Steven Colbert gets his "alpha dog" on with Goofy. From his trip to Disneyland with his family.
Hat tip to The Huffington Post for the slideshow.
Adjust contrast of a pdf free
6 years ago
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ross Douthat wants to ignore "the yucky"...
Note to my readers (all 7 of you!): in order to really follow this post, you should really read Ross Douthat's column on Prop 8 and the following response by Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan is a gay Catholic and Douthat is a conservative Catholic.
On his blog, conservative commentator, Ross Douthat of The New York Times has continued to address with thoughtfulness and sincerity the cultural fallout from the overturning of Prop 8 and criticism of his column which argued against the recent ruling and for the idea of preserving heterosexual marriage, on the grounds that it is a special union which can create life and maintains a sound structure to raise that life. Douthat makes some valid arguments, while eschewing some others for good reason, and advocates that having a "marriage ideal" for heterosexuals is still worth preserving.
Douthat's insightful responses to the issue of gay marriage have been thoughtful and serious. His recent posts on the topic have been building up to this direct response to Andrew Sullivan's eloquent personal critique of Ross's original column about the "marriage ideal" (read it in full here). In his response to Sullivan, Douthat essentially proposes a desexualized domestic partnership which affords gay people a status of contractual dependency and would be open to any two adults who chose to cohabit be they cousins, siblings, or a parent and his/her Down Syndrome child.
This idea sounds nice and all, but it still discriminates against gay couples not only because it denies the existence of gay love but more-so, because it denies the existence of gay sex.
Let me let you in on a little secret, most Americans could care less about gay love. They're totally OK with it. Hugs, held hands and rings on fingers: these are the things and symbols that are not that hard to confront. We love our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers regardless of gender, right? Certainly a decent person wouldn't deny anyone love, right?
The issue of gay marriage is not one of love discrimination it is one of sexual discrimination. Conservatives want to codify in law that one group of people's sexual practices are generally less yucky than the other group's and therefore should be granted a noble and stable institution such as marriage which celebrates moral and "non-yucky" sex. Conservatives and many Democrats cannot bring themselves to confront the fact that certain sexual practices continue to make them uneasy. Heterosexual penetrative vaginal sex, which can lead to pregnancy, is the only form of sex that most people are comfortable placing in a "moral zone" hence our culture's religiously influenced distaste for oral sex or anal sex, commonly known as "sodomy", even if the participants are two heterosexual married partners also known as "one man + one woman."
Sodomy was only recently legalized on the federal level in 2003 when the Supreme Court's decision struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas. The plaintiffs in the case were two consenting gay adult men who were arrested for having sex in their own house. Luckily, the Court understood that the Texas police were not applying the sodomy law equally as they did not seek to stop Mrs. Smith from giving her husband, Mr. Smith a blowjob. Texas was only using the law to punish homosexual people for their own private sexual behavior. Remember everybody, according to conservative Christians, homosexuals do not exist, only homosexual behavior exists.
Gay people in the United States are thought to be 1-2% of the population. Now let's imagine another small minority. But let's say this small minority of Americans are heterosexual and couple off in pairs of "one man and one woman" but their sexual activity only consists of acts of sodomy.
Would we not allow them to get married?
Would we not allow them to adopt children or run a foster home?
Would we not allow them to visit each other in the hospital?
Would we not allow them to give blood?
I mean we're talking about the ideal of two married people "one man + one woman" right? That's the ONLY requirement!
The long story short is this. The central argument advocated by the proponents of Prop 8 is "to protect the children" as if walking in on "Dad and Dad" or "Mommy and Mom" having sex is more damaging than catching Mom and Dad have sex. If you observe sex really closely, you realize that sex is really yucky regardless of who's having it and what's going where. Ross Douthat wants to create a legal framework where gays have most of the legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual unions but where they are told to put their sexuality back in the closet, and keep it hidden from the rest of society, lest anyone be grossed out by the thought of two people of the same gender having sex. Gay marriage is no longer just about civil rights it's about allowing gay Americans to fully express their humanity, where their relationships and commitments are just as important and sacred as any straight marriage.
Sex is a beautiful, messy, yucky act that most humans engage in. Ross needs to confront the yucky and realize that there's no need to protect a sanctuary for moral sexual behavior that never existed in the first place.
