PSUdain

GOP considers staunching bleeding by applying tourniquet to neck

2009-11-23T23:10:00.001-05:00

GOP: Hey! We're getting really unpopular these days! What's the problem?

RNC: NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH NOT CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH BLAAARGH!

GOP: Really?

RNC: YES, YOU MUST IMPLEMENT MY THING!

GOP: Oh, ok.

[a number of years later]

GOP: (falls over dead)

Okay, maybe not that extreme, but read this from the New York Times:

The battle among Republicans over what the party should stand for - and how much it should accommodate dissenting views on important issues - is probably going to move from the states to the Republican National Committee when it holds its winter meeting this January in Honolulu.

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they "espouse conservative principles and public policies" that are in opposition to "Obama's socialist agenda." According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire - would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.

Here is the resolution’s list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Now, even putting aside the metric fuck-ton of loaded language going on there, you've still got a resolution that appeals to the absolute most extreme fringe of the electorate. Now, I'll grant you, that's pretty much how parties have tended to operate, but they've never taken the, "This is our treehouse, no-one else allowed." approach.

I mean, seriously guys, think blue dog democrats. They exist, and the DNC is not trying to force them into the other party. That would be flat stupid in many ways. Some individuals might rather they be gone, but overall, it's easier for your party to have political success when your candidates can be, well, individuals instead of clones of each other and thereby appeal to the people where they're running. THEN you beat them into submission once they're in office. This is basic stuff here, guys.

The big tent is now the little treehouse. (Picture the following in a child-like scrawl.) ALSO: NO GURLS ALOWED!

Via: Pam's House Blend:: GOP's 'Purity Resolution' for its candidates

: (

2009-11-19T14:40:00.004-05:00

The Associated Press: New Lutheran body to form after gay pastor vote:

NEW BRIGHTON, Minn. — The split over gay clergy within the country's largest Lutheran denomination has prompted a conservative faction to begin forming a new Lutheran church body separate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Leaders of Lutheran CORE said Wednesday that a working group would immediately begin drafting a constitution and taking other steps to form the denomination, with hopes to have it off the ground by next August.

"There are many people within the ELCA who are very unhappy with what has happened," said the Rev. Paull Spring, chairman of Lutheran CORE and a retired ELCA bishop from State College, Pa.

I am a gay man; I was born and baptized in this church; I was confirmed in this church; I have served this church in youth ministries and in the chancel as a layperson in this church; I someday hope to attend seminary and be ordained in this church; and I am saddened and hurt by this decision. I also have question:

Why?

I am trying to see this through your eyes; please try to see it through mine. When this vote was taken, when my LGBT siblings and I were affirmed by my church as full members in our shared mission, did this somehow reduce your place in our mission? I want to work with you, and I want to make sure you don't have to compromise your beliefs.

But at the same time, I couldn't allow our church to continue telling the next generation of little gay boys and girls that they aren't whole and that they can't be part of Christ's body. This has lead to too many suicides, too many broken families, too much pain for altogether too long; it could not continue.

Are we, your LGBT brothers and sisters that much of a deal breaker that you must leave? There are so many other things that we as a church have changed our minds on over the years, and we have worked through the disagreement together. Women's ordination is a fine example. We rightly welcome all manner of people in our church. Why is it that when we get down to God's LGBT children that people get so up-in-arms?

I want to be in communion with you; you are my brothers and sisters in Christ. This hurts me to see you leave. I think I can speak for most of us in saying that WE want to be in communion with you, and it hurts us to see you leave. When this action was taken, we swore to bear your burdens and you ours. Please continue in this journey with us. Please reconsider this action.

Pope Palpatine, We have a few issues…

2009-11-16T11:06:00.005-05:00

From Slap Upside The Head:

Speaking to a reporter who clarified that gay tourists are traveling for personal visits and admiration, not political demonstrations, Bishop Kaleta had this to say:

I consider if someone is homosexual, it is a provocation and an abuse of this place. Try to go to a mosque if you are not Muslim. It is abuse of our buildings and our religion because the church interprets our religion that is not ethical. [...] If you have different ideas, go to a different location."

//Now, My thoughts.

Aww! I love you, too! But we have some issues here.

You see, I find you to be a provocation and abuse of decency and loving human behavior. Between your statement that condoms help spread AIDS (which will probably help to kill even more people) and your church's financial support of anti-gay political measures in MY country, I think it's become clear that if you are Christ's Vicar, then Christ must be a complete ASSHOLE.

Fortunately, I really don't think that's the case.

Via: Slap Upside The Head: Gay Tourists Not Welcome At Vatican: Bishop

VOLUNTEERING IS EVIL!

2009-10-20T17:49:00.005-04:00

So says Glenn Beck. At least, that's what it sounds like. I'm never absolutely sure what he's trying to communicate, except for a general mania.

First this new pièce de résistance of the Beck collection so far:

What. The. Hell.

Ok, I get that he's trying to communicate that the Evil Librul Media™ is collaborating with Chairman MaObama™ (came up with that all by myself--I should see if I can sell it to the crazies) to get us to give over to the power of...HELPING OTHER PEOPLE!! (THUNDERCLAP!)

Sorry, but I'm not buying that aspect of it, and the rest of it just sounds like he's being down on volunteering. I mean, this is just getting rediculous. They've nuked the fridge, jumped the shark, and, just for good measure, jumped the fridge and nuked the shark at this point.

Is there anything that the President could support that these folks wouldn't jump up and down screaming about? I mean he could speak in support taking care of sick kids and---(sigh)---never mind...

It's been... a while.

2009-10-12T01:26:00.002-04:00

You see, I've been meeting my bloggery needs mostly through twitter these days, but I wanted to say a few things at greater length.

First, I am so jealous of everyone who was able to participate in the march today. I wish I'd been able to be there.

Also, there has been a lot said in the past week about President Obama and his action--well, actually his lack thereof--on LGBT rights. Andrew Sullivan broke out his potty mouth, and Joe Solmonese got out his apologist britches (or are they slacks?).

Frankly, re: Obama; he's done jack diddly. I'm sorry, but giving a few speeches to LGBT audiences doesn't really cut it. Sure the Hate Crimes bill will be up for his signature (maybe, hopefully) soon. Sure there's stuff going on. But it seems to have mostly moved without him.

I'll grant that it's possible that these things wouldn't be moving without his presence in the White House, and I'm no insider, so I don't know what goes on in the smoke-filled back rooms. But really, by all appearances, he's coasting on this.

And here are a few more opinions, courtesy of CNN/YouTube.

Money quote from Lt. Dan Choi: "When I hear the word 'incrementalism', I think I hear the words 'shut up'."

(One last note: I know it's a bit juvenile to comment upon this, but I have to say it. Hillary Rosen's voice drives me absolutely up a wall. All nasally and irritating. Ergh!)

Those representatives of the people don't represent the people!

2009-04-09T21:25:00.000-04:00

Want to hear some crazy?

Listen in:

So, now that they lack the "activist judges" argument for Vermont, what tack to they take? "THOSE REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AREN'T REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE."

They just sound crazier and crazier.

And just as a side note, the people in Vermont, according to polls, DO support same-sex marriage. So, sorry. You're just flat wrong about what the people of Vermont "really want". Not every state is a small-minded, but much larger, version of the offices of the "Liberty" [HA] Council.

And then there's the typical lines of crap about "activist judges" "changing the definition of marriage" in Iowa. These people are just impossible to take.

What the hell matters so much about denying me my rights that they spend this much time on it? Why are they so obsessed with it? Why can't they spend their lives actually doing good and helping people in a real and tangible way, instead of in their theoretical/political way?

Audio source: Audio: As our rights become 'marrier', our opposition becomes scarier - Good As You

More Good News from Iowa

2009-04-07T15:46:00.000-04:00

The Iowa State Senate president stands up for same-sex marriage. A beautiful statement.

“‘You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost.’ … No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.”

(The first part is quoting his daughter, but...well, he still said that on the floor.)

Iowa Senate President Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban | Box Turtle Bulletin

Dear Vermont Legislature,

2009-04-07T13:57:00.007-04:00

Just wanted to say

THANK YOU

Love,

Me

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Vermont | News | Advocate.com

Dear Governor Douglas,

2009-04-07T01:32:00.005-04:00

Why don't you go give up your marriage and enter into one of those "perfectly sufficent" civil unions with your wife?

JACKASS

Sincerely,

Me

V-T- gets its irrational E O - Good As You:: Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

The religious right and torture memos--What's in it for them?

2009-04-06T14:22:00.003-04:00

I was reading an interesting article today on The Daily Beast about some recent political wrangling over Bush era torture memos. Republicans are threatening to filibuster two of Obama's legal apointments (Remember when Republicans were arguing that it was impermissible to filibuster apointments, back when their guy was in office and it was those meanies, the Democrats, who were doing the filibustering? Oh how the times do change!) if Obama releases some of the potentially incriminating memos.

Full article is here: Are Republicans Blackmailing Obama? - The Daily Beast

But besides all that other stuff (which is, sadly, just typical Washington) I saw this little nugget:

[One of the nominees up for confirmation,] Johnsen has met recently with moderate Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, both of whom are being lobbied heavily by colleagues and religious right groups to oppose her nomination. [Emphasis mine]

What stake, exactly, do religious groups have in opposing releasing torture memos? This sounds like a purely political move on the part of any religious group participating in this.

Has it finally happened? The Religious Right has not subsumed, but been subsumed by the political machine it sought to control?

Or is this a mutual back-scratching arrangement: "You pester Arlen to protect our political ass, and we will go out and get the 'homos' and 'baby-killers' for you. (Or at least pretend to.)"

UPDATE: Or, perhaps, the third option: the politico right wants these nominations to go down and they've fed the religious right some lines about her being an "abortionist" or a "homosexual activist" or somesuch in order to prompt them to oppose her.

In which case the relationship would be more Pavlov and Dog than subsumption or mutuality.

IOWA: What the Tweeple on the street say

2009-04-03T18:28:00.003-04:00

First off: HORAY FOR IOWA!

And second, here are my collected reactions from the folks I follow on Twitter:

But the award for best reaction goes to one of my favorite guests on Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me, a comedienne appearing tonight in Des Moines, Paula Poundstone:

Dalek found in pond

2009-03-05T03:06:00.006-05:00

They are coming: Dr Who Dalek found in pond - Telegraph.

