Beth's Contradictory Brain

Interesting

I've long had mixed feelings about Oprah. One the one hand you've got to give her credit for her longevity and all that m-o-n-e-y! On the other hand, well, I don't really like her.

That said.

I find that, for her, race trumps gender.

I think we can all agree that her longevity and money are both due to her loyal, white, suburban audience.

Yet, her first romp in politics is to back Obama not Hillary.

Really?

Isn't Oprah all about empowering women??

Because I can't really believe that she's baking Obama for his policies or ideas. Not that I could tell you with any certainty just what Oprah's politics are.

Too bad no one in the media/press has the balls to ask her if she'd be out campaigning for Hillary as the first woman president if Obama weren't in the race.

Somehow I don't think she would be.

Dems and DADT

Interesting point... from a comment to a post by Althouse.

IN THE COMMENTS: Simon writes:

Congressman Gary Ackerman is full of it. I never tire of pointing out that the Defense Department doesn't have a "'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' [policy] when it comes to homosexuals," Congress imposes that policy on the Department of Defense by statutory law, 10 U.S.C. § 654. Since they have a nice, shiny new majority, and since they clearly have such disdain for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why doesn't the new Democratic majority repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell? Has Congressman Ackerman introduced a bill so to do? Why not?

Now that they're back in the majority, Democrats have no standing whatsoever to criticize Don't Ask Don't Tell until they at least move a bill repealing it through Congress (even if it ultimately gets vetoed). This isn't a military policy. It's Congress' policy. And guess what, Democrats? That means it's now your policy. Take that back to 'Frisco on your private jet, Nancy.

Immigration

A few thoughts.

My Nerdstar is an immigrant. Her whole entire family came over here in bit and pieces, over many years. It took her seventeen years to get her citizenship - not even military service sped it up. (I'll get to military and citizenship in a minute.)

I've never been a big fan of this dual language stuff. I don't think forms, signs, etc. should be in anything but English. When I went to spend a week in Mexico City with a friend from college, everyone there asked why I hadn't learned Spanish - they'd all learned English when there were in that States. The difference being, they went to college here, I was only there for a week.

But I think one of the most obvious dis-incentives that has to be addressed by anyone serious about immigration reform is that currently any baby born in the US is automatically a citizen. I think it should be changed to at least one parent having to be a US citizen and the baby being born here.

Then you stop all the free healthcare, welfare, and maybe even school. Although both Nerdstar and I know it would be incredibly hard to start denying children an education.

But what's really most interesting to me is how this issue became so big over a short period of time.

Excuse me?

I can't even say how much this pisses me off.

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make
marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana,
including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do
become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

The change in Indiana law to require marriage as a condition for
motherhood and criminalizing "unauthorized reproduction" was
introduced at a summer meeting of the Indiana General Assembly's
Health Finance Commission on September 29 and a final version of the
bill will come up for a vote at the next meeting at the end of this
month.

There's info in the linked site to contact relevant state reps, etc.

Found via Jeff, check out his post and the comments.

I Did It

I voted yesterday. I went to the mall where they had early voter set up, showed my voter registration card, signed my name, got instructions on the electronic voting machine and did it. I didn't ask what happens if I show up on election day proper and try to vote again - how would it be detected, but I was tempted to. They did check my voter registration card in a computer, so maybe they do keep a database of who's already voted.

Yes, I voted for Bush. You know how many people are voting for Kerry because of how much they hate Bush, well, I think it came down to me voting against Kerry like that. The way most of my readers feel about Bush and Republicans is how I feel about Kerry and Democrats, I just can't stand them. (Please be clear that I don't mean my readers who are Democrats, I mean the leaders of the Democratic Party.)

I'd give my right arm for a true third party candidate in '08. If I had any idea how to make it happen I would. I don't believe the majority of Americans are truly represented by either the Republicans or the Democrats.

On the other candidates on the ballot I admit I didn't know a damn thing about any of them. So, if there was a Liberterian (damn if I can ever spell that right) I voted for them, otherwise I left that choice blank. And I'll never understand why there are places to vote for someone running unopposed.

One of the main reasons I went ahead and voted was to vote against light rail here in Austin. Yes, it's a nice idea, but no one will use it, so why spend the money? We've got road construction going on all over the city, which while that is always behind demand, is at least logical.