On his blog, conservative commentator, Ross Douthat of The New York Times has continued to address with thoughtfulness and sincerity the cultural fallout from the overturning of Prop 8 and criticism of his column which argued against the recent ruling and for the idea of preserving heterosexual marriage, on the grounds that it is a special union which can create life and maintains a sound structure to raise that life. Douthat makes some valid arguments, while eschewing some others for good reason, and advocates that having a "marriage ideal" for heterosexuals is still worth preserving.
Douthat's insightful responses to the issue of gay marriage have been thoughtful and serious. His recent posts on the topic have been building up to this direct response to Andrew Sullivan's eloquent personal critique of Ross's original column about the "marriage ideal" (read it in full here). In his response to Sullivan, Douthat essentially proposes a desexualized domestic partnership which affords gay people a status of contractual dependency and would be open to any two adults who chose to cohabit be they cousins, siblings, or a parent and his/her Down Syndrome child.
This idea sounds nice and all, but it still discriminates against gay couples not only because it denies the existence of gay love but more-so, because it denies the existence of gay sex.
Let me let you in on a little secret, most Americans could care less about gay love. They're totally OK with it. Hugs, held hands and rings on fingers: these are the things and symbols that are not that hard to confront. We love our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers regardless of gender, right? Certainly a decent person wouldn't deny anyone love, right?
The issue of gay marriage is not one of love discrimination it is one of sexual discrimination. Conservatives want to codify in law that one group of people's sexual practices are generally less yucky than the other group's and therefore should be granted a noble and stable institution such as marriage which celebrates moral and "non-yucky" sex. Conservatives and many Democrats cannot bring themselves to confront the fact that certain sexual practices continue to make them uneasy. Heterosexual penetrative vaginal sex, which can lead to pregnancy, is the only form of sex that most people are comfortable placing in a "moral zone" hence our culture's religiously influenced distaste for oral sex or anal sex, commonly known as "sodomy", even if the participants are two heterosexual married partners also known as "one man + one woman."
Sodomy was only recently legalized on the federal level in 2003 when the Supreme Court's decision struck down Texas' anti-sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas. The plaintiffs in the case were two consenting gay adult men who were arrested for having sex in their own house. Luckily, the Court understood that the Texas police were not applying the sodomy law equally as they did not seek to stop Mrs. Smith from giving her husband, Mr. Smith a blowjob. Texas was only using the law to punish homosexual people for their own private sexual behavior. Remember everybody, according to conservative Christians, homosexuals do not exist, only homosexual behavior exists.
Gay people in the United States are thought to be 1-2% of the population. Now let's imagine another small minority. But let's say this small minority of Americans are heterosexual and couple off in pairs of "one man and one woman" but their sexual activity only consists of acts of sodomy.
Would we not allow them to get married?
Would we not allow them to adopt children or run a foster home?
Would we not allow them to visit each other in the hospital?
Would we not allow them to give blood?
I mean we're talking about the ideal of two married people "one man + one woman" right? That's the ONLY requirement!
The long story short is this. The central argument advocated by the proponents of Prop 8 is "to protect the children" as if walking in on "Dad and Dad" or "Mommy and Mom" having sex is more damaging than catching Mom and Dad have sex. If you observe sex really closely, you realize that sex is really yucky regardless of who's having it and what's going where. Ross Douthat wants to create a legal framework where gays have most of the legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual unions but where they are told to put their sexuality back in the closet, and keep it hidden from the rest of society, lest anyone be grossed out by the thought of two people of the same gender having sex. Gay marriage is no longer just about civil rights it's about allowing gay Americans to fully express their humanity, where their relationships and commitments are just as important and sacred as any straight marriage.
Sex is a beautiful, messy, yucky act that most humans engage in. Ross needs to confront the yucky and realize that there's no need to protect a sanctuary for moral sexual behavior that never existed in the first place.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
On the Cordoba House Muslim Community Center
First of all, let's make clear that the "Ground Zero mosque" is not just a mosque and is not at ground zero. The planned Muslim community center is going to replace the supposed "hallowed ground" of the old Burlington Coat Factory on Park Place (take a look at the site here).
