Starpaul20's Ramblings

This wasn’t a subject I really wanted to touch upon but in light of the recent approval on gay marriage New York I figured I should. Personally, I think its ridiculous that in the 21st century Gay marriage is still a big no no. I would like to think that I could marry the person that I truly feel in love with, be that man or woman.^[1]

Most of the reasons against making gay marriage legal seem to be based on misinformation and/or prejudice. Let’s take a look:

Being gay is not natural

Homosexuality is an unconscious attraction to someone of the same sex. It is a condition that has been with us as long as we have been human. It is not a choice, and only an idiot would think that it was a choice. Even if it were a choice, it is still completely stupid to treat anyone as a second-class citizen.

Even if it wasn’t natural, we’ve adapted to plenty of unnatural things (like glasses, cars, tattoos, air conditioning, TVs, piercings, silicon breasts, etc.)

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay

In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. While some people experiment with their sexuality in their lifetimes that doesn’t make them gay. As I said above, being ‘gay,’ is more than a physical act.

Perhaps we should stop teaching our kids about gender differences too, since it might encourage a boy to act like a girl or vice-versa.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior

A common argument from some is that if we allow gay marriage, then people might want to marry their dog (or lamp). Last I checked, there’s a difference between two human beings getting married and a human and dog getting married.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed

Yeah, like the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage is really going to be lost if gays are allowed to marry. Or Michael Jackson’s to Lisa Marie Presley. Or all those marriages that end in divorce.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home

Plenty of people have been raised by one parent and have come out normal, likewise there have been people who’ve had both of their parents at home and ended up bad.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion

Last I checked, I live in a Democratic Republic with separation of church and state, not a theocracy.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children

In that case, I’d hate to be an old person, or infertile, while trying to get married.

It looks like Republicans/conservatives are fighting a losing battle.

^[1] For the record, I’m straight.

I was watching the Republican debate last night, and what the hell is it with Republicans and Sharia Law? Out of all the economic problems, budget problems and jobs creation issues Americans actually care about, this is what they choose to focus on? If this is all they got to run on, Obama will be a two-term president for sure.

We can’t adopt the Metric system or Universal health care (which have considerable more support BTW), but somehow we’re going to adopt Sharia Law (which isn’t even practiced in some Muslim countries). This sounds like just another attempt by conservatives to use fear to get into power.

Kudos to Mitt Romney for not buying into the fear mongering.

The economy is recovering slower than any of us want it to, and the Republicans were incredibly successful in campaigning on the issue of job creation last year. But what is it that they plan to do to help the situation?

• We know they hate TARP, though that saved jobs at little to no cost.
• We know they are against the stimulus plan, though that helped save or create more than 2.5 million jobs.
• We know they want to repeal the Healthcare overall, though that is expected to cost tens of billions of dollars and jobs.
• More recently the GOP has been very hard-lined about cutting government spending. Boehner was asked how he felt about the prospect of this costing jobs. His response: So be it.

Wait, I thought that Republicans wanted to create jobs? They kept hammering that it’s all about the jobs! Boehner keeps going on about “where are the jobs?” What plans are the GOP considering to increase employment? And why is there so little public discourse about this? Instead, they want to concentrate on lowering the deficit. A deficit that’s been in the red since the days of Andrew Jackson.

Believe me, I’d like the deficit problem solved too, but we’re trying to dig our way out of the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. That means we’ll have deficit spending and that’s a fact we have to live with. Balanced budgets are for economic good times. If anyone had studied history you would know that it was trying to balance the budget in 1937 that nearly stopped the recovery from the Great Depression in it’s tracks.

Getting people working again and paying taxes would do more to reduce the deficit than putting people out of work ever will. But since those same idiots demanded an extension of the Bush tax cuts to the top 2% anything they say about deficits being a problem cannot be taken seriously as they obviously don’t give a damn about it.

Apparently saving a small amount of money and causing the unemployment of nearly 1 million people will be good for the economy, but a 3% tax hike on the top 2% would be bad. Figure that one out…

Looks like 2011 may go down as an infamous year in the Middle East/North Africa region.

I have been watching the news out of Egypt for the last few days and I can’t help but to feel that this may be a tipping point. What started with one self-immolation case in Tunisia has spread like wildfire (no pun intended). Yemen, Algeria and Jordan also have smaller protests/uprisings.

I’m cautiously optimistic, but I’m rooting for them. It’s hard not to want the people to be able to determine their own fate. I can only hope this ends well for all the people in these countries.

As I write this, Egypt’s president has sacked his cabinet. Which means the protesters have just found out that rather than being beaten down by the police, they’ve caused a (rather small) change in the government, which means it’s unlikely they’re going to stop now. But without the army on their side, things are likely just going to get very bloody (like Iran in 2009).

I want to know something, where’s my “Obamacare”? You know, that supposedly evil, government-run health care system that conservatives constantly bitch about.

I ask this because today I saw a commercial on TV promoting a petition to get the new health care law repealed. Also back during the election I saw several ads from candidates about that very same law. In both cases they talk about how government run health care is “evil”, and will destroy America’s precious current system, etc.

So where is my “Obamacare”? How do I sign up? Oh wait, I forgot, IT DOESN’T EXIST. Are some people so seriously stupid that they consider some minor insurance reform (and don’t lie, that’s all the new health care bill is really) to be the same as Universal Health Care? The bill passed isn’t UHC by any stretch of the imagination. I guess it doesn’t surprise me these very same people keep saying America’s current system is somehow the best in the world despite it killing 10-15,000 people every year. Or do conservatives seriously believe that everyone in America is a millionaire.