"Sales executive Marc Oakland was pushing a rake around the bed of the shallow pool when he found the object with its distinctive eye stalk.

The 42-year-old said: 'I'd just shifted a tree branch with my foot when I noticed something dark and round slowly coming up to the surface.

'I got the shock of my life when a Dalek head bobbed up right in front of me."

If that had happened to me, I think I would have lost control of my bowels. I would have, pardon my french, SHIT myself. Messed my britches. Went whoop in my shorts. [Feel free to mentally add any folksy euphemisms of your own here.]

I can think of few things that would frighten me more than what appeared to be a Dalek rising out of the water in front of me in real life. I am not joking. They are terrifying enough on the TV.

(Shudder.)

UPDATE:
Additional Coverage:

• The Dalek of the deep: Doctor Who's nemesis is found in pond [Daily Mail]

• Extract me, mate! [The Sun]

• Dalek pulled from murky pond [Metro]

• Dalek Found Submerged in Pond [The Doctor Who News Page]

And, from The Sun another photograph:

EHH! Even as pond junk, it gives me the flying heebie-jeebies.

The Obligatory Rush Limbaugh Post

2009-03-04T14:37:00.002-05:00

The Daily Beast has a series of videos up covering the more outrageous moments of the career of a certain professional loudmouth who's been much in the news as of late: The Nine Lives of Rush Limbaugh

One video in particular stuck out at me:

His callous disregard for people living with and dying from AIDS is startling. Now, I can understand being ruffled by hecklers (that was kind of the point of ACT UP), but to frame your defense of your position's correctness in terms of, "Most people agree with me, [neener neener neener] so I'm right"? Beyond requiring a startling lack of thought, that takes chutzpah. And clearly this putz has plenty of that.

What a schmuck.

The Religious Right: Wrong on how to help gay kids

2009-02-24T23:20:00.004-05:00

4/20: The 'Truth' is that their booking will rightfully raise some eyebrows [Good As You]

Orlando, FL- Two Christian organizations are teaming up to empower youth to express their views on sexuality by co-sponsoring this year's annual Day of Truth event held April 20 on high school campuses nationwide. Exodus International, a ministry that helps those affected by same-sex attraction to live a life that reflects their biblical beliefs and Alliance Defense Fund, a legal support organization, are co-sponsoring the event this year and are hoping for a record turnout that will continue ongoing dialogue on issues surrounding faith and sexuality.

Originally designed to give students an opportunity to openly voice their views regarding theGLSEN-driven Day of Silence event, the Alliance Defense Fund first launched the Day of Truth four years ago. The event has grown from a handful of students to over 13,000 participants in all 50 states. As the movement has grown, the vision has expanded beyond providing legal assistance to ensure student rights to providing practical resources to students wanting to help peers dealing with same-sex attraction. The relational aspect of this event has become the dominant focus and as such, Exodus International will assume leadership in the future...

[ Full Story: Exodus International & Alliance Defense Fund Team Up For Day of Truth Event ]

This stuff really bothers me. Now, obviously you can't take away kids' right to free speech. But it's really troubling to me that the materials they had out support such disproved (and proven to be harmful) programs as those associated with Exodus International. This is not what kids in high school struggling with their identity need. One line really irritates me above all the others:

As the movement has grown, the vision has expanded beyond providing legal assistance to ensure student rights to providing practical resources to students wanting to help peers dealing with same-sex attraction.

Geez! I can tell you how to do that. Are you ready? It's very simple:

ACCEPT THEM FOR WHO THEY ARE.

Like I said, simple, no? And yet these people who claim to be fighting for what's best for kids continually ignore study after study that shows acceptance, by themselves and others, of an LGB or T identity is healthy for kids who are LGB or T. It has been show to reduce suicides, and, according to my experience, allows a person to live a much fuller and more normal live in relation to other people.

But why listen to that? Let's, instead, plow ahead with our agenda-driven pursuits, to hell with the kids who get hurt.

HEADLINE: Mat Staver Supports Westboro Baptist Church, Apparently

2009-02-24T19:18:00.000-05:00

Audio: You connected these dots, Mat, not us! [Good As You]:

Wherein Mat Staver of the "Liberty Counsel" supports the wonderfully "pro-family" actions of Westboro Baptist Church. I wonder if his listeners know just who he was verbally supporting. I wonder if he does. Or is he just spouting off without thinking, as per the usual.

Really, I see little difference besides the amount that each is willing to say...and the viciousness with which they say it.

New Twitter Avatar?

2009-02-23T02:53:00.010-05:00

So, currently, I'm using a photo of Taft as my profile picture on Twitter. I think it's quite amusing, personally. Not quite sure why. I have some others lying around, however, which I was considering giving a whirl in that most coveted spot.

First up Chester A. Arthur, mostly because he has the best mutton chops of any major U.S. politician* in history:

Next up we have Tom Baker, in his role as the Fourth Doctor. This is on the list more or less because he is making an exceedingly silly face:

Also in the running is Charles Babbage. Who, I admit, does not look funny. But, I ask you, what other man has baked himself in an oven? (Not to mention creating massive steam-driven mechanical computers, and designing the first Turing Complete computer. He was also very eccentric.)

So, why have I written this? Mostly so I could post a bunch of pictures which amuse me. And also so I could mention Charles Babbage again.

* Clearly this man has the best mutton chops ever:

Apparently he didn't embarrass them quite enough

2009-02-23T01:04:00.000-05:00

Box Turtle Bulletin: More Proof: Buttars Sanctioned for Being An Embarrasment, Not for Being A Bigot

See also these posts:

• One Cheer For Senator Buttars?

• Sen. Buttars Responds (It's about what you'd expect.)

I think I see a "God Hates the UK" website in the works...

2009-02-22T22:36:00.005-05:00

Fred Phelps, Daughter Barred From Entering U.K. [Advocate.com]

According to London's Daily Telegraph, Phelps and his daughter have been barred from entering the country because their church has called for violence against gays.

[...]

"Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behavior by inciting hatred against a number of communities,” a U.K. Border Agency spokesperson told the Telegraph. “The Government has made it clear it opposes extremism in all its forms.

This is clearly just another Intolerable Act by the britons against us. They could have taken them off our hands for at least a couple days.

I vote we pull a slight historical reverse and protest by throwing the Phelpses into Boston Harbor.

Everyone wins, including the Phelps clan, who could probably do with the free bath. (And they get something new to complain about.)

UPDATE: Maybe no "God Hates the UK" site after all. Wesboro Baptist apparently just has a catch-all site for this stuff now: God Hates the World, but I'm sure as hell not linking it. I guess all the individual ones for each separate country that God apparently hates just got to be too much.

However, you can watch what I'm sure is a charming video about how "God Hates the UK". Thanks, Westboro, for not disappointing!

Sen. Buttars Responds (It's about what you'd expect.)

2009-02-20T13:56:00.001-05:00

Quote via Latter-day Chino: Chris Buttars YouTube Dump. He's got a load of videos of the guy saying offensive things. He also commented on my last post, so you should totally check his blog out.

"I was disappointed to learn of the Utah State Senates censure on February 20, 2009. However, this action will not discourage me from defending marriage from an increasingly vocal and radical segment of the homosexual community.

In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled "haters" and "bigots," and are censured by their peers.

The media contributes to the problem. Increasingly, individuals with conservative beliefs are targeted by a left leaning media that uses their position of public trust as a bully pulpit. This pattern of intimidation suppresses free speech.

For the record, I do not agree with the censure. I see it as an attempt to shy away from controversy. In particular, I disagree with my removal as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since my work there is entirely unrelated to my opposition to the homosexual agenda.

Still, I'm a grown man and I can take my knocks. When it comes right down to it, I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity.

Thanks to the many citizens who have written and called to express their support. Please know that I'll live through this to fight another day. In years to come, we'll all look back at this point in history and see it as a crossroads. I have no intention of resigning."

One Cheer For Senator Buttars?

2009-02-20T02:11:00.003-05:00

By now you may have heard a bit about what is going on in Utah. Or not. First we have the utter failure of every one of the Common Ground bills. These were launched after Prop 8, to try to get the Mormon church to make good on its statements that it did supported at least some kind of minimal benefits for LGBT couples. I think we can all see how far that support went:

No Common Ground In Utah [BTB]

Utah House Business and Labor Committee Endorses Anti-Gay Discrimination in Employment and Housing [BTB]

Utah Legislators Show Blatant Contempt for LGBT People [BTB]

And then we had the astoundingly bilious comments made by the titular (in this post) Utah state senator Chris Buttars (Box Turtle Bulletin has a full transcript and audio.)

Well, now we have some more news about Buttars:

Utah Senate May Sanction Buttars [BTB]

Now, there's not much info now, according to Jim Burroway:

It’s unknown right now what the GOP leadership will announce tomorrow. They may strip Buttars of his committee chairmanships, or they may extract some sort of apology. Resignation, at the moment, appears unlikely. But whatever the move, it seems to be an attempt to head off threats by minority Senate Democrats to bring the embarrassing episode to the Senate floor.

But there is this interesting tidbit that has come out of the whole thing:

A Republican senator told the Deseret News that GOP leadership is already asking that work get under way on a new version of the Common Ground bills intended to secure rights for gay and other nontraditional couples. The package of bills carried by Democrats has failed this session, but the senator said leadership is interested in seeing if “a common point of reference” can be found on issues including the ability to file a wrongful death suit and secure health insurance benefits.

Perhaps this lends itself to a new strategy. I don't know if it would be repeatable or not, but maybe a good way to get at least some basic protections in places where the odds are stacked against us is to get ragingly homophobic politicians to speak out and give their tirades, thereby shaming their more humane colleagues into taking at least minimal action.

So, while I'm not going to give you three cheers (or any, like as not), I would thank you, Sen. Buttars, for being a big enough public asshat to inspire shame in your party members. (And, of course, for once more showing people what the anti-gay movement tends to look like when the mask slips a bit.)

The Swedish Chef

2009-02-16T14:53:00.007-05:00

So, one of the people I follow on Twitter posted a link to a YouTube video of the Swedish Chef. This resulted in a protracted bout of Chef video watching. I found a few classics. But I was also surprised about how violent some of the videos were...I mean, not horrendously or graphically violent, but there's this sort of dramatic cartoon violence. It doesn't help that most of the food appears to be sentient, I suppose.