Other commentators have aptly pointed out that probably one of the reasons why this particular development of the Muslim cultural center irks so many in New York City and around the country is due to the fact that construction of the new World Trade Center and corresponding 9/11 memorial has been painfully and depressingly slow.
Second, kudos to the President for his brave speech on religious freedom during the White House Iftar Dinner for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (full text) proudly proclaiming our American values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Third, shame on the President for then walking back his comments on the following Saturday while on vacation in Florida (video here).
I digress. This is not hard to understand. If we allow al-Qaeda to scare us into giving up our constitutional values then the terrorists have won. We don't need to fight them in Iraq or Afghanistan. We can call it quits and come home because our values and ideas are only worth fighting for abroad if we can UPHOLD THEM AT HOME.
The United States Constitution is not the guarantor of anyone's personal moral beliefs; it is instead designed to protect LIBERTY and FREEDOM. Sometimes the Constitution protects rights that we often disagree on in normal discourse, such as the right to have a handgun in dangerous urban neighborhoods or the right to have an abortion without telling one's parents.
However, sometimes the Constitution protects rights that most of us personally disagree with. Such as the right of a crazy super right-wing minister to protest during military funerals because our culture "tolerates homosexuality." Many conservatives and Republicans are upset with the community center, calling the building location "offensive."
On June 14, 1977, the Supreme Court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie held that Neo-Nazis could march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, a town with the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita at the time. Now that is offensive. If the Constitution protects Neo-Nazis who are trying to purposefully give the community they harmed the middle finger, it definitely protects moderate Muslims who are just trying to build a community center, yes with a mosque, in an old worn out building that used to be a Burlington Coat Factory, near the site of a horrible tragedy.
Of all the freedoms in this country we are blessed with, the most important is our freedom of - and freedom from - religion. It is our core principle, it is why we are here, and it is why our young Republic was founded. If we fail to uphold the principles that led to our founding, the United States of America that we seek so dearly to protect, ceases to exist.
 |
| www.national911memorial.com - South Memorial Pool Vista |
Second, kudos to the President for his brave speech on religious freedom during the White House Iftar Dinner for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (full text) proudly proclaiming our American values of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Third, shame on the President for then walking back his comments on the following Saturday while on vacation in Florida (video here).
"In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion," Mr. Obama said at the Coast Guard station. "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."Arrggh. The whole point of electing Obama as the Democratic nominee was so we wouldn't get another Clinton, and we got one anyway!
I digress. This is not hard to understand. If we allow al-Qaeda to scare us into giving up our constitutional values then the terrorists have won. We don't need to fight them in Iraq or Afghanistan. We can call it quits and come home because our values and ideas are only worth fighting for abroad if we can UPHOLD THEM AT HOME.
The United States Constitution is not the guarantor of anyone's personal moral beliefs; it is instead designed to protect LIBERTY and FREEDOM. Sometimes the Constitution protects rights that we often disagree on in normal discourse, such as the right to have a handgun in dangerous urban neighborhoods or the right to have an abortion without telling one's parents.
However, sometimes the Constitution protects rights that most of us personally disagree with. Such as the right of a crazy super right-wing minister to protest during military funerals because our culture "tolerates homosexuality." Many conservatives and Republicans are upset with the community center, calling the building location "offensive."
On June 14, 1977, the Supreme Court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie held that Neo-Nazis could march through the town of Skokie, Illinois, a town with the largest number of Holocaust survivors per capita at the time. Now that is offensive. If the Constitution protects Neo-Nazis who are trying to purposefully give the community they harmed the middle finger, it definitely protects moderate Muslims who are just trying to build a community center, yes with a mosque, in an old worn out building that used to be a Burlington Coat Factory, near the site of a horrible tragedy.
Of all the freedoms in this country we are blessed with, the most important is our freedom of - and freedom from - religion. It is our core principle, it is why we are here, and it is why our young Republic was founded. If we fail to uphold the principles that led to our founding, the United States of America that we seek so dearly to protect, ceases to exist.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Quote of the Day
I tried to not post this, but I couldn't resist.
"The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.
Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.
The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold."
- Bruce Bartlett, domestic economic policy adviser for President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush in a recent interview with The Economist's blog Democracy In America.