Get It Over With Already

I pretty much stopped talking politics on here a while ago. It just didn't seem to be worth it, I'm pretty sure most of my regular readers have known for a long time who they were going to vote for, and any brilliant thoughts on here weren't going to change that.

Then Nerdstar's homecoming and our roadtrip pretty much got me weaned off of obsessing over this election. Yes, we listened to or watched the debates, but since then it's been more just catching news bites while channel surfing. Because I'm sick to death of this election and have been for a while now. As both sides ratchet up the rhetoric, noise, and drama, I just think - why?? The media loves to play up that there are undecided voters, but I'm certainly not convinced there are enough truly undecided people out there to matter anymore.

So when I read Michele's post this morning it made me wonder if all this big finale crap won't turn off more voters than it turns on. Nerdstar isn't going to vote, and I'm more than a little tempted not to. But, I've voted in every presidential election I've been eligible to, so I'd feel guilty if I didn't vote in this one.

I said back in August I didn't think the final vote would be close, and I still think it won't. I know we're all praying it's not. I don't understand how after the absolute debacle of 2000 every voting precinct in this country hasn't made major progress in simplifying voting. It's nuts.

So, here's happy voting to everyone, I guess we just hold our noses and do it.

Bush

I've been up since 7:30 this morning, cooked pancakes and bacon, shaved and bathed the dog, and am now watching Bush's stump speech in Ohio. He looks more energetic and relaxed than I've seen him in a long time. And what strikes me the most is that while John & John can say they're optimist till they're blue in the face, Bush actually IS. And people are smart enough to know the difference. You can bash Bush all you like, but not once has he even insinuated he's anyone other than who he is, unlike the total charade of this weeks democratic convention.

I've written about how much Bush has pissed me off about gay marriage. And I haven't changed my mind on that. But there is just no way I could vote for John & John.

As for the debates, it was agreed in 2000 that Bush beat Gore in the debates, and now he's grown considerably as a leader and a speaker. Kerry the other night looked and sounded like a meth addict. I still say it won't even be close.

Kerry

Strong military.
Strong defense.
Fiscal responsibility.
Tax cuts.
And Faith??

Who the hell is this man? What did the aliens do with the real Kerry?

This speech totally sucked. There are no memorable lines, no coherence, nothing. And he rushed thru it like a scared first timer. Not to mention the complete amnesia about his entire senate career.

I've told this to people, but haven't blogged it - Bush is going to kick Kerry's ass in the debates and win this election by no small margin.

Impressive

Ok, I've got to say WoW about Mr. Obama. I think Bill Clinton just got out spoken. But, and this is what I always think is the dividing line in politics... Mr. Obama sounded just like a preacher - which is great - but his message should be in a church and not in a political convention. I'll never be convinced it is the business of government to supplant the role of the church and the community. Yes, people should help people - but why the hell does that take the government playing the role of blood sucking middle man?

Ugh. It's a tired rant - what the role of government is and should be.

I just wanted to say that I loved listening to Mr. Obama and hope like hell if he's elected to the Senate it doesn't suck the life out of him.

Local LCR

The other event of my day was attending my first meeting of the Austin chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. It was me, four (presumably) gay men and a (mostly?) straight couple.

One of the biggest obsticles to me getting involved in politics is figuring out with which party to get involved. I've been a registered Libertarian for a while now, but God knows that party just isn't ever going to get it together. I generally feel too much like an outsider, you know, being gay and all, to be a gung-ho republican. Yet, I'm much too big on self reliance and independence and capitalism and strong defense to be a democrat.

But after reading Boi From Troy the last week or so I decided to give LCR a chance. I was actually surprised to see that Austin has a local chapter being as liberal as it is.

Right Side of the Rainbow writes a good post about whether LCR is more gay or republican. The issues he raises are definitely things I'll be thinking over and trying to decide for myself.

That ideal thirdy party I long for never stops sounding like a great thing.

Appeasment

I don't understand Europe thinking that playing nice with terrorists will keep them safe when that idea keeps being shown to be just plain wrong.

I mean, when did handing the school bully your lunch money ever keep him for beating you up and asking for more money?? The only way to stop the school bully is to beat the crap out of him and show him you're stronger (or have friends who are). Why the hell is this so hard to understand when it comes to dealing with terroristis?