For example, I am very glad that my bread dough never moans and growls at me. That would be deeply creepy:

And then there's this murderous spaghetti:

And next time you make cake, don't forget your cake smoosher, in case it speaks...Japanese?

And then there's this, which speaks for itself:

And there are quite a few instances of him chasing something with a meat cleaver:

Also, he can butcher music (hehe):

Really, though, the Swedish Chef is one of my favorite Muppets, hands down. And this was pretty much just an excuse to post some videos. And to make a blog post for @pishkinn, who complains (just about whenever I see her) about how little I blog.

I've actually been gathering them into a playlist on YouTube, too. You can find that here.

This is becoming too much, The Onion

2009-01-07T00:10:00.001-05:00

Another one. Yet another one.

Ok. We get the point. Isn't this becoming needlessly violent and graphic? Do you have a point? Would you care to tell us what it is? Or is it just a base impulse. I'm certainly not a fan, either, but this is getting to be over the top.

Single-Engine Cessna Crashes Into Bush (6 January 2009)

Complete coverage here.

The Onion Just Keeps Going With It

2008-12-09T20:43:00.004-05:00

I did my semi-weekly check of The Onion, and once more it's chock full of Bush abuse news briefs. This time they put out two since I last read it. What are they trying to say? What is their larger satirical point?

Bush's Eyelid Accidentally Nailed To Wall (8 December 2008)

Bush Dragged Behind Presidential Motorcade For 26 Blocks (4 December 2008)

I [heart] This American Life

2008-12-06T14:52:00.001-05:00

As you may or may not know, I am an avid fan of Chicago Public Radio's This American Life. This show has such a talent base which it draws from, running from David Sedaris, to Sarah Vowell, to John Hodgman, and on to other extremely talented individuals.

And the work they do is simply superb. They capture facets of life that are either so visible that we tend to ignore them as a simple and familiar part of the landscape or which are so subtle that we tend to just not notice them. One of my favorite episodes is What I Learned from Television. But just two weeks ago they featured a rebroadcast of a very early program from 1998 about music lessons, which very nearly supplanted the TV episode:

This American Life #104: Music Lessons

Not only did we get both David Sedaris and Sarah Vowell recounting humorous anecdotes and "lessons" learned in music lessons, but we got a truly poignant story from Anne Lamott. Her story in Act Three falls at the intersection of faith and music, and the little miracles that happen at that strange and wonderful crossroads. Both times that I've listened to it now, I have wept. It is a wonderful story. As much as I enjoy Sedaris and Vowell, if you've a chance only to listen to one of the three acts, make it the last, "Act Three. Knockin' on Heaven's Door."

(Also, if you enjoy this bit of This American Life, try out the episode from last week, their annual Poultry Slam. Another great episode.)

The Onion Continues Bush Abuse

2008-12-04T01:13:00.002-05:00

They've got one more story up in a nearly identical format. Similar topic, similar ending similar length. What gives? I blogged about this a while ago, as you may remember. Anyhow, without further ado, here's the link to the new story:

Bush Passes Three-Pound Kidney Stone (28 November 2008)

Hello, The Onion, I Believe I May Be Detecting a Pattern...

2008-11-20T02:22:00.017-05:00

The Onion seems to be engaged in a bit of Bush-bashing lately. No, I mean literally--er--literally in a metaphorical way? Or something like that.

They've now posted two News in Brief articles in which the President accidentally...well...um...sustains grave bodily harm. Now, it gave me pause to read the first one. It was a little more bloodlust-y (if that's a word--and even if it's not) than I'm used to with The Onion's material. Truth be told, it was a bit off-putting to my sensibilities. But we now have a second one (posted yesterday):

• Single-Engine Cessna Crashes Into Bush (6 January 2009) [UPDATE 3]

• Bush's Eyelid Accidentally Nailed To Wall (8 December 2008) [UPDATE 2]

• Bush Dragged Behind Presidential Motorcade For 26 Blocks (4 December 2008) [UPDATE 2]

• Bush Passes Three-Pound Kidney Stone (28 November 2008) [UPDATE]

• Crocodile Bites Off Bush's Arm (19 November 2008)

• Bush Tumbles Wildly Down Washington Monument Staircase (12 November 2008)

And they're spaced one week apart...is this something we can expect to continue until President Elect Obama is inaugurated? I mean, perhaps they've a whole series prepared. The two articles are similar to a degree which I think could only be intentional.

This leads me to ask, "Is this a commentary of some sort?" Well, actually I assume that, like most of their material, it carries some satirical value, so that's not quite what I should ask. A more accurate question might be, "What is this commentary saying?"

Is it just a (rather graphic) allusion to his being a lame duck--hence the physical handicaps? Or is this something a little deeper, something related to the war and injuries sustained therein by U.S. soldiers? This is all completely speculative; I'm just grasping at straws.

Thoughts?

RESPONSE: (From a friend of mine) "Bush is a joke, and he's finally bein played out for what he is."

UPDATE: They've added a new story. Blogged it here. Also added it to the running list on this post.

UPDATE 2: 9 December 2008 It just keeps coming. Two more stories already.

UPDATE 3: 6 January 2009 And there is still more.

Focus on the Family Does Something Or Other

2008-11-18T12:48:00.002-05:00

So, I've been getting the news from several sources lately. First Good-As-You, then Box Turtle Bulletin. Now The Daily Beast has it up on their Cheat Sheet. Apparently Focus on the Family is facing some financial troubles. This excerpt from the Colorado Independent:

UPDATE: Focus on the Family announced this afternoon that 202 jobs will be cut companywide — an estimated 20 percent of its workforce. Initial reports bring the total number of remaining employees to around 950.

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization’s last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of the ministry.

“If I were their membership I would be appalled,” said Mark Lewis, a longtime Colorado Springs activist who helped organize a Proposition 8 protest in Colorado Springs on Saturday. “That [Focus on the Family] would spend any money on anything that’s obviously going to get blocked in the courts is just sad. [Prop. 8] is guaranteed to lose, in the long run it doesn’t have a chance — it’s just a waste of money.”

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country.

You know, if I were FOF or one of their cronies, I might make some sort of fatuous connection here...you know, like James Hartline did when he informed us that anti-prop 8 protests are the cause of California's fires. If I were to make the sort of assertions that FOF makes when bad things happen to LGBT people or those supportive of us, I might make some assertion about cause and effect and God's judgement.

But you see, I'm not like FOF. I don't pull that kind of crap. It's ridiculous, and it's theologically unsound.

Just pointing out that if the shoe were on the other foot, we might be hearing some very different lines.

Is Cindy McCain The Rani? Probably...Probably...

2008-11-14T01:25:00.010-05:00

I don't know if you caught The Onion News Network's coverage of the (formerly) potential first lady. But here it is, just in case:

Cindy McCain Claims She's Just Like Any Other Female Human

Anything in there pop out? Yeah. It hit me, too--her TWO hearts! Now, what else might have two hearts and look human? Yeah. That's right. Time lords.

So, taking that, and making a quick visual comparison, it quickly becomes clear that Cindy McCain is in fact The Rani! How could we have missed it? But knowing The Rani, this is clearly part of some intricate and clever experiment (with no regard for the test subjects). And knowing Cindy McCain's association, it probably involves beer. Which is just one more reason (as if you needed one) to not drink Budweiser (or any other Anheiser-Busch product).

But I've gotten off track. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So here are two pictures:

The same bad makeup. The same frightening facial features. The same terrible taste in clothing:

Also, one more piece of evidence. Tim Gunn smells something:

I think we all know that, "...looks like someone has twisted her ponytail into a knot and tried to give her a facelift," is fashion world code for, "...is a crazed timelord who wants to experiment on us and our planet with indifference to our well being. Watch out!"

So, in summation, watch out for Cindy McCain, and don't drink Budweiser. I suppose we knew these things already, but now we know them better.

That is all. Thank you.

FIGHT HATE!

2008-11-12T01:07:00.003-05:00

Get the hell out there and protest! Make noise! Stand up for your rights!

National Protests:

Penn State protest info is on facebook.

I am mad as hell.

Anti Prop 8 Protests

2008-11-07T03:55:00.003-05:00

A preemptive apology for the poor quality of my prose and editing in this post. It is a wam-bam, so-late-it's-early gut reaction.

Way to go, everyone in Westwood in L.A.! We need more activism! We have to defeat these measures! We have to--AND WE WILL--achieve equality!

[h/t Good As You & Jeremy Hooper: FYI: Mormon temple protest]

I'd been watching some live coverage of the huge protest out there in L.A. on a local internet feed news station. They were taking calls, and it was distressing to hear some of these people call in. The fellow from Orange County who rambled on about homoSEXuals and how we were made by childhood sexual abuse (all the gays he knows are that way, apparently--showing that he must not know many of us). He also seemed a little upset that we were being public and out in the streets protesting our inequality. He seemed to think it was only a hop and a skip (not even a jump) to showing gay sex acts live on TV, seeing as we promote it already with all these homosexual characters that are celebrated. Did he mention that it was a choice yet? I think so. Also, why do we have to be so public about bein' big ol' homos? Can't we all just go hide again? (Pardon the rambling quality, it's partly because that's how he talked, and partly because I'm tired as hell and should be asleep.)

Then there was the fellow calling in from out of the area who wanted them off the streets. He called us sore losers. "The people voted...DEAL WITH IT," seemed to be his attitude. Yeah. How about we strip YOU of fundamental rights and see how YOU like it? And then he had the audacity to say, "I think they need to get off the streets and stop inconveniencing the people who need to get home to their families." OH NO YOU DIDN'T!! I CANNOT EVEN BELIEVE YOU WENT THERE, ASSHOLE!! You want to talk about inconveniencing families???? HOW ABOUT WE TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU INCONVENIENCED LGBT FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN (AND THOSE WITHOUT, TOO)--NOT TO MENTION THE OUTRIGHT HARM YOU CAUSED THEM!! Oh, and he told all LGBT that they should leave California and go somewhere where they tol'rat yur kine. (He didn't say it quite like that, but...hey...what's a late night blog post without hyperbole?)

His comments simply demonstrated the crass ignorance which we must fight. This ignorance of us as PEOPLE who have FEELINGS and FAMILIES and LIVES. PEOPLE who LOVE. It is this ignorance which enabled Prop 8 to pass in the first place, the ability to write us off as non-persons, undeserving of equality.

The "Gay Mafia" and Time Magazine

2008-11-01T21:07:00.017-04:00

A friend of mine recently sent me an article from Time, "The Gay Mafia That's Redefining Liberal Politics".