Graph of the Obama tax proposal vs. original Bush tax cuts
So here's a handy little graph from Ezra Klein's blog to help sort out the difference between the Obama budget proposal for only letting the tax cuts for the richest 1-2% expire and the Republican proposal of extending the "Bush" tax cuts as is. This graph lays out pretty clearly that the Bush tax cuts did largely go to the richest Americans, and not like medium rich, but like really REALLY rich. As you'll see, between the two tax proposals most of the tax cut amounts are essentially the same for most income brackets.
Also ask yourself, if you really care about cutting the deficit (letting the tax cuts expire in full would cut the deficit by roughly 30%) would you be willing to part with the amount in either proposal?
Full disclosure, I stand to gain an increase in my tax cut of $2 to $7 from the Obama proposal. My bias is so easily purchased!
Read the full article about the Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis of the two tax proposals here at the Washington Post.
Also ask yourself, if you really care about cutting the deficit (letting the tax cuts expire in full would cut the deficit by roughly 30%) would you be willing to part with the amount in either proposal?
Full disclosure, I stand to gain an increase in my tax cut of $2 to $7 from the Obama proposal. My bias is so easily purchased!
Read the full article about the Joint Committee on Taxation's analysis of the two tax proposals here at the Washington Post.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Surprise! Republicans are Keynesians too
I thought Republicans really wanted to stop the "runaway spending" of the Obama administration and take a huge axe to the national debt. But apparently, they realize that doing so during a recession is not the best idea.
Watch below as House Minority Leader, John Boehner of Ohio, advocates to keep the Bush tax cuts at a cost of roughly $3 trillion dollars added to the national debt, because he believes (correctly, in my opinion) that job creation is better for the long-term debt reduction than cutting economic stimulus during a recession.
(FYI, the Obama administration's proposal would keep the "Bush" tax cuts (2001, 2003) for taxpayers making less than $200,000 or $250,000 if they are a couple. This extension would add $2.5 trillion dollars to the national debt)
Where Boehner's reasoning is wrong, is that you can't have it both ways. Republicans since Reaganism during the 80's have held the Laffer curve as dogma, which means that larger tax cuts means more revenue coming in! That's right! The less money you have coming in, the more money comes in! This makes complete sense, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, according to former Fed chair, Alan Greenspan, this economic model does not ring true. You either stimulate the weakened economy driving up your short term deficit or you try and balance your budget as fast as possible with repercussions of systemic unemployment in the high double digits, furthering economic collapse and deepening the debt due to collapse of tax revenues.
Keynes once famously responded to a critique of his economic theory which advocated government intervention to mitigate current economic cycles of recession and depression. Critics posed to Mr. Keynes, "What about the debt the government owes in the long run?"
He replied, "In the long run, we are all dead."
Watch below as House Minority Leader, John Boehner of Ohio, advocates to keep the Bush tax cuts at a cost of roughly $3 trillion dollars added to the national debt, because he believes (correctly, in my opinion) that job creation is better for the long-term debt reduction than cutting economic stimulus during a recession.
(FYI, the Obama administration's proposal would keep the "Bush" tax cuts (2001, 2003) for taxpayers making less than $200,000 or $250,000 if they are a couple. This extension would add $2.5 trillion dollars to the national debt)
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Where Boehner's reasoning is wrong, is that you can't have it both ways. Republicans since Reaganism during the 80's have held the Laffer curve as dogma, which means that larger tax cuts means more revenue coming in! That's right! The less money you have coming in, the more money comes in! This makes complete sense, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, according to former Fed chair, Alan Greenspan, this economic model does not ring true. You either stimulate the weakened economy driving up your short term deficit or you try and balance your budget as fast as possible with repercussions of systemic unemployment in the high double digits, furthering economic collapse and deepening the debt due to collapse of tax revenues.
Keynes once famously responded to a critique of his economic theory which advocated government intervention to mitigate current economic cycles of recession and depression. Critics posed to Mr. Keynes, "What about the debt the government owes in the long run?"
He replied, "In the long run, we are all dead."
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
YAY! and Duh... Same-sex marriage ban ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Prop 8 was just ruled unconstitutional in California. Now be big kids and read the opinion (which starts on page 111)! I'll give you a quote to get you started.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre. FF 23-25. When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. 388 US at 12. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry."Prop 8 Ruling FINAL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)