Getting Involved

One of the more cool, fun things I heard about in the interactive panels over the weekend was Voter Virgin. It's a non-partisan sight dedicated to getting people to vote in November.

I'm not sure there has been a more important election. This time we know what the stakes are, and we know where the candidates stand. Apparently, you either believe there are terrorists out there who want us all dead and are the enemy, or you believe Bush is some evil dictator and must be thrown out of office if you can't have him killed. At least it certainly seems that way. I try to remember that the majority of people in this country simply go about living their lives as best they can.

And that's why voting is so damn important in November. Spain had 77% show up to vote, now yes, I'm not crazy about the outcome, but at least they voted.

Voting is the most simple way to be involved in our political process.

I'm also tempted as hell to get more involved. I keep racking my brain tyring to figure out how to start a true third party for the '08 election. Because that election is going to be wide open. I just don't know how. I've also contemplated running for mayor just to get started. I haven't seen that Austin takes it's mayoral race very seriously. But maybe that's because the office isn't very powerful.

Anyway. I'm sure I'll write more about those ideas later. For now, check out Voter Virgin.

I Don't Get It

It's been a long day. I sat in on four different interactive panels and went to see one of the movies in the festival. My brain is full and tired.

After listening to the guys from MoveOn.org and Joe Trippi and such today, then to come home and read about the elections in Spain on Instapundit (lots and lots of links and info) and A Small Victory and Jeff Jarvis, I'm struck by how the very hip and technical and informed and activist crowds have all been talking about how to "take back our country" and "get rid of Bush." In two days of the gathering there has been NO conversation about using all of these new tools to do anything to stop or prevent future terrorism here in America, or anywhere else for that matter.

I try to understand that world view. But honestly, I don't get it.

I wish I could write more coherently about all of this. I think I'm too overloaded for that right now. I also have a volunteer shift from 9 am to 6 pm tomorrow. For now I'm off to a hot bath and warm bed.

Us and Them

Really nice guys those guys from MoveOn.Org. They seemed geniunely more interested in getting people involved and giving them a platform than partisan politics.

The feeling I get from all the speakers and questions and comments in these panels is that people on the left just don’t understand why they’re not more powerful, why their side seems to be losing so much. They talk about Republicans and Republican leadership and organization like it’s like the Wizard of Oz, this powerful disembodied voice that sends down edicts from on high. They seem to completely fail to realize that there are voters just like them, except with a different ideology, behind the current Republican “power.” They just don’t understand that they are the minority, and therefore have to become the majority to have political power.

Now, is it possible for them to become the majority. Sure. There really does seem to be the passion and ideas and drive. And there does seem to be a true grassroots movement. It's tempting to think that only certain people should be voting, smart enough, old enough, informed enough. I have to remind myself that's not true. If the results of elections affects us all, like we've learned it does, then the more people voting the better.

The election this November has the potential to be one of the more interesting in a long time. You’ve got two sides who are passionately convinced they’re right and the other side is wrong at best and terribly evil at worst. Whoever loses in November will be devastated, and I think, will say they didn’t see it coming.

Personally, I just wish and dream that all of this could result in a true third party. I’ll say it until I’m blue in the face. Why is it so impossible to have a party/candidate that is strong on national defense and foreign policy, for limited government, and socially liberal. I think the American population is increasingly like that, when do the political parties catch up??

What she said

Because I was up almost all night again, I missed the Bush interview on Russert. I'm sure I'll either read the transcript online or catch most of it on different news channels today.

For the record, I really do watch the democrat debates and stump speeches and such, well, at least as much as I can stand to listen to. I had really wanted to hear what Bush had to say.

Fortunatley, Michele's got it covered. This is what I've been trying to say.

UPDATE:

Read the interview for yourself.

CNBC reran the Bush interview and I recorded it and am watching it now while surfing around reading different takes on it via Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit.

The first half has been on Iraq and WMD and setting up a new government in Iraq and such. I think he answered it all very well. I'm sure it's hard not to be a smartass and say stuff like "what have I said about this a million times already?" and not to point out the obvious slant to the questions.

Some people didn't like the way he seemed to backtrack and take time to formulate answers. I'd rather see that than to get the feeling that it's all just canned answers.