I just don't know what to think of this article. I knew that this was going on, and certainly it's not something that needs to be kept secret.

But I can just imagine the right wingers using this now. Along the lines of, "HO-MO-SEX-UAL billionaires are giving millions of dollars to defeat traditional values in your state. Fight back against the outsiders!" (Because, God knows, that the right wing crazies NEVER do anything akin to that.) Actually, I've read several missives of exactly this nature already. But now--oh goody--they have an article in a big-name news magazine to point to!

Beyond that issue, I think there are several stylistic issues plaguing the article. For starters, I don't much care for the tone that the article takes, incessantly referring to LGBT people as "gays". The gays this, the gays that, the gays the other thing. That's rather dehumanizing, not to mention exclusive of other parts of the movement. But most people in the general public don't see the finer distinctions, so the latter's not as large an issue to me, at least. (Then again, I fall under the gay "category" in my self-identification, so, I'm a bit biased in this respect.)

The former concern is pretty big, though. I mean, if you just go along using that dehumanizing, or at least de-personizing, language, it makes it easier for other folks to do it too. I mean, they could at least use "gay people" throughout. I mean their choice of language just sounds awkward to me; the only time I ever use "gay" as a noun is when I'm making fun of right-wing rhetoric or ignorance in general--and, of course, the poor word choice resultant from either.

Just look at it: "candidates critical of gays", "Gays may see", "they could accomplish more for gays", "and gays in particular", and, well, you get the point.

He also makes it seem incredibly shady, like it's an evil conglomeration.

The Cabinet spends at least as much each election cycle as does the PAC run by the Human Rights Campaign, the world's largest gay political group. And yet the Cabinet has operated in stealth, without accountability from watchdogs. (The Cabinet does not subject itself to MAP analysis.) [Emphasis mine]

Really?? It makes it sound like some sort of shady super-secret machine fabricated from darkness and oiled by sinister plans.

And there's this one, which, after an obligatory statement their actions are entirely legal, continues,

And yet as the National Review's Byron York has pointed out, Americans were horrified to learn during Watergate that Richard Nixon's friend Clement Stone had donated an outrageous $2 million in cash to the President's campaign. Cabinet members have spent at least five times that amount in various races in the past four years.

Again, REALLY?? They're being compared to NIXON???? Clearly these people, fighting for the civil rights of their community, are quite analogous to the enablers and friends of the biggest sleazeball ever to inhabit the Oval Office. How ever did I miss that??

Beyond that aspect, it's not that "we" want to go around putting our thumbs on the political donation scales, but when people want to treat us as less than pets in some cases, and when they generally want to deny us full and equal citizenship of this country, then we have to fight back. The article makes it sound as if "the gays" are the instigators, here.

And don't even get me started on his treatment of Stonewall,

...the Stonewall riots, the 1969 Manhattan demonstrations that began when cross-dressers angry about police raids at the Stonewall bar began throwing bottles and punches.

Oh, yeah, that sums up Stonewall completely. OR NOT. Maybe it sums it up from a completely biased and oversimplified view, an ignorant view, but not a real one. For one things, it wasn't just transvestites (a term at least somewhat less loaded that the pejorative "cross-dressers"); there were plenty of gay men who dressed more or less in the "gender norm", too. And they weren't just police raids (makes it sound like something illicit was going on); it was repetitive and persistent police harassment of the establishment for and only for the reason that the patrons were gay identified. A better way to put it succinctly might have been,

…the Stonewall riots, the 1969 Manhattan demonstrations that began when LGBT persons, angry about police harassment of the Stonewall bar and its patrons, including raids and arrests based only on sexual orientation, began throwing...

Not sure I care much for the last part of the sentence (that I omitted above), either, but it's at least more or less accurate, if sensationalist. But really, the way they treat it would be like saying, "...the LA riots of 1992, which began when a bunch of blacks, angry about the arrest of Rodney King..." Well, it would be similar treatment, at least, if the incident weren't so well-known that people associate the event automatically with police brutality.

And, of course, neither simplified treatment could address all the complex underlying factors, but this is an article about something else, so that's pretty much forgivable in this case, or would be if they at least gave it a fair simplified treatment.

But then, reading on, we find another charming reference to LGBT activism,

…worries that rank-and-file gay people — the ones who might have picked up a rock at Stonewall — are increasingly relying on billionaires to cut checks.

Yes, because that's the form that LGBT activism takes--the gays go out there and throw rocks at things. Is there no better example that the author could have culled? Maybe, going out and campaigning door-to-door? Or how about writing their own, albeit much smaller, checks? Or phone-banking? Nope, clearly it's rock-throwing for the win on descriptors for LGBT activism. At least he used the term "gay people" this time.

If they're going to cover LGBT activism of any stripe, the least they could do is use responsible language and portrayals of we the LGBT people. This is simply not acceptable for a "reputable" news organization.

For more information on Stonewall, have a look at Wikipedia's article.

This originated as an email to a couple friends, but has since been revised and cleaned up considerably. Thanks to J for sending it to me originally, and R for reading it.

Also, this post goes out to my friend who writes at Life’s too short to be normal, for prompting me to start blogging again.

First Post from iPod

2008-08-01T02:22:00.001-04:00

Just testing out this app called Lifecast for the iPod touch (and iPhone). It lets me type and post entries to my blog here right from my iPod. Should be interesting to see what comes about with this development.

Will my posts be of a completely different form, such that there will be a noticable distinction? Or will the iPod posts just be shorter? (I know that I wouldn't want to type anything too long on here, auto correction or no.)

Well, here goes the first one...

Posted with LifeCast

RE: GP Comments on Ethanol

2008-07-23T01:53:00.002-04:00

I recently tried to post this on a different blog which doesn't seem to be letting me write anything longer than a sentence or two:

.Here's the big problem with ethanol: the government stuck it's thumb on the scale. It shouldn't do that. It does that for petroleum, too. It shouldn't. No industry should receive an unfair competitive advantage from the government.

Look what happens. We have Haitians who can't get enough food (prices are too high because it's being used to fuel our cars) and are resorting to eating baked mud so they don't feel hunger pains. That is what happens when government distorts markets.

Look at petrol. It's getting more and more expensive, and we have no substitute for it (except of course the aforemetioned miserably failing ethanol), and there's really nothing that close to release. That's what happens when the government distorts markets.

Let's just take away the special subsidies and tax breaks that the petroleum industry gets (not ALL AT ONCE, but slowly). And lets let competition and Smith's invisible hand take care of our energy trouble.

Re: GP Comments on Energy

2008-07-22T16:58:00.002-04:00

I recently tried to post this on a different blog. It was on a post on energy policy, and is in response to some absolute crazies.

I love gasoline. I love oil. I love carbon! I want to INCREASE my carbon footprint, and in so doing, I will accomplish more for the environment than all the smelly liberal environmentalists put together.

You see, the way to make the environment cleaner is not by cutting back consumption, but by increasing it. It is economic prosperity that allows society to become so wealthy and spoiled that they can give the environment any consideration in the first place, it is economic prosperity that ushers in the technology that has made usincreasingly cleaner, and it is energy that allows that prosperity.

It is for these reasons that anyone who doesnt want to increase our energy supply is an enemy of the environment.

Dude. You are f---ing insane. Also, the best way to get oxygen: don't breathe. Also, if you take that line of logic, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.

I mean seriously, if you believe that the best way to cut down on pollution is to increase pollution...well...back to that bridge!

At my workplace (a small company), the “liberal” fascists have started a campaign to get people to cut back on the number of paper cups they use for coffee, etc. I’ve increased the number of cups I use.

Fascists wouldn't start a friendly campaign to do it. They'd point a gun at your head and command you to cut down on your use of cups or face the "consequences".

I spent Earth Day 2008 putting the thermostat to 72 degrees and snacking high on the food chain. Then I went out and filled up my car with premium unleaded and drove for about 1 hour.

Ok. Seriously, there is a space between being a Chicken Little, and being a scumbucket. You do realize that, right? Just because a lot of so-called "leftists" care about the environment doesn't mean you shouldn't.

And while prosperity does create new technologies, we don't develop new technologies by doggedly pouring good money after bad into the old ones (like oil and gas). We foster the development of new technologies by making investments, either in the market or in products which have a high initial investment, but which will pay for themselves over time.

So if you have some extra money, why not spend it on something useful instead of burning it away joyriding. Start saving up, and buy a set of solar panels for your roof. The price will start to come down as you save up and when you do buy them, eventually they will pay for themselves in savings. And then they will start paying back. That makes economic sense to you (and in general) and that's the kind of consumption that drives progress.

But if you tell the dog to speak, but give it a treat whether it barks or not...well, you're not going to train that dog. And if you just keep doing things the same way just to be contrarian, you're not going to drive progress any more than by sitting at home with your thumb up your ass.

Long time...

2008-05-19T01:35:00.004-04:00

Wow. I guess I'd almost forgotten about this silly little venture. End of the school year gets busy for me, and, unfortunately (for me, mostly) this is the most sensible thing to cut first. My school work and church-community involvement take precedence.

But someone commented recently, and a topic came whizzing out of nowhere and hit me square in the face. Well, it sort of came whizzing out of California, but...more to come. Working in Pages right now.

(Pages is Apple's word processing software. I'd say "MS Word equivalent", but really, it's not. It's far, far better. God, I'm such a computer snob...)

But first a brief update:

School ended. (There is now a wonderful sigh of a week between the my temporal location and that of finals week.) I moved into a sublet with some friends of mine for over the summer, and I'll be employed locally. The nice thing about summer employment is that it doesn't follow you home.

Anyhow, after I did the big move and started to settle in, I made an absolutely wonderful (some might say "fabulous") discovery. My sublet gets Logo! Oh joy! LGBT programming, 24/7. Oh, wonder of wonders! There is some pretty neat stuff on there. I've watched a few documentaries, and a few movies. I discovered this absolutely wonderful and very campy movie called The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, which stars Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith, Elrond) as a drag performer. It's a comedy, but deals with issues of homophobia and homophobia-inspired violence, but it also deals (through two characters in particular) with acceptance which is so remarkable because it is so casual. And I swear, it does all this, and remains funny. Catch it on Logo (I'm sure they'll show it again), rent it, buy it, whatever, just watch it.

