Some Minor Rumblings and Ramblings

Again, I apologize to all my avid readers that I haven't been updating like I did in April. I will try harder to update at least once a week, but one every other day or every two days.

This post is not going to be on any specific topics, just what has been in the news lately, because I'm not really fuming on anything. Today's topics haven't been all that exciting, either.

So we have all this torture talk, with what seems like new information everyday. Am I alone in thinking this subject is getting very tired? We have two extremes on both sides of the political spectrum: the right is pretty much defending torture, or at least the Bush admin's use of it in some doomsday scenario "we've got a ticking time bomb". On the left we have calls for senior Bush officials to be prosecuted, including Bush and Cheney themselves, which seems like an act that would further divide this country with every taking sides on every issue, the others on each side calling one another morally suspect.

It seems we are at an impasse. I can understand the left's calls for prosecution of torture. It's bad. Really bad. And it has been said time and time again that it is ineffective on all counts. It's only logical that it would be ineffective, since humans will do anything to prevent themselves from feeling pain (physical or psychological). If you are being hurt, and you are being told what information the person hurting wants, the only way to make them stop is to tell them what they want to hear. Thus, the pain stops. You probably have no idea what you said, and it is most likely false information that will be used against you later. It still made the pain stop. Along with it being really bad, it is also globally illegal. The US wasn't a founding member of the UN for no reason. We had an obligation to decide what was right or wrong during times of war or otherwise.

I obviously don't agree with the right on any of their arguments regarding torture, because they lack any evidence or justification under jurisprudence. They may be rationalized nonstop until the wars end, but that's not going to justify them. However, one bit I do agree with is can we stop with the talk of it already. There are many people strongly arguing on both sides, but I think we've heard enough, and we need to stop running our mouths about it. There is only so much speaking we can do on a subject before it is dead and boring. Sure new information comes out daily, whether leaked or otherwise, but it doesn't mean we should spend 16 hours of the news cycle beating and flossing a dead horse. If there isn't going to be prosecution, can we let it go. I mean, I was unhappy about Bush being president, but was anything done about it? Obviously not. So if lawmakers and the people in charge are not going to do anything about it, then please stop talking about it. I beg of thee liberals, I beg of thee Dick Cheney, I beg of thee neo-cons. 

Of course, by no means do I not want prisoners of war treated with any disrespect or without habeas corpus. If there are detainees that are not guilty of anything, release them. Just like we do here in the US. Sure, if they were guilty, and go out and commit another crime, then by all means take 'em down. However, the argument of "oh, but you'll be subjecting innocent lives to a person who wants to see them die" is not valid. You can't know what is uncertain. There is a principle in chemistry, created by Heisenberg, which basically says that subatomic particles are so energetic, that once you get a lock on one, it has already moved, so it is impossible to determine its position and momentum at the same time. So, to put it in the terms I'm talking about: You think crazy Muslim extremist will do harm when he is released, but he has done nothing wrong that can be ascertained by empirical means. Therefore, you have his position, but not his momentum. You think you have his momentum too, but its too tricky to tell. If you focus on momentum too much, you'll lose his position, and you will never know if he will do any harm. Uncertainty to the fullest. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and foresight is blind. So why not afford due process?

So that went a little longer than I had anticipated, but no worries. I have a slightly different topic to cover now: Miss California Carrie Prejean. First off, shut up. Beauty pageant contestants should not be heard about anything (e.g. Mrs. Palin), because all they offer is their opinion. If you have no real solutions, then who gives a shit about your opinion? I can say that I believe everything should be free, but if I have no solution to make that happen, it is just words. It's not surprising that Trump didn't fire her because is fucking doesn't matter. It's not like she's doing anything noteworthy. IT'S IN THE FUCKING TITLE: BEAUTY pageant. It is also not shocking that she's guest-hosting Fox & Friends, joined the national marriage haters group that think a "storm" (gay storm, in case you weren't aware) is coming, and is an all-around idiot (Two things: she call it opposite marriage for fucksake, and she was saying that Satan asked her the question; I wouldn't give Perez that much credit). Can we end her 15 minutes already?