Also, Mr. Jarvis echoes my sentiments (or his wife did) about just how important the president is or isn't, making the case for agencies like the FCC and our local governments actually having more of an impact on our every day lives. Go read the ways he says we can all be better informed and more active.

No brain

My sleeping schedule is so out of whack that my brain is about to cease functioning. I've still been awake at 5 a.m. the past two mornings. Got a few hours of sleep and then got out of bed around noon.

Thankfully, Lilkes brain is working just fine today - so please go read him. (You know, both of you who haven't already.)

I’m waiting for a Kerry speech in which he seems angrier about 9/11 than he does about tax cuts.

O the shrieking that would result should such an ad run. You can’t even ask those questions, even though they’re the most relevant questions of the election.

My own short sidenote on Kerry. He's not for gay marriage any more than Bush is, yet gays and lesbians will vote for him simply because he's not Bush.

I think there might could be a real, viable third party if people weren't so willing to compromise - on both sides - just to make sure the other guy lost!

Different looks at Iraq

A Minute Longer writes about seeing the abject poverty in Iraq. I think the overwhelming hopelessness those in such poverty feel contributes a lot to things like this. Hope is an amazing thing, and to live without it is true misery. I guess my hope has been that the removal of SH would bring a sense of hope for a better future to the people of Iraq and they'd embrace freedom.

When I hear people bitch and moan that we could be spending the budget for military operations in Iraq on the poor here in America, I think of stories like this and how selfish we can all be. I, for one, am glad that my government isn't as selfish as I am. Besides, there is no comparison in the amount of money we've spent on Iraq to all the money we spend on social welfare at home.

Kevin Sites has two great entries. I love the photos of the women and children in Iraq. Then he has a long entry about soldier's in the 82nd Airborne's final mission in Iraq before coming home and the decompression soldier's have to go thru before and after coming home.

9/11 and voting

Michele has another great post 9/11 entry today, about the victims she hasn't really thought about as much as the people in the Twin Towers.

I don't remember exactly where Nerdstar and I were flying to the first time we flew after 9/11 (probably Vegas) but I remember spending a lot of time that flight thinking about all the people on the four planes 9/11. I thought a lot about knowing you would die, the phone calls they made - and didn't make. And tried so hard to imagine what I would do. And honestly, I had no idea then and I have no idea now. You can't know until you're in that situation. If Nerdstar wasn't with me would I call her or my parents? How do you choose?

And every time I think about all that happened that day I still just get stunningly angry. I'm so glad there are people preserving the voices from that day.

I was thinking last night in bed after I had listened to some of the post primary speeches given by Kerry, Dean, Edwards and Lieberman. I truly believe that 9/11 was a direct result of eight years of a democrat being in the White House. And if for no other reason than that, I could never vote for a democrat. If 9/11 did not bring about a real change in democrats' view of the world and our place in it, then nothing will. And it's not like I've ever been thrilled by their domestic agenda either.

I just wish there was a presidential candidate out there whose platform was:

national defense - understanding terrorism and what it takes to prevent it.

stopping the war on drugs - we spend more on this war than the war on terrorism, and it's just stupid. legalize recreational drugs already and tax them and we'll balance the budget.

a flat tax - enough with complicated progressive taxes, stop punishing ambition.

smaller government - we don't need a nanny state, get out of our pocketbooks and bedrooms. If the government is going to act like our parents, then I wish they'd start with tough love and stop with the welfare state already.

I just don't see that message coming from anyone, and I'll never understand why not.

Big Interconnected World

I know I risk sounding like a broken record. But, I know a lot of my readers only keep up with the news in very minimal ways. I can understand that, even if I'm not like that. Life is busy, and it certainly feels like there's plenty to do taking care of our own little parts of the world without worry about "the bigger picture." So again, as always, that's why I'm thankful for the internet and blogs in particular. With one or two links, and less than fifteen minutes of reading, I can understand so much better what the people in Iraq, or Iran, or really, anywhere else that interests me, are thinking and feeling. It's unprecidented and thrills me to no end.

On that note. Zayed tries to explain his mixed feelings about Saddam.

If you had lived all your life ruled by a tough dictator elevated to the level of a god and then suddenly without warning watched that dictator displayed to the public on tv as a 'man', you probably would have related with my position.

And I'm still wondering why? Why did he have to put himself into this? Why did he have to destroy Iraq? What did he gain from all of this?

Why indeed??