They also have, as I mentioned, some really great short films. There have been two in particular that I've enjoyed a lot, Wingtips, and Waiting for Yvette.

Whee!! I'm Destroying America!!

2008-03-08T20:16:00.007-05:00

A big thank you to Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern (R) for the following kind words. I don't know how people get this nuts. Maybe she needs to stop taking her teaspoon of mercury before bedtime. I don't have anything to add to this. It really just speaks for itself. I suggest writing to this absolutely insane woman and giving her a piece of your mind.

TRANSCRIPT:

The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation, okay? It’s just a fact. Not everybody’s lifestyle is equal, just like not all religions are. You know, the very fact that I’m talking to you like this here today puts me in jeopardy, okay? And I’m not anti- and I’m not gay bashing, but according to God’s Word, that is not the right kind of lifestyle. It has deadly consequences for those people involved in it. They have more suicides, they’re more discouraged, there’s more illness, their lifespans are shorter, you know, it’s not a lifestyle that is good for this nation.

As a matter of fact, studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades. So it’s the death knell for this country. I honestly think it’s the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam, which I think is a big threat.

Because what’s happening now, they’re going after, in schools, two year olds! Do you know what they’re trying to get into early childhood education? They want to give our young children into the government schools so they can indoctrinate them. I taught school for close to twenty years. And we’re not teaching facts and knowledge anymore folks. We’re teaching indoctrination, okay? And their going after our young children, as young as two years of age to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle.

You know, gays are infiltrating city councils. Did you know… you read this phrase, and you write it in there, this passion play? Okay, have you heard that the city council of Eureka Springs is now controlled by gays? Okay? There are some others, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Takoma, Maryland; Kennsington, Maryland; in Vermont, Oregon, West Palm Beach, Florida; in a lot of other places in Florida. What’s happening? They are winning elections.

One of the things I deal with in our legislature, I tried to introduce a bill last year that would notify parents, schools had to let parents know what clubs their students were involved in. And the reason I did that bill primarily was this: We have the gay-straight alliance coming into our schools. Kids are getting involved in these groups, their lives are being ruined, their parents don’t know about it. So I introduced a bill, you have to notify all clubs and things.

And one of my colleagues said you know, we don’t have a gay problem in my county, that’s why I voted against that bill. Well you know what? To me that is so dumb. If you got cancer or something in your little toe, do you say, you know, I’m just going to forget about it because the rest of me’s fine. It spreads, okay? And this stuff, it’s deadly and it’s spreading and it will destroy our young people, it will destroy this nation.

A Random Picture

2008-02-26T21:47:00.004-05:00

I was just drinking a Coke. I went to Sams Club with a friend (I provided the membership, she the car) last Friday and saw a case of glass bottles. I just couldn't resist. I just kind of randomly took this a few minutes ago, and I thought the perspective was kind of neat, so here it is. Also, in the background, Avenue Q.

Student Protests at Penn State

2008-02-24T23:08:00.006-05:00

So, here at PSU we have had a bit of a brouhaha over sweatshops and apparel. But on the front page of The Daily Collegian this friday we had one of the strangest pictures I've ever seen grace that space:
Yes, indeed. That is, in fact, a bunch of supposedly intelligent college students standing around on the steps of Old Main with trash bags over their heads. Apparently they missed some of those basic life lessons most people learn as children. Seriously. This is somehow supposed to make a point?

Apparently it is. The point is supposed to be that student voices are not "garbage". And you decide to make this point by wrapping yourself in a garbage bag? Like trash? I think these people have missed some very basic elements of how to use symbols effectively or sensibly.

USAS and SLAP members later dropped the trash bags outside of Spanier's office, repeating phrases including "I'm not trash," and "My voice is not garbage."

This, of course follows the dumping of a boxfull of "valentines" on the floor in Old Main:

Anti-sweatshop advocates poured a box of valentines outside the president's office, and as soon as the students left, Associate to the President for Administration Tom Poole, asked for a garbage can, and, without reading the valentines, started tossing the pile into the garbage.

"We are not influenced into action by people storming the office and dumping garbage on the floor," Poole said.

And the playing of whiffle ball in Old Main.

Bill Mahon, vice president for university relations, said Friday that the wiffle ball game was "not a smart idea" because the ball hit frescoes inside the historic landmark.

"Hitting balls at valuable artwork was a bone-headed idea," Mahon said. "You don't gain fans that way."

The only real point that I see in any of this is that, "We're a bunch of pricks who can't follow the rules of common sense or common decency."

Now, normally I'm not a big Spanier fan. But he has had a sensible response to this series of events. He expresses his disappointment with the groups' conduct and closes with the following:

Even though we have communicated with members of your group on numerous occasions and have spent a tremendous amount of time on these issues, you and others have displayed an enormous level of disrespect for those working on the very issues you wish to resolve. The tactics your group has enlisted are rude and inappropriate. I would ask that you cease your frequent visits to my office and communicate, if needed, through more customary channels of mail or e-mail.

Sigh. Activists. Well, I guess I'm an "activist" on some things. But I'm talking about the more rabid and ravening variety of activists.

[Club 'talks trash' to Old Main]
[Group delivers cards to Spanier]
[Student protesters play ball]
[Spanier sends letter to students about anti-sweatshop initiatives]

My Work Featured by Andrew Sullivan

2008-02-18T01:03:00.002-05:00

Check out this entry from the Daily Dish's The View from Your Window series. That photo--mine. Pretty neat, even if I'm the only one who knows that it's mine. Here's the original:

How Immature?

2008-02-13T15:00:00.003-05:00

How immature can the RNC get? Seriously, these have the poetic intellect of a middle schooler. Plus, can't you let one holiday go past without trying to politicize it? Geez. A complete lack of any class.

"Theoconservatives" and Conservatism

2008-02-13T01:47:00.009-05:00

Andrew Sullivan had some interesting data about Huckabee posted again today. It seems that Mr. Huckabee really pulls in the votes from those who list themselves as "very conservative" and from evangelical conservatives. (Side note: Isn't it interesting that we have "evangelical conservatives"? That there is a faction in secular politics defined primarily by the religion of its members?)

It seems, also, that these voters want someone who "shares their values". There's that code-word again: "values". Read: "They share my view on social policy." I just don't get why issues like gay marriage whip people into such a froth of opposition. What is it that these people have to lose personally if I'm allowed to wed the man I fall in love with?? Compare to what I lose if I'm disallowed this right! What benefit do they derive from this? It's not as if by denying me legal rights they'll cause me to cease to be gay or cease to exist. Is their ignorance that precious to them?

Furthermore, what do they think gives them the right to deny me a civil institution? It's not like I'm demanding they recognize my union in their church (though I do work for an inclusive policy in my church, the ELCA through Lutherans Concerned). However, they do demand that official government policy be dictated not by fairness but by religious doctrine or "values".

Well, guess what! I have values, too! Some of them center around fairness and inclusiveness. Who are these people to say that their personal values are the ones that are absolutely right? (And don't get me started on the usage and invocation of Biblical Literalism. I covered that a while ago, though not as it relates to the political process.)

Now, let's look at this as it relates to conservatism. As one of the authors over at the Box Turtle Bulletin pointed out, fairness is a conservative value. It's also written into the Constitution as equal protection (OK, an Amendment, but a damn important one). The denial of rights to a person on the basis an innate characteristic is clearly a violation not just of "equal protection" but of the very concept of "fairness".

And yes, being gay is innate. I did not choose this, and for years I tried to ignore it and wait it out, hoping it would change. Only thing I got was depression. This was eventually alleviated only by coming out, finally. Take it from me who has lived it, it's as innate as your sexual orientation (particularly addressed to skeptical heterosexuals).

So we have this violation of a core conservative ideal, fairness. We also have a violation of the ideal of liberty, via the desire of these people to control my life and try to make me conform to some ideal that they hold as an individual, rather than let me as an individual conform to my own ideals.

And if that's not enough, we have a third principle of American Conservatism violated. I speak, of course, of federalism, due to the fact that many of these supporters, and Huckabee himself, desire the passage of a Federal Marriage Amendment. Marriage is something that has always been left up to the states! ALWAYS! This sudden desire to wrench that power away is blindingly anti-federalist!

Opposition to gay marriage may be a "religious value" (though I can think of a few better ones, like charity and forgiveness). But it's not a conservative value in any way shape or form. Not for the conservatism that I know and cherish, certainly.

For more information on gay marriage, I strongly recommend a reading of Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. The book was far ahead of its time in 1993, and is still an invaluable resource. It makes five arguments about gay marriage from different perspectives, along with critiques of each perspective. For more reading on conservative philosophy, I recommend Sullivan's The Conservative Soul, and Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative

Box Turtle View on Candidates

2008-02-12T11:26:00.000-05:00

I read Box Turtle Bulletin pretty much every day. (I'm subscribed to the RSS feed in Safari.) I found this pretty good article there the other day, and wanted to share. It's a write-up on how this election is playing out for LGBT issues, and it takes a very fair look at McCain. Much more so than many other gay blogs. Hell, more so than even GayPatriot, several of whom are screeching about him. However, in fairness, at least they're not accusing him of wanting to urinate on conservatives, like one of the folks over at IMAO. But, I'm slightly off-topic. Here's the bit on McCain and marriage:

None of the three support marriage equality. Yet none of the three candidates are in favor of a constitutional amendment barring states from instituting or recognizing marriage between gay couples.

Interestingly, John McCain may have the most invested in opposing such an amendment. Citing his federalist ideals, McCain argued passionately on the floor of the Senate against the passage of the amendment.

However, this does not mean that McCain is in favor of gay marriage. Although he has expressed in the past that he is in favor of some recognition of gay couples, he campaigned for a constitutional amendment banning both marriage and any other form of recognition in his own state. It lost.

But in any case, with McCain as the Republican nominee, this election cycle is unlikely to have banning gay marriage as any central theme. [Emphasis mine]

It's also more or less fair in its criticism of the Democratic candidates and their behavior towards gay people, though I think they're over-harsh on Obama and give Clinton too much of a pass. This may be jaded my my heavy reading of Andrew Sullivan.

I also enjoyed a segment on "judicial activism" that they had and the admission of the non-evil of conservatism:

Ironically, many of the decisions decried as the actions of “liberal activist judges” were made by conservative judges taking positions that were strictly constructed rather than simply parroting the platitudes of their political friends. It is my personal opinion that those judges who are most exact in their interpretation of law will eventually be those judges that establish equality for gay persons – and on such terms that their decisions will be difficult to fault. Equality under the law is, at its heart, a conservative ideal. [Emphasis mine]

Overall the article has much good to say about McCain. Or at least little bad. It was a good read and I'd suggest the whole thing. It's got substance, but isn't too long.