And lastly: Can we please get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? It doesn't make any sense. Period. First of all, not asking is irrelevant, because it shouldn't be any business of the military to know whether or not someone is gay. Secondly, shouldn't military personnel be upfront with everyone about their lifestyles. "Oh, I wear women's clothing and kill bunnies," is an ok lifestyle, but as soon as that guy says he has sex with other men, it's no good. Getting rid of Arabic translators is also fucking retarded. You know what, let's send it the guys who speak Spanish to Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean full-blooded Latinos, because their machismo will prevent them from being gay and they can speak Spanish to the natives. Yeah, that's sounds real fucking golden.

It's a stupid program and law and needs to die. If I wanted to live int he 12th century, I'd build a time machine and go there. I rest my case.

Joe the "Idiot"

Sorry I haven't update in a couple of weeks, but I've been slightly tired and busy! The beginning of the month will do that to me!

So Joe the "Plumber" is an idiot. A big idiot. So much of an idiot, I do not and will not put it past the conservative movement in this country to keep using him as a semi-spokesman.

Recently, and I'm sure you've heard by now, he spoke with Christianity Today about gay marriage. Here's the excerpt everyone is talking about:

"Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary--it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do--what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

So now we're all idiots because we don't understand the dictionary. You know, it's one of the very few times a dimbulb will use the DICTIONARY to justify a slur. So, by definition, I can call Joe a queer. I mean, in my opinion, he's strange and unusual. So that's makes him a queer by his own explanation. So, following his own logic, his kids shouldn't be allowed around him, because he's a queer and he doesn't want his kids near queers. But you, at the same time, he's a person, and he's going to use stupid speech at every turn, because he's a queer.

Here's the full definition of queer: 

queer      (kwîr)    
adj.   queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

n.  

1. Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual person.
2. Usage Problem A lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or transgendered person.

tr.v.   queered, queer·ing, queers Slang

1. To ruin or thwart: "might try to queer the Games with anything from troop movements . . . to a bomb attack"(Newsweek).
2. To put (someone) in a bad position.

[Perhaps from Low German, oblique, off-center, from Middle Low German dwer; see terk^w- in Indo-European roots.]
queer'ish adj., queer'ly adv., queer'ness n.

Usage Note: A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group.

Actually, by Joe's logic, he's allowed to use the word queer, since he is one. But don't tell him that, he may get offended!

Here's the problem using lexical definitions to support your bigotry: It's always going to backfire. Take the word "gay." It used to mean happy. Men used to say to each other "we're gay together" and it was totally platonic and heterosexual. Now, "gay" primarily means homosexual. It also morphed into a slang term meaning "lame." Many of the definitions of gay still say forms of "happy." So in Joe's case, if he had used gay, then he is basically saying that homosexuals are happier than he is, and damn them to hell! Again, it backfires.

He also does a horrible job of trying to soften his blow about his children and that homosexuals are sinners by using the phrase "at the same time." It doesn't work like that. You can't have an opinion AND be ambivalent. You're either have a feelings about something, or you're apathetic. Bygones are bygones, or they are not. One or the other Joe. You can't walk down both streets just because you have friends that are "actually" homosexual (as if he has tried not believing it, and all of his hair fell out).

Joe the "Plumber", the biggest touted heavyweight of the conservative movement right now, running his mouth like a leaky hose. He is someone in my mind that makes me fear for the future of the human race.

My Thoughts on Huckabee's Gay-Sexism

I know it's a bit old (from Tuesday), but I was extremely frustrated by Mike Huckabee's appearance on the Daily Show. First off, he got two segments, which also annoyed me, but I saw what Jon Stewart was trying to do, at least with the second segment. It dealt with Prop 8 and Huckabee's strong support of the same-sex marriage ban (he is from Arkansas; but his wife looks like a man, so I don't know, maybe he's trying to pull a Larry Craig?). Here's the segment:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

So here's my thing: Did anyone else see that the only argument Huckabee had was, in essence, semantics? Because that's all I saw.

I would like to break down his argument in sections. His first point was procreation. Of course, gay couples cannot procreate like a heterosexual couple can, but as Jon points out, there are numerous avenues a gay couple can go down to "prep" the next generation. Things like artificial insemination from a sperm donor, which is expensive, but definitely an alternative that is open to lesbian couples, and being taken advantage of by heterosexual couples that cannot have children on their own (in and of itself a Christian disgrace). Another avenue is adoption, and studies have shown that kids can grow up healthy if they are given the love and affection and attention that they need, even if it's from two dads or two moms. Talk about a general population crisis, especially in other countries. If we gave every gay-married couple 2 kids, why I'm sure our foster care services, orphanages, and general poverty would be greatly improved. So when Huckabee suggests that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman on the insistence of procreation, he is sorely missing the point.