Not even close

I had recorded Before Night Falls sometime last week. I finally decided to watch it yesterday. It's a sad movie, but not a tear jerker. It's the story of a beautiful man, a gay writer who lives in Cuba during the "revolution."

I didn't realize how fitting it would be to watch that movie yesterday - the annivesary of 9/11. I read sometimes the rantings of those who compare Bush to Hitler (or hell, just hear it in the Democrat debates) and sometimes wish that they could live just one day under a true dictator, to know for one day what it truly means to have no freedom of association, thought, speech. To be jailed and tortored for loving the wrong person, for writing the wrong novel. Because no matter how much you think there's persecution in this country, there's not. Tim Robbins, Micheal Moore, etc. etc. etc. are free to say and write any damn thing they please. Anyone in this country can have a free website to post anything they care to about their life or political opinions without their neighbors calling the thought police on them.

We're not even close to life under a dictator.

Private Business vs Government

Business Pundit hits on aspects of something I think about sometimes - that is, why can't/don't we just privitize everything and dismantle the government for everything except national security. Then I think about how people are always saying corporations are eevvviiillll. And I watch documentaries about all the events that led to the unions forming and how companies are evil sometimes.

I think that the best point of our government is representation. Ideally, everyone has a voice in government because of our locally elected representatives. But we all know it doesn't really work that way. Not even on a local and state level. It's not that there can't be genuine politicians who look out for their constituents, it's just that there aren't actually very many. But I tend to think that if it was all privitized, who would look out for the little guy.

But Rob points out that we have much more direct power over corporations. It's much, much easier to vote with dollars than with elections every two or four years. We've certainly seen corporations fail and go under when they were evil in the past few years. Then again, we've seen two or three politicians finally get booted. But I think it's much easier for an evil politician to stay in power than for an evil CEO. The marketplace is much less forgiving than the voters. Especially with voter turnout as low as it is.

Then there's the issue of who's better at innovation, problem solving, and so on. Do I even have to answer that?

I just can't comprehend why people trust the government to do an adequate job of providing education and health care and retirement and everything else more than they would trust private industry. At least in the private industry if a company screws me over, or offers sucky products, I have a choice. Even as big as Microsoft and WalMart are - I have a choice. And in spite of worries to the contrary, I'll always have a choice. But when the government gets ahold of of something - like the public schools or social security - there are NO choices to be made. If I find the products my mandatory tax dollars supply horribly inadequate, all I can do is spend more of my own money on an outside alternative. It's like having to pay Walmart for groceries that are spoiled and damaged, then going to Target for what I really wanted and having to pay them as well.

I know people think they wouldn't be able to afford education if it was privitized, or they see how expensive health care is (that's a whole different post). So how could they afford it if everything were to be privitized? But imagine how much more you could afford if you got to keep the 30% to 40% of your paycheck that goes straight to the government.

Dem Debates

I couldn't bring myself to watch the whole hour and a half, but I did watch about forty minutes of the Black Caucus democratic candidates debate last night. UGH. The single most frustrating thing was that they wouldn't answer the question they were asked. Ms. Braun was given a specific question, and instead spent her alloted time answering a question that had been asked of someone else. If you're going to agree to do a debate by certain rules - then answer what you're asked.

I know Howard Dean is popular these days, but that man scares me. He seems slightly crazy, maniacle even. I love listening to Rev. Sharpton, and can even see where he'd be a good advisor, but I don't see him as a politician. Actually, I think if he really wanted to make a difference in the lives of black Americans, he could be most effective if he really was the reverend of a mega church. Those pastors have a lot of impact and power and can truly affect changes for the better.

In the debate there was still a lot more here's why Bush sucks than here's why I'm a great leader for this country at this time. I know that bashing Bush is popular with their crowd, but it won't get them elected.

The issues they do take on are domestic ones. They use the same old scare tactics on education and health care. Yes, these systems need help and reform. But Democrats think throwing money at a problem will solve it, and thirty years of throwing money at education hasn't improved it one bit. It's going to take radical ideas and changes to improve health care and education. That's where I wish think tanks and politicans would actually get together and make some real changes instead of politics as usual.

But what's really going to get the Democrats their butts handed to them is foreign policy. There isn't a single one of them I would trust to prevent another terrorist attack in this country. Say what you will about Bush, there have been no more attacks here. And for the 2004 election, that's still the most important issue - period.