Liveblogging the Superbowl from my iPod

2008-02-03T18:54:00.000-05:00

Full disclosure: I could care less about the super bowl. It is the dumbest, most overhyped event of the year.

So, here's what I have to say.

6:50
UnderArmor: "Heil Loud, Angry Black Man!"

7:00
Doritos: Here's a random-ass song (Available on iTunes). Now eat some Doritos. 'Kay?

7:03
Grass follows athletes around.

7:04
Finally! A commercial that's almost effective: "Buy Dell; men will slap you on the ass." Except I'd never buy one of those shitboxes.

Also, FedEx always makes great commercials. Giant pidgeon attack!!

7:20
Sleeping badgers.... Ummm.....quirky.

Naploeon's GPS is pretty good. The pony at the end was a good touch.

7:25
Dancing lizards doing "Thriller". Certainly want to drink Life Water now. Soooo fraeking weird.

7:29
Syssiphus + GMC = Big ass hybrid. So you can waste gas, but feel smug about yourself while doing it.

7:40
"Ewwwww...": the general reaction to the creepy cashews girl, post cashews.

Yay! Pepsi really knows how to appeal to the public: abuse Justin Timberlake. Tee-hee.

The Doritos commercial with the mousetrap where the man in the mouse suit pounced put of the wall and attacked the guy was hilarious. Great use of incongruity.

8:18
I love local commercials. We just had a commercial for a massive, massive gun emporium.

8:33
Life Water: shaq on a horse. Oh boy.

Bottle opener suck. JUST LIKE BUDWEISER.

Careerbuilder: Just remembered that freaky commercial where the woman's heart jumps out of her chest an runs away. Forgot to mention that earlier.

8:40
Also, Richard Simmons. Heh. Tee-hee. Everybody here was cheering. And then there was a huge outcry of sorrow.

8:46
Wow, that commercial for WALL•E was pretty good. I liked that. The physical comedy was great. High quality.

8:53
Cute commercial E*trade, that was one of the better-written and produced one this year.

Also: life lesson: If you drink Budweiser, you will be sucked into a jet engine and shredded. I think I like that moral.

9:06
The Coke commercial with the balloons was cute. Very well-executed.

Also, just needed to cover those awful Sales Genie commercials. Both pretty awful. Apparently they spent so much on the time slot that they had nothing left to make even a decent commercial. They were absolutely awful. I mean seriously, talking cartoon pandas to sell your product to businessmen?

9:13
Another cute commercial from Coke. James Carville and Bill Frist running around D.C. together.

9:22
So, the second baby commercial was funny, too. "I really underestimated the creepyness factor.

And how the hell is a dog lapping up water supposed to sell Gatorade? It was just gross. Huge EWWWW-factor.

9:29
YES!! Will Ferrel is a sure-fire way to make me wholly uninterested in your product. As my friend said, "I could have done without that."

9:48
Look, straight men, it's a girl! She has breasts! Buy our product. Lust, Victorias Secret.

9:52
Wow, that was one of the most amazing catches that I have ever seen. Against the helmet. Wow!

Insulting to the Intelligence

2008-02-01T01:10:00.001-05:00

OR On The Coarseness of Political Discourse

I love politics and I love debate. But when I tune in to a debate or attend one, or when I read a blog, I want to hear ideas. I want to have a discussion about great (or not so great, depending on your position) ideas between civil human beings. That's the best way to find the right course to take. Civil debate on the ideas. What an ideal!

Not only is it better for the country, but I think it's more fun. It's certainly more challenging. It's pretty difficult to stand up and defend your ideas just on their own merits. It's far, far easier to stand up, make some disparaging remarks about your opponent, crack wise about his ideas without really addressing them, and then sit back down, smarmy in your victory.

And in smarminess, the political dialogue out there on the fringes has no equal. Hell, it's bad enough that I don't think I should use that word "dialogue" to describe it. Maybe a more appropriate opening phrase would be, "The political diatribes of the fringe blogs have attained an all-time high degree of coarseness." Perhaps "screed" rings even truer.

However, worse even than the faux-debates, whatever name you call them by, is the delightful new trend of direct name-calling. I see this happening all over the internet when I read blogs. I also encounter it when I hear clips from talk radio on the internet via blogs. (I, of course, avoid the actual talk radio as if it carries the plague.) Someone is going along and making a rational argument, or not, (usually not) and then all of a sudden they pull out the names. Now, maybe they see these insipid little puns as being clever. Maybe they see them as the big guns. Compared to the rest of the rhetoric, in some cases they are the big guns.

Everybody who's ever read a blog that has somewhat radical tendencies knows what I mean. Things like "chimpy mc bushitler" (rarely capitalized--perhaps that's because Bush capitalizes his name?). Or "Barack Osama". Or "Hitlery Clinton" (how people love to play off the Third Reich!). Or one of my least favorites, "Silky Pony" for John Edwards. Then there is the multitude based on McCain's name: McAmnesty, McLefty, McLiberal, McTraitor (that's an interesting one), Mc[insert random 'bad' quality or position here]. And we also have Harry gRied, reTHUGlicans, dhimmicrats, defeatocrats, and all manner of other beasties. (C'mon guys, at least you could have come up with "Repugnantcans". Is nobody literate? Does nobody have a vocabulary anymore? I've almost been hoping to see that one, but alas...)

When they use these, do people actually think they're being funny? Do they think they help their cause by breaking out the playground-style taunts? As far as I know the only people who could possibly read those without gagging, rolling their eyes, or falling twitching to the floor in a nervous fit are people who already agree with the writers. I know that when I'm reading along and I encounter one of these, there's a portion of my mind that just closes right up. It goes, "Ah. Clearly the author of this little morsel of prose is a gibbering idiot. Who else would make that kind of snide little 'pun'?" (I know, I know, that's name-calling, too, but don't blame me. You'll have to talk to my subconscious; he's the one who keeps bringing it up.) But in all seriousness, when I read one of those, I take everything else that person says with a good helping of salt. The use of that rather low attack is just one of those things that sends up flags that seem to scream, "RADICAL! WATCH OUT! OFF THE DEEP END!"

So, extrapolating from my reaction (and the reactions of other folks I've spoken to), if the general response of everyone you're trying to win over (i.e., those not in agreement with you), is some varying level of dismissal of your actual argument, then what purpose do these small gems of incivility serve in a debate? It would seem to be more a way to verbally get and/or give a round of ideological high-fives. Certainly the purpose cannot be persuasion if it's highly unlikely to actually persuade people.

But if it lacks the virtue of persuasion, then it defeats the point of debating. You're supposed put your ideas on the chopping-block of public scrutiny and work your hardest to prove its worth, not make it appear as foul as you possibly can. Using these tactics is, as I already said, in direct defiance of that goal. These things are debate killers of the worst sort. And it drives me absolutely nuts.

On the [Accepting?] President

2008-01-31T12:55:00.000-05:00

So, it's been all over the news (or at least the blogs) about the little set of exchanges between the president and Barney Frank. Before the State of the Union, the president asked the congressman to say hi to whoever it was that he was talking to on the phone. And then, this:

After the speech, Frank said, he felt he had to tell Bush what he had done. After all, the president opposes gay marriage, and gay rights groups do not see the president as an ally.

Frank sought out the president, who put his hand on the back of the congressman's head to hear him more clearly in the noisy, crowded room.

"Mr. President, by the way, the person I was talking to when you said to say hello was my boyfriend,'' Frank said he told the commander-in-chief.

"Well. I hope you said how open-minded I am,'' Frank said the president replied.

AARRGGHH!! So, in other words, as we'd all pretty much concluded it WAS all just one big cynical act?? This behavior pisses me off to no end. These Republican lawmakers think that they can go about being all accepting in D.C. and have no problem with gay people when they're not being watched--even have them on staff--and then go out every two, six, or four years and campaign against our acceptance, using it as a cheap political tool?

Well, as it's been said, eventually they'll have to come to terms with it and either make the politics their real position or make their real position their politics. That kind of double-faced behavior can't stand up too much longer in the age of the internet and wide information availability. It's just not possible.

Ewww...

2008-01-31T12:51:00.000-05:00

Who would buy this?

It's just flat ugly, whatever you think of him.

John McCain Wins Florida!

2008-01-30T00:00:00.001-05:00

And the Nittany Lions lost to Ohio State. At least I have the good news from Florida. I found out while walking through the commons. Romney was giving his "Not Really Victory" speech, and CNN had called the primary for McCain. I couldn't help but release a little--er--exuberant noise--and then give a look around hoping nobody had noticed.

Read the full story from the New York Times.

Also, have a look at the delegate totals over there. Florida was winner take all, so McCain has a fair lead at this point, just by the numbers. There are a lot of primaries left, though, of course, so it's best not to count the chickens too early. Super Tuesday is only a week away, now, so you could have a look at that coverage, too, though it's only available for California and New York for now. NYT polls show McCain ahead in both, but we've seen how reliable those have been as of late.

Random iPod List

2008-01-29T00:40:00.000-05:00

Another Blog I read does this, and I thought, "Hey, what the hell? Why not?"

What I did was to go into my iPod's song list and just hit shuffle. Then I just listed the first ten which came up.

Best part: easy, practically self-generating content that has some sort of meaning...

The List (Format: "Song"-Artist-Album; commentary on starred selections follows):

1. "The Belle of Chicago" - John Philip Sousa - Great American Marches

2. "Helicopters" - Barenaked Ladies - Maroon*

3. "If I Were a Bell" - Eddie Costa - Guys and Dolls Like Vibes*

4. "Mama, I'm a Big Girl Now" - Hairspray Cast - Hairspray (Original Broadway Cast Recording)

5. "Time after Time" - The Hawk Band- 2005 PMEA District ## Jazz Bands*

6. "Love Divine All Loves Excelling" -St. Olaf Choir - Great Hymns of Faith*

7. "Moon Love" - Glenn Miller - Glenn Miller's Greatest Hits

8. "Finale: There's No Business Like Show Business" - Ethel Merman - Annie Get Your Gun (Lincoln Center Revival)*

9. "Show People (Reprise)" - Curtains Cast - Curtains (Original Broadway Cast Recording)

10. "Peterborough and the Kawarthas" - Barenaked Ladies - All New Revue*

*2,10. Oh the irony! And not once, but twice!
*3. From a "Pittsburgh Jazz" compilation on iTunes. You don't think I'd buy a whole album of vibraphone music, do you??
*5. PMEA: Pennsylvania Music Educators Association; number withheld intentionally
*6. Good old Lutheran hymnsinging. (Yes, that's a word.)
*7. One of the masters. And he played such a fine instrument. Clearly it's a fine instrument, as I play it, too.
*8. Ethel Merman...sigh... I mean, really, what were you expecting?