My next point is one that Jon makes, which is discussing the Bible's role in marriage. Yeah, all of the forefathers of Judaism had multiple wives (it's a case for variation, since there weren't as many people then as there are now), so what? You know, that's not my major beef. What my major beef is religious folk pick and choose what is supposed to be followed from the Bible, and want literalism from those selected verses (like creation), but as soon as an outsider suggests that marriage thing from the Bible should be taken literally, they're are yelled that they are taking the Bible "too literally". Where does something like that end? It's impossible to tell, because religion is powerful enough to allow hypocrisy to exist relatively unfettered. My basic thing is, you either take the Bible literally or you don't. You either allow polygamy or you don't. You either believe in Jesus' teachings (all of them) or you don't. You either stone gays or you don't. But if you stone gays, you have to stone adulterers and the like too, so perhaps that might not be the best thing to believe in. My point is thus: Since you don't believe in polygamy, why not same-sex marriage?

Huckabee then suggests a slippery slope fallacious argument that if we change the definition, we have to include every lifestyle change, like polygamy. No, you don't, because we already agreed that polygamy is illegal, and gay couples don't want to have more than one partner, they just want to have the right to have ONE, like everyone else does in this world.

Again, Huckabee throws around shades of meaning with regard to "equality". You know, we're either created equal with all of the same rights as our neighbors, or we're not. It's that simple. You know how simple it is? It's so simple, that for many many years, black people were classified as 3/5 of a person. It's so simple that, before that, most black people were slaves. If it's simple one way, why not the other, right? Privileges are not the same as rights, I agree. Having a license to drive a car is not a right, but a privilege. But, at least in this country, we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe marriage fits into all three of those. Life; it's been shown that marriage extends life expectancy, or that for some, marriage is a way to live life. Liberty; We are a free people, and all that is granted to free people should be the same, no matter your race, age, creed, religion, or sexuality. And the Pursuit of Happiness; well, isn't that every one's ultimate goal, to be happy? I have not met a soul who has not wanted some sort of happiness in their life. And you know what, for some, marriage is happiness, and we should not, no, we SHALL not interfere with that pursuit, regardless who that marriage is to.

Then there is the big one: Huckabee suggests there is a"big difference" between being black and being homosexual. He obviously is stuck in the 50s. For many years, it is widely accepted by psychiatrists and psychologists that homosexuality, much like heterosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a biological occurrence with no conscious choice of the individual whether to be gay or straight. Jon rightly stops him by saying he knows many more than Huckabee does, and rightly puts him in his place that his argument is malarkey. Jon is right, religion is absolutely a lifestyle choice, and one that takes the cake in protections from the government. (Remember what I said above, religion is powerful enough to do what it wants, in the face of conflicting information.)

Then Huckabee shows his hand by going back to "redefining the word". Who cares? What does it do to people? Aren't the monotheistic religions individualistic anyways? Meaning that what one person doesn't affect your own salvation, as long as you follow what you're supposed to do? Words are redefined everyday, every decade, every century. Does gay even mean what it did when  "Deck the Halls" came out? I don't think so, unless guys "don their gay apparel" of a shirtless vest and tight leather pants a la New York nightclubs of the 1970s.

My last point that I want to make is thus: "we have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to change my mind" is horrible, and humans tend to be this way. This is where being a skeptic comes in handy, because open minds trump all. Truly open minds, not the ones that say "I'll try anything once". Because once you become a skeptic, you say, well let's see how it works out, and if new information comes in to either support or contradict what we originally knew, then we'll go from there. None of the other stuff that says we're going to only believe the first thing and not any other new information. This is what I feel Huckabee is stuck in. He feels so strongly in this position of man and woman = marriage, but he won't even let others try it out to see if it will work. What is truly telling, is that in the 6 months in California where gay couples married, no one exploded, and life went on, ob la di ob la da, and since it wasn't in the sensory experience of Mike Huckabee, I'm sure he was none the wiser, and did not lose any sleep.