Update: Stephen Green has a nice set of comments posted as he watched the debate. Start there and scroll up!

Blair's Speech

I got home a little early yesterday after taking Ramen to the vet, and I caught the last fifteen minutes or so of Blair's speech in Congress. It was a great speech!

This is part of what I caught, and stuff like this brings tears to my eyes:

"We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind -- black or white; Christian or not; left, right or merely indifferent -- to be free -- free to raise a family in love and hope; free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts; free not to bend your knee to any man in fear; free to be you, so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for, and it's a battle worth fighting. And I know it's hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to but always wanted to go -- (laughter) -- I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me, and why us, and why America?" And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do. And our job -- my nation, that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond -- our job is to be there with you. You're not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us."

Another exerpt:

"There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere -- (applause) -- anywhere, any time ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty."

Here's a link to the whole speech.

One more about Santorum

Andrew writes today: Of course, the hostility directed toward the intimate lives of gay people by Senator Santorum affects me more deeply, because I am gay. How could it not? Being gay my whole life is a huge blessing but also, of course, a difficult path. To try and reconcile it with a faith that is deep but a Church that refuses to support the innermost longings of my body and soul is not easy either. To square it with a belief in individual freedom and limited government, when so many of my gay brethren have embraced a wounded rejection of all traditional authority, and backed a radical politics in its stead, is not exactly a cakewalk either. To attempt both, and then to see that people you admire or support can actually endorse criminalizing you for expressing physical love in private, or see no problem with others' saying so, or see adult gay love casually associated with the abuse of children and not notice, is so downright dispiriting it's enough to make you despair.

Exactly. I don't think straight people, even those who are accepting of homosexuality, can understand the sense of discrimination and sometimes persecution gays feel. Some try to equate racism and the civil rights movement with the gay position today. But it always comes up that race isn't a choice, sexuality is. I'm not getting into that arguement here. But I think that there is a prevailing feeling that homosexuality is a choice, and since you don't look different than me (unless you make a concerted effort), so why the hell can't you just keep your sexuality to yourself. If you'd just keep it to yourself you wouldn't have these problems.

As a white woman who doesn't look "gay" it's usually hard to explain to people that I know what discrimination feels like. And I thank God that I've lived in cities where it's no big deal to go out in public with my girlfriend. But that doesn't mean I don't pick up on people's curious at best or disapproving looks.

Then Santorum's remarks take that a step further - he wants to make us criminals. And none of this would be sparking the debate is has this week if there wasn't a significiant part of the population that agreed with his words.

Andrew goes on to say: Look, it's possible to tolerate differences of opinion within the Republican party over homosexuality. It's absolutely legitimate for some religious people to hold that gay sex is immoral, or to oppose marriage rights, and so on. I can happily live with that, and benefit from the dialogue. I defend their right to believe it and to say it. We can agree to disagree. But Santorum has gone far further than disagreement. He let it slip that he believes gays should be put in jail for our relationships. I'm sorry but that kind of statement is unacceptable, non-negotiable, intolerable. The Senator must withdraw it. I worry that the president means well but just doesn't get it. So let me put it another way: Senator Santorum believes that the vice-president's daughter should be made a criminal for her relationship. A criminal. Now do you see what I mean?

We hear so much about the separation of church and state when it comes to flags and the pledge and the dollar and prayers in schools. But I haven't heard it mentioned this week when it truly should be. Santorum's ideas are exactly what the separation of church and state is all about. It's about protecting people from the sort of persecution he's advocating.

Even strict Catholics who believe homosexual sex is a grave sin nevertheless draw the Thomist distinction between sins and crimes. Just because something may be a sin doesn't mean it should mean jail. In fact, many things - especially in the private realm - fall into that category. But by arguing for the criminalization of gay sex, Santorum goes beyond even the traditional position and heads for a theocratic one. The more he seems to represent the face of the Republican party, the more fair-minded people will simply leave it, fear it, or vote against it. As they should.

I hope this issue doesn't get swept under the rug. I hope people within the Republican party will face this issue head on and come out with a clear inclusive message. I'm not sure at this point they realize just how many votes they can loose by letting this anti-gay sentiment stand.