See, this was better than I'd expected! There's even some commentary!

Bad News and Good News

2008-01-27T23:37:00.000-05:00

Well, this week I found out that some lawmakers in this state that I've lived in for my entire life are now pursuing a "marriage amendment", i.e., seeking to put discrimination in our constitution through an anti gay marriage amendment.

The news, care of one of my favorite organizations:

Sen. Mike Brubaker, R-Lancaster, has introduced a Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment, and he is looking for co-sponsors. The Legislature needs to pass it twice, in consecutive sessions, before voters get to weigh in. The earliest it could appear on the ballot is November 2009.

Tom Shaheen, vice president for policy at the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said it's important to protect marriage in the state's Constitution — especially considering its proximity to Massachusetts, the only state to allow homosexual "marriage."

"It only takes one court decision to force a Legislature to either legalize same-sex 'marriage' or its equivalent, civil unions," he said. "We need to protect (marriage) in the Constitution."

(You did see the sarcasm up there? In the italics?)

Great. Just great. Some...politician tries to score a few points by attacking gay people in Pennsylvania. I really am getting to hate politicians. But the least he could do is use something resembling sensible arguments if he's going to try this. I mean what in the hell does PA's "proximity to Massacusetts" have to do with anything? Are politics airborne now? Will they migrate? Slither across state lines? I mean, yes acceptance will spread. That's all but inevitable. But seriously, that has little to do with geographical distance.

And as for having something imposed by judges, I'm willing to bet that Sen. Brubaker would object just as strongly if it was a bill. I don't think it would mater one jot if there was a widely supported bill or a measure imposed by judges, so it's not really honest for him to couch is objection in those terms.

Ugh. I'm feeling more "militant" (as it were) tonight, but when I heard the news originally I just felt like the wind had bee knocked out of me. People will never cease to amaze me, be it in a good way or a bad way.

If you want to get involved, here's the post from Equality Advocates Pennsylvania:

January 20, 2008 Stop the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" Now!
On January 17, 2008, Pennsylvania State Senators started working to pass a so-called Marriage Protection Amendment that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman and prohibit civil unions and potentially more.

Please take a moment to call and e-mail your Senator and give a voice to the millions of Pennsylvanians who oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution. To find your State Senator's contact information, visit http://equalitypa.org and click on the link to Locate Your Legislators.

In 2006, Equality Advocates, with the help of countless LGBT Pennsylvanians and allies across the state, defeated the attempt to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution. This over-reaching amendment would have prohibited relationship recognition for all unmarried couples in the state.

Please act now to help ensure fairness for all Pennsylvanians!

Additionally, if you are interested in becoming more involved to help defeat this legislation, and pass pro-LGBT legislation in Pennsylvania, please e-mail Jake at jkaskey@equalitypa.org.

Thank you and with your continued support we will defeat this amendment once again!

Let's kill this thing fast and early.

Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations of Tolerance

2008-01-25T16:03:00.000-05:00

I love the Onion.

Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance

iPod touch

2008-01-23T00:35:00.000-05:00

So, I have an iPod touch now. It's cold in Happy Valley, so I want to be able to operate my touch without taking my gloves off. Or mutilating my nice leather gloves. That's the premise. Now, starting from the fact that the iPod has uses capacitance (like all the other iPods have for their clickwheels) to figure out where your finger(s) is(/are), I started trying out some objects:

Penny
No. Not in any way shape or form that I tried. Not alone and not laid flat with my finger on top. And also not if i tried to just get my fingers close to the bottom to induce some sort of electrical field. It's a flat no go.

Battery
Yes, but only the negative end. Go figure... (Because you're wondering: AAA.)

iPod earbuds
Wouldn't that be convenient? Well, turns out...NO. I also tried with music playing, in the hope that that would alter the electrical characteristics enough, but that was still a failure.

Discarded Gum Wrapper
(One of those foil ones that Wrigley's uses.) It worked. I tried first with it just as a barrier between the screen and my finger. I then tried with my glove on, and then with just the wrapper. All attempts were successful. SCORE! (Bonus: It's cheap. Detraction: It's ugly and, lets face it...it's trash.)

Keys
Much like the penny these were a complete non-starter. (OUCH! I just realized that pun there, but only after I typed it.)

Wire Coil
I have a LOT of insulated aluminum wire around. (See here for the reason.) I tried coiling some of it up and touching with the bare end. I figured it might act as an inductor based on whatever magnetic fields the device might leak. Tried as both open and short circuit. Tried touching with the metal end. Nothing on any of those counts. That would be a, "No."

Update on Gum Wrapper
Thought some more, and figured a few more trials were in order. Turns out this only works when it's in direct contact with your skin. So it's just acting as a carrier and isn't an "active" material at all. That explains a few things. That one had me confused at first. Ah, but there is an exception--if it's wrapped around my gloved finger as a surface it does seem to work...

Well, this is all well and good, but I'm still in pursuit of the ideal solution...I have a few ideas, but we'll see where I head, if anywhere.

(P.S. Pardon the very stream-of-consciousness nature of this piece.)

A Few Thoughts

2007-12-25T02:36:00.000-05:00

UPDATE/EXPLANATION: This was originally written as a personal response/letter to another person on YouTube (ok, kind of silly, I know). He had said something about Biblical Inerrancy, and in rebuttal I asked if women were allowed to speak in his church or if they were allowed to have uncovered hair. From his private message, I think he took my questions to be an accusation of misogyny. Which is fully understandable. However, I responded with the following, hence the personal tone, and the farewell at the end. I thought it was not half-bad so I posted it here without change:

Where did I get the part about women's heads being covered?
1 Corinthians 11:6-7

"but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil." (NRSV)

And about not speaking: I Timothy 2:11-12

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

So I hope your church has neither women with uncovered (or at least unshorn, if not uncovered) heads. And I sure hope they don't teach Sunday School. And, of course, they'd better not be pastors.

Also those two passages would seem slightly contradictory, because one provides instructions for the behavior of women when they pray or prophesy. However, the other says they should keep silent. Which is it? How do you mediate the conflict between the two?

Maybe you could look at the cultural context? (this is from my large, annotated CEV Bible)

"Paul argues that whenever women pray or prophesy in public they should either keep their hair tied up on their head or cover it in some way, since unkempt hair was equated with adultery and prostitution in ancient Jewish culture."

Well, that takes care of that hair covering thing. It would appear that it was meant as a cultural rule, so women would make an intentional effort to NOT look like prostitutes. Ergo, this is applicable only within that cultural context. Perhaps we could try to export it to ours by saying that women shouldn't come to church in mini skirts with too much makeup on, but not worry about the uncovered hair thing?

BUT would that be ignoring the literal word of the Bible? Yes--obviously.

However, the important question is: Would that be denying its overall truth? And the answer to this overarchingly important question, I think, is a resounding, "NO!"

What about the Gospel lesson where Christ tells a man who wants to follow him:
“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 NRSV)

Does that mean that to follow Christ, we must HATE our parents? Again, I think that the clear answer is another resounding, "NO!" Actually, as our pastor pointed out when this passage came up in the lectionary, the word that is translated as "hate" has a more complex meaning in the original Greek. The word can mean a sort of hate, but the word can also be validly translated as "detach". In other words, we must detach from our parents, or, more broadly, whatever other things hold greater precedence our lives than Christ. Not that we must drive them away or leave them completely, but that we must put a healthy space in there.

However, if we go with that interpretation, then we have again left the literal text of the Bible which sits in front of us behind, though we have left the larger truth unscathed.

This passage also provides grounds for discussion of another important issue that arises with complete Biblical literalism. That is the problem of translation. We are all reading translations. I have several copies of the Bible in the NRSV translation, and two in the CEV translation (New Revised Standard Version, and Contemporary English Version). They read slightly differently, but contain the same stories and message.

However, there are conflicts, because whenever translation occurs, there is some loss of information. It is not always possible to get the connotative meanings of a word in the passage, even if we get the denotative ones. One could go on at length about this, and I would be glad of further discussion.

Another issue which will have to wait is that of the passage I referenced from Acts. (A passage, I might add, that is one of my favorites as a result of a major experience with which that passage is associated. Perhaps I will be able to share that story sometime.)

As for your point of doctrine, yes, I also believe Christ to be perfect, but not the men who did the actual writing of the Bible, nor those who translated it.

And as for your point about the totality of the truth of the Bible, I think the ELCA's (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) website has a good, deep, and refined statement:

To borrow a phrase from Luther, the Bible is "the manger in which the Word of God is laid." While Lutherans recognize differences in the way the Bible should be studied and interpreted, it is accepted as the primary and authoritative witness to the church's faith. Written and transcribed by many authors over a period of many centuries, the Bible bears remarkable testimony to the mighty acts of God in the lives of people and nations. In the Old Testament is found the vivid account of God's covenant relationship to Israel. In the New Testament is found the story of God's new covenant with all of creation in Jesus.

The New Testament is the first-hand proclamation of those who lived through the events of Jesus' life, death, and Resurrection. As such, it is the authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible is thus not a definitive record of history or science. Rather, it is the record of the drama of God's saving care for creation throughout the course of history. [http://www.elca.org/communication/brief.html#thebible]

As to your point about not judging you, I was not making accusations, I was raising points about scripture and asking whether or not your church adhered to them. You say that they do not, apparently. Again, I ask, how do you reconcile that?

And as for your questioning of my faith, I say, "Don't judge me," and that I am sure in my faith, but as any human, never completely without questions. Questions are the fire that refine and anneal our faith, and if we never ask them, we do not grow in faith. I'll also borrow the words of Martin Luther (himself borrowing from Paul in Galatians), "I am justified by Grace through Faith apart from works." That, along with the creeds is the quintessential statement of my Christian faith.