Perhaps when we all come to realization that what someone else does doesn't affect our own existence too greatly, then we can truly embrace the idea of personal liberty or what discrimination truly means to human existence.

(Sorry if there were spelling or grammatical errors, I was too fucked to proof-read after writing all of that above)

Prop H8 ... and my shame of being a Californian...

I have to say... Tuesday was great and crap at the same time. I am proud to be an American, but shameful about being a Californian. This is what my shame amounts to at the moment (image above).

Why, you ask, is my shame bringing feelings about the Jim Crow south that I was never apart of? Well, I shall lay it out for you in the simplest terms that I can. OK, so Proposition 8 passed in California on Tuesday which would ban same-sex marriage in the state and cancel the ruling by the Supreme Court that said it was allowed earlier this year. It would be an amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage between a man and woman ONLY. Now, about 18,000 gay couples got married in California since May. Their marriages are assured to continue to be valid by the State Attorney General, but I have some misgivings. Let me give you a scenario that I thought of the other day. Say Gary married Steve in June 2008. Steve got into a huge auto accident last month. Gary, being Steve's spouse, wants to visit Steve in the hospital. The hospital happens to be a private hospital and not a government-run facility. The hospital denies Gary the right to see Steve in the hospital. Gary sues the hospital. Gary wins on the basis that the Attorney General said their marriage was still valid in the face of Prop 8 and the subsequent amendment to the constitution and the hospital wrongly disallowed Gary to visit Steve. However, the lovely appeals process is taken up by the hospital, claiming that the marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I'm not a constitutional law student, or even a law student, but it seems easy for this case. I could be wrong, so bear with me, or please, tell me I'm wrong. So anyway, the appeals process takes the case all the way back to the California Supreme Court. Since it is their job to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, they refer to the State Constitution. The Amendment states in plain language that marriage is between a man and a woman and side the case with the hospital. Unfortunately, all the 18,000 marriages granted by California are basically found unconstitutional. Even though the attorney general said they would be safe. I believe all it takes is one case to make it so.

But Alex, you haven't equated Jim Crow to the issue at hand yet. I know, I'm getting there: So here's the deal, what do we do with same sex couples that would like to have the same rights as hetero-couples? Well, since we obviously don't want to grant them marriages like everyone else, we say civil unions. Here's where the connection makes sense. I'm sorry, but civil unions are nothing more than "separate but equal". I for one found the Jim Crow laws to be beneath that of decent human nature, and I am ashamed it took so long for them to be abolished. But apparently it is OK for same sex couples to feel the same type of discrimination? In 2008? Separate but equal should not be language I'm using at this stage in US history, and I am ashamed I am using it now. We, as a nation, elected a black man to the highest office in the land, yet we continue to subject different parts of the population to undeserved discrimination? So what if civil unions are exactly like marriages. That's not the point. Many people fight battles based on principle, and in this case, it is the principle. I know marriage is just a word, but Westerners have placed so much meaning behind the word, it leads a country to continue to discriminate and make others feel less welcome or less of a citizen. That is my point, because civil unions just do not cut it. There are many churches or synagogues out there that will perform the religious ceremonies of same sex couples. The only other aspect is to be allowed in one's civic life to get a marriage license and not a civil union license. Why is it so hard for people to let others do what they wish, considering we live in the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE? It's not free to hand someone something separate but equal, and it is not brave to allow that to happen when you know it is wrong.

I would like to add that it is also shameful the ads for Prop 8 that were everywhere stating that same sex marriage would be forced upon Californians, churches would lose their tax-exempt status because they would be against it, and that children would have to learn it in school. None are true, but it was all they had because their main argument would violate the line between church and states. Utterly shameful. And another thing: Hey LDS church based in Utah, mind your own business! Was California all up in your shit when you were allowing polygamist marriages because Mormonism said that was OK? I highly doubt it. Since the United States loves the whole thing about states' rights, keep to yourself in Utah, and Californians will continue to keep to themselves. Again, mind your own fucking business! You wouldn't have recognized the gay marriages anyways!

I hope the California State Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, and call it what it is: complete and utter discrimination, allowing all free citizens of this great nation to do whatever they want as long as it is not breaking any laws or hurting anyone else. It's not like their having gay sex in a church.

I'll leave it at that. Please feel free to leave any comments.