Personally, I could never vote for Democrats. Now my other two choices, Libertarians and Republicans are sucking too.

Political Parties

I was saying to Nerdstar at dinner the other night that it pisses me off to no end to have to choose between a party that wants to take all of my money and give it to someone else and acts like a nanny (ie Bloomberg's smoking laws - which are spreading everywhere) and a party that wants to let me keep my money and succeed but just can't seem to get over wanting to set the morals for everyone.

I shouldn't have to choose between voting my pocket and voting my bedroom!

A true independent party needs to emerge that is based on limited government, individual rights, a free market and so on. Where is the person who can lead such a party?? Why are we all so locked into this two party system and then not even really participating in it? I guess the people who would make up a true independent party are too busy just living an independent life to get involved. But when you hear remarks like Senatorum's it should be a wake up call.

If you're still interested in just how evil Santorum is, The Light of Reason has more than enough reading for you to do.

Pro Choice For Men

The following is an exerpt from Bodies in Motion and At Rest that I couldn't agree with more:

...although I am encouraged and inclined to march in favor of a woman's right to choose a safe, legal and affordable medical procedure to abort her maternity, where are the women who will march with me to uphold the rights of my sons and their sons in the matter - to choose a safe, legal and affordable legal procedure to terminate, for reasons that range from good to not so good, their paternity? Is Choice good for one and all or only one and half of the population?

What would it look like if a million men or so, next year, within twelve weeks of impregnating their sexual partners, were to declare, for reasons they had to articulate to no one, their interest in the fetus null and void, ceased and aborted? What if there were clinics, operated by Planned Parenthood, or a benign nonprofit, where the paperwork could be conducted cleanly for a reasonable fee - these paper "procedures" done by lawyers instead of doctors, assisted by paralegals instead of nurses, the deliverance safe, legal, unilateral, constitutionally protected, the same for fathers as for mothers? Would protesters march in front of such clinics? Would signs appear calling them unflattering names? Would pictures of destitute children, poor fetuses, abandoned mothers, punctuate these protests? If most of us are, as we are frequently told, pro-choice, oughtn't the courts uphold this choice as well?

I've written before how horrible I think it is that even if a man can prove he is not the biological father of a child, he is still required by the legal system to pay child support. I can't imagine why men haven't found a way to implement something like the system described above. But I can imagine that it wouldn't be the "pro-life" movement protesting in front of such a clinic, it would be the feminists. How crazy is all of that??

If I Were Bush

This is the speech I'd give Monday around noon...

"Fellow Americans, people of the world, in light of the protests and anti war, anti American sentiment so overwhelmingly displayed over the weekend, I have had a profound change of heart and mind. Effectively immediately, I am ordering home all American soldiers stationed outside of the U.S. Those troops will instead be used to patrol our now closed borders. Also effective immediately, I am cancelling all foriegn aid - monetary, medical, and food.

The world does not want us to interfere any longer, I am now in full agreement with the world."

That's what I would be so very, very tempted to say!! Just think of the benefits to the economy, the jobless, and those on welfare. No more cheap labor or welfare recipients coming across the borders. There would be a huge increase in jobs due to having to manufacture more goods instead of importing them.

I find it fascinating that I'm reading Atlas Shrugged at this time. The struggle of the characters in the book who have been the leaders in industry is whether to stay and prop up an evil system or drop out and let the world fall apart. Obviously I'd be more than a little tempted to be one of those who drops out and leaves the rest of the world to suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

This is just another example of why Nerdstar is constantly thankful I'm not the world dictator I dream of being :-)

Libertarians

Yep, I'm a libertarian - that's what my voter registration card says, that's how I voted in the last elections. And the more I read Ayn Rand, the more of a Libertarian I become. Unfortunately, the Libertarian party does not have that one main, normal enough candidate to represent it.

Libertarianism is simplicity itself. It proceeds from a single, quite beautiful, concept of the primacy of individual liberty that, in turn, infuses notions of free markets, limited government and the importance of property rights. In terms of public policy, these notions translate into free trade, free immigration, voluntary military service and user fees instead of taxes. Sometimes these policies are argued in a totally unforgiving way so that it's not easy to separate the lunatics from the libertarians. But it's a snap to separate libertarians from conservatives.

The whole article talks about the differences between conservatives and libertarians. It would also be interesting to see the differences between liberals and libertarians.