I know I've been long-winded. My apologies for that, but these are important questions to ask, I think, and these points are important to remember in any discussion of theology, I think.

And that is how I'm treating this, if that's ok--a friendly discussion of important points of faith.

But now I must get some sleep. I checked my email after returning home from the candlelight service at my church, and saw this message. I would be delighted to correspond, and look forward to a reply.

So, I'll say goodbye for now with the words we use to close every service, "We are God's people, rooted in Faith, living in Christ, and now sent to serve. Go in Peace, and serve the Lord!"

Merry Christmas!

For the Record

2007-12-19T03:29:00.000-05:00

Commented over at GayPatriot on an post about two Sully pieces: here and here. Documenting here, for the record, with my one notable omission to that post to avoid being unnecessarily inflammatory:

Um, seeing that waterboarding:

Was invented in the Spanish Inquisition as a form of torture to extract false confessions from nonbelievers,

Was later exported to the Philippines as the "Water Cure" and picked up by American military during the Spanish-American Ward and then condemned as torture by Teddy Rosevelt,

And was condemned by our country as torture when the Khmer Rouge used it,

I'm pretty sure that "advanced interrogation techniques" just doesn't cut it as a name. It's torture. That being made clear, the questions to be asked should follow the format: "Should America torture for reason X?" We should not water down the language to avoid impinging upon our consciences through ignorance.

As for the comparison to techniques used by the Gestapo, he had documentation on the site earlier in the week concerning their used of extreme sleep deprivation, along with a quoted statement made by a victim of the practice (this time in Soviet Russia). The practice of extreme sleep deprivation is one which was admittedly used. So, unfortunately for us, our country, and our country's good name and reputation, Mr. Sullivan's moniker is not, in this instance, "mere name-calling", but a proper description.

Forget not, either, that the primary use for torture throughout history has been the extraction, as mentioned earlier, of false confessions.

[Now here's the line I didn't include, but which I documented twice over for predictive purposes/proof:]
Now go ahead and tell me how anti-American I am and how much I'd love to see another attack on this country.

UPDATE: To the string of ad hominems and "liberal", too. That would be hilarious, to be called a liberal!

Unless it were in the sense of Mill's classical liberalism; in that case it would be accurate.

Foul Weather

2007-12-16T02:24:00.000-05:00

Midnight Clear in the Penn State lots to deal with the "snow". And while AccuWeather (and everyone else describe it as "snow",it's not really apt. Because it's more a shower of tiny little ice pellets than "snow", per se. Would that it actually were snow.

National Review Endorses Romney

2007-12-16T00:50:00.000-05:00

Gag me with a plastic man. More on this later.

Nixon: Christmas 1971: CBS News Broadcast

2007-12-12T00:43:00.001-05:00

Besides the Nixonian fun and games portion, check it out around 3:18:

Children operate a worldwide conspiracy relentlessly planting their propaganda on behalf of kindness, trust, sunshine, holidays, and fun

Now, I know he's not trying to be serious (on that point, at least), but the grave tone with which he delivers that line is just absolutely classic.

John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul

2007-12-11T14:06:00.001-05:00

Wow. Ron Paul is amazing. I don't go quite as far as he on some issues, but he's way better than most candidates on the classical liberalism, government non-intervention front.

Now For Some Fake News of My Own

2007-12-10T20:19:00.000-05:00

I saw this picture on Andrew Sullivan's blog, and all sorts of titles and captions came unbidden to mind. The best, I think was:

Pelosi To America: OK Who the Hell Took My Neck??

My runner up was, "Dangerous Mutant Scarf Strangles Senator, Feasts on Head," which could have lead to a fun article starting kind of like this, "In the third attack on a politician by an untamed garment this year, Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi..." And then maybe even a caption like this, "Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi flails her arms in futile resistance against her feral red scarf."

The Onion on a Certain Fake Penn State Student

2007-12-10T20:16:00.000-05:00

Overweight College Student Announces Plans To Wear Shorts, Sandals For Rest Of Year

There is something about feeling like you're "in" on the joke that really gets you. I felt that way throughout, what with the mentions of the Pollock Dining Commons, The Daily Collegian, and other Penn State fun.

An Interesting Idea

2007-11-18T01:25:00.000-05:00

Apparently a rouge group of Ron Paul supporters is pushing to get people together to "dump" money into the Ron Paul campaign on December 16 as a tribute to the Boston Tea Party:

Could we also dump tea into Boston Harbor, please? Or would that violate some sort of regulations?

How about dumping politicians in there? I guess that would almost certainly violate some sort of regulations on waste management.

I've Been Slacking

2007-11-17T22:56:00.001-05:00

Lately I haven't posted that much. My apologies (to my nonexistent readers). I've had a lot of work, what with three exams last week, and then the run-up to Thanksgiving Break. Lots of stuff due, and lots of stuff to do.

But I'm getting back on the horse, now. Just now, I've added a few new segments to the column on the right. There's now a set of links to important things that are not blogs (if you look carefully you might catch a theme), and there's also a list of my favorite blogs that I read.

On a note related to all the aforementioned non-blog links, Penn State suffered a heartbreaking loss to Michigan State this afternoon. However, on the upside, we lost the land grant trophy, so that gets to ugly-up Michigan State for the next year.

The Daily Collegian had a description of the trophy in Friday's paper that is just about as flattering as you can get:

"From what I can remember, it's heavy," guard Rich Ohrnberger said this week. "I haven't seen the Land Grant Trophy recently. I know it's around. I don't know."

The Land Grant Trophy is a big veneered wooden box with some shiny miniature statues affixed on top. As ugly as it may be, it's the object of Penn State's desire tomorrow.

"It's for a piece of hardware; it's for a trophy," wide receiver Terrell Golden said. "No matter what guys say about how the trophy looks, they want to win."

[...]

"Maybe the only good thing coming out if we lose is they'll let Michigan State have it for it a year," Penn State historian Lou Prato said. "It's an ugly trophy."

Okay, when every statement has a caveat about how ugly the thing is (or is just a statement to that effect, period), well...put that in the department of lessons learned, I guess: NEVER let a football coach (particularly one from Michigan) design a trophy for a manufactured (or any other type of) rivalry.

And now, for a brief look into the future, here's what to expect:

1. A review of the new Christopher Buckley novel, Boomsday

2. My thoughts the old Andrew Sullivan work, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality

3. My thoughts on a certain movie released in the last few years that I just finally got around to watching. Let's put it this way: it came out before I did.

Brits Are Fun!

2007-11-07T17:58:00.001-05:00

Those wacky Brits--they sure know how to have fun. Yesterday it was the Queen's Speech, one of my favorite events of the political year. (Just listen to it and then tell me it's not entertaining--you can't; after the third or fourth or tenth repetition of, "My Government will...", you should be in stitches.) And now, today it's a fun new poll about the stupidest British laws:

Most ridiculous British law:

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27 percent)

2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (seven percent)

3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (six percent)

4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (five percent)

5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (four percent)

6. A pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (four percent)

7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the king, and the tail of the queen (3.5 percent)

8. It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (three percent)

9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour (three percent)

10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (two percent)

Very amusing. There are some explanations in the article, but still--Very amusing. I particularly enjoy the first one, but I'm quite curious as to how one would go about punishing a violation of that statute.

I love number ten, too; though, I must confess, I wonder if that's ever been called into play in the past hundred years or so. I could just see someone in York who doesn't like their scottish neighbor giving them a bow and a quiver for a present. I also find it to be of interest that it was voted the least ridiculous of the list, but hey, who knows...

Also, if ever I were a pregnant woman (which, I understand, is highly unlikely to be the case) I think that I would take advantage of number six as often as humanly possible--"'Ello, Bobby, I don't see a lou anywhere nearby, could I 'ave a wee tinkle in your 'elmet? Thankee."

Those Lucky Schmucks

2007-11-07T17:29:00.000-05:00

In my hometown. Four inches of snow last night, probably more by now. And wonderful temperatures, too:

Yay, Log Cabin

2007-11-07T17:13:00.000-05:00

From the Log Cabin's wittily named Blog Cabin blog:

THE GEORGIA LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS CONGRATULATE BRIAN BATES ON HIS HISTORIC WIN TO THE DORAVILLE CITY COUNCIL Jamie Ensley, President of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans released the following statement on the Doraville elections:

“Today is a historic day for all Deep South gay Republicans and, more importantly, a great day for the city of Doraville, and the state of Georgia. Brian Bates, Vice President of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans becomes the first openly gay Republican to be elected in Georgia. His positive message of fiscal responsibility, police/safety improvements, and city landscape enhancements clearly resonated with Doraville voters, who judged him on his character and not his sexual orientation. I’m proud that candidates who are true to our party’s fundamental principles win at the ballot box. Congratulations to Doraville City Council-Elect Brian Bates.”

This is reasuring. It's good to see that acceptance is growing, and that even in places formerly thought hostile, being gay is no longer an automatic strike-out. It's always good to see even small progress, so I'll add my congratulations to Councilman Elect Brian Bates. Congratulations and good luck in the new office.

IMAO: Funny Still, but Blemished in my Sight.

2007-11-07T16:24:00.000-05:00

So, I used to really love the political humor over on IMAO's blog. There's still some really good material over there, particularly the "In My World" segments. The "facts" they run about Hillary Clinton are also really good quite often. But there's a running feature that's been driving me slightly up a wall; it's the "Daily John Edwards Fabulous Fact", where jokes are made about the posited "gayness" of Edwards. Now, I like a good gay joke as much as the next gay person, maybe moreso. But these fall kind of into that category that I see as "Middle School Humor (MSH)". The main difference between what I see as a tasteful joke and a distasteful or MSH joke is certainly subjective to my views, but I think there's a relatively clear line.

A tasteful joke can revolve around a stereotype. Stereotypes can be and often are a gold mine for humor. I make references of this sort relatively frequently with my friends. I think a lot of Mel Brooks stuff, when it contains "gay humor", is made up of such so-called-tasteful jokes. Avenue Q makes some excellent ones, too:

Now, what I find distasteful are jokes in which "being gay" is the punch-line. These are the middle-school humor sort. There is naught wrong with being gay, and it just comes across as demeaning when that's what the humor is based on. Not only that, but it's intelectually lazy--a person could do material that's way better if he didn't rely upon "Oh, he's gay [nudge nudge wink wink]."

Now, it's not up to me to act as the Internet or IMