions. Do you really think she's making music to make money? Get real.
In all fairness to celebrities everywhere, Madonna is not the only one who has "real" views about the world we live in. I must admit I was very impressed at the restraint shown at the Oscars. I expected there to be a lot more political grandstanding than there was. The one tactless boob who turned his acceptance speech into a political diatribe was actually booed. It's too bad that it's the tactless bores we hear from most and that more moderate voices don't make themselves heard a bit more often.
The War in Iraq
Do we belong in Iraq? That is a good question. For me it is a difficult one. It must be nice to be the radical right where "righteous indignation" and the "wrath of God" are easy fall back positions. Equally easy would be the radical left who fire indiscriminate volleys from the safety of their ivory towers. One of the burdens of being a moderate is you actually have to think about things.
Now with the wisdom of years, I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymoreBilly Joel, "Shades of Grey," River of Dreams
The religious right seems to forget that Christ ended the "eye for an eye" philosophy with his ministry and death. At the same time I think the left's yearning for a Utopia where all differences can be settled with words and fine bottle of wine is unrealistic. War is, without a doubt, always a terrible thing. I am never an advocate of war. Once that decision has been made, however, I firmly believe that you fight to win. War is not a game you can play half way. It's all or nothing.
Is it blood for oil? Are we in Iraq so prices at the gas pump will go back down? I'm not so cynical (or simple-minded) as to believe that. Does Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? Many certainly seem to think so. Would he have used them? Who knows. Probably not directly. Dictators like Saddam are all about self preservation. He would never directly challenge the West on any terms. He knows he would be squashed like a bug. Would he make those weapons available to terrorists, let them take the heat and the risk, be able to later disavow any knowledge of the source of those weapons? Yes. That sounds more like his M. O.
What I think is happening is the U.S. is still pretty riled. The Taliban and Afghanistan were too easy a victory. Certainly not enough to sate the outrage, indeed the rage, surrounding the craven attacks of September 11. We were still itching for a fight. I'm still not sure what Saddam was thinking. When someone twice your size is in your face saying, "Come on. Give a me a reason to take you out," it's generally considered prudent to not give him one. I guess he thought we were bluffing. Bad mistake. Is that a righteous cause to go to war? No. But truth be told, I have no qualms whatsoever about eliminating Saddam Husien.
One man can occasion great amounts of evil and suffering. That the Iraqi people have suffered under his rule is not debatable. However, the prevailing attitude is it's not our business. That is wrong. It is our business. I recently watched The Pianist, a story about the Jews of Warsaw and the atrocities visited upon them by the Nazis. My outrage grew as I listened to the Jews express the hope that France or England would declare war soon. But the world sat and watched as Hitler slowly consumed Europe saying, "It's not our problem." Other countries finally did declare war, but too late for the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto. Those not shipped off to extermination camps were slaughtered when they finally decided to try and fight back themselves.
Nature seems to dictate that the strong prey upon the weak. Mankind is a part of Nature to be sure, but we are also above Nature. Ours is the power to govern ourselves and not have our roles in this life dictated to us. Strength is a gift. The strong should protect the weak. That is the purpose of power. There is, however, much resistance to risking American lives to liberate the Iraqi (or any other) people. We will never achieve a global community until we learn to care about all people equally and not just "our own."
A friend of mine once said we should take a lesson from Star Trek, where all men are equal, where integrity and knowledge are more important than wealth and power. What isn't often mentioned, however, is that they had to go through a nuclear holocaust to get there. They were motivated to find a better solution having seen the fruits of their previous passions. I tend to think we will end up following the same course. I don't know that I believe we can get there from here. It might just be that it is necessary to destroy it all and start over. I hope someone proves me wrong.
Personal Integrity
Read an article today about a young Marine who is trying to obtain conscientious objector status now that his unit has been activated to be sent to Iraq. He claims to be a pacifist and a regular attendee of anti-war rallies. O. K. I have just one question: "What are you doing joining the Marines?" And here, really, is the crux of the whole thing. Service in America's military is voluntary. We are not like many European countries where service in the military is mandatory. In such a context conscientious objector makes sense. In America's military I'm not convinced it should even exist. I'm sorry, but there is such a thing as honoring your commitments and personal integrity. You volunteered for military service, most likely to have your education paid for by the U.S. Government. If you're going to talk the talk you have to walk the walk. Period.
"I object to war because I believe that it is impossible to achieve peace through violence."
So what the hell are you doing joining the MILITARY??
"It wasn't as well thought out as it should've been. It was about me being depressed and wanting direction in life."
Fine. Join the Peace Corps. Makes a bit more sense for a "pacifist" don't you think?
"They don't really advertise they kill people."
HELLO!!! It's the mil-i-ta-ry. What do you think that high-powered, automatic rifle is for?
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against pacifists. I am certainly no advocate of war. I do have a problem with pacifists who join the military and then try and beg off their obligations when war actually comes along.
Sorry, Stephen, no sympathy for you.
Oh, and by the way, if he had real personal integrity he wouldn't have joined the military in the first place.