But you know what disgusts me above all else is the same people who oppose UHC also call themselves “Pro Life” and talk about the “sanctity of Human life” when it involves abortion, but show outright contempt for it when it involves health care for someone who can’t afford it under the current system. Also of note, not a single one of the UHC opponents never complained about the UHC that’s been imposed on the people of Iraq or Afghanistan by our invasion of those two countries.

Health insurance is basically people gambling with their lives. We only get one life. The fact that it could end because some company doesn’t want to pay for a treatment, after you already paid into it is criminal. If any other company was run like the health insurance ones, they would have been forced out of business years ago. It’s like a restaurant that charges its customers, but then kicks them out when they order something to eat. Health insurance for-profit is not itself a bad thing, (this is proven be the simple fact there are plenty of for-profit health insurance companies in all supposedly “socialist” European countries with UHC and they make good business), the point is holding them accountable, stopping the Wild West-type practices and if it’s basic health insurance making sure it’s priced appropriately. That’s what the new health care law is really.

Meet the new GOP, the same as the old GOP. At least that’s what their new Contract for America suggests.

I’m just going to come out and say it, it’s the same old tiresome song. A bunch of promises that conservatives salivate over but Congressional Republicans for one reason or another can’t/won’t make good on. Not to mention it contains obvious contradictions. Like over the Bush tax cuts, how will you reduce the deficit if you make them permanent?^[1] I also laughed out loud at the “all legislation to include a clause showing that it is authorized under the Constitution” line. Right, like that will ever be honored.

The inherent problem is with this document, and many Republicans who frame the argument as this: Government = bad. As a moderate Democrat who voted for Obama, and is frustrated with the current state of the country, I want to listen to the Republicans, I want them to have better ideas to fix the country and make it better. I’d vote for them if they have them. But I’m not going to listen to some more of the same tired philosophical nonsense that Reagan made so popular thirty years ago; namely that government is, somehow, a bad thing. It’s not. But that’s the problem with framing the argument as Republicans have. You can’t efficiently run something you claim is evil.

Another thing I found ridiculous is the fully funded missile defense program. Let me get this straight, Republicans want fiscal responsibility, tax cuts and to reduce spending but want to spend (probably) hundreds of billions of dollars on a program that’s been a failure in the past, likely couldn’t stop all incoming missiles even if it did work perfectly and has no realistic threat it needs to stop (honestly is there a country that hates us that could possibly hit us with a missile?).

^[1] Don’t get me wrong, I hate taxes but they’re a necessary part of a Democracy. And personally, I’d rather give up a small portion of my income if it went to help someone in need.

… and makes herself look like an idiot. When I first read this article two days ago, I seriously thought it had to be a joke (I had to check The Onion just to be sure it wasn’t one of their articles) just because it was just so stupid. Just when did political discourse reach the point where it’s okay to run a couple little girls doing a kind thing up a tree?

First, what makes her think those kids’ parents didn’t consent to giving away free lemonade? Because if they did, then they’re a part of a partnership, and in that partnership, can use the resources afford them by implicit agreement. The writer may have had a point if the girls were giving away her lemonade. Second, it’s a bad idea to walk up to anyone and start spewing political crap at them. If a stranger approached my children^[1] and started spewing any type of political crap, I would kick that person’s ass. Third, apparently it’s wrong to give away something that isn’t yours but it’s okay to sell something that isn’t yours? That’s surely a more damning philosophy when you extend it to Wall Street.

If they want to give lemonade out for free, then let them. Maybe they did it out of the goodness of their hearts. Maybe they did it because it was the Christian thing to do (Jesus probably would’ve been giving out free lemonade). Maybe the girls just wanted to give it out because it was so damn hot (I believe it was close to 100 degrees in Chicago this past weekend). Kids giving away free lemonade is hardly going to kill capitalism, so why bother trying to “set them straight” when they’re just trying to do a kind thing for passers-by on a hot day?

Ms. Savage is the embodiment of America’s problems, not the girls giving away lemonade. There’s nothing wrong with making money. It’s when people start treating capitalism like a religion, reducing everything to money and that profit at any ethical cost is what America’s all about that you get reprehensible crap like this. This woman makes the Ferengi from Star Trek look downright charitable.

^[1] If I had any, anyway.

Obviously Republicans in Texas didn’t learn from Lawrence vs. Texas ruling as they have voted on a new party platform. This platform would criminalize sodomy, ban gay marriage, close strip clubs and generally do things that would have the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Islamofascists creaming themselves in happiness (and confirming my long-standing belief that the only difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim one is methodology; their endgame is the same).

Does anyone believe that Republicans/conservatives are for less government and more personal freedom? Because this platform suggests otherwise. They’re becoming increasingly like the people who run Iran: anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-freedom (obviously), anti-liberal and run by ultra-religious wackjobs. Trust me, I have no love for stuff like sodomy, but this is supposed to be America where you can chart your own destiny in Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness in an environment of freedom and equality and to conduct your own life in accord with their own standards, values and ideals. That means allowing stuff you might disagree with, or even hate.

If the platform itself wasn’t bad enough, they want Congress to use its powers to ban federal courts from hearing cases on the matter (I guess they don’t want another Lawrence). If that sounds ridiculous, it is. I’ve browsed the Constitution and I can’t find any part that allows Congress to withhold jurisdiction on federal courts.^[1] After all, if it did, the separation of powers between the legislation and judicial branches would be meaningless.

^[1] Article Three, Section Two does allow Congress to limit Federal courts to certain subject-matters, like for Ambassadors, Alienage, State vs. State, etc. It does not allow Congress to say a Federal court can’t rule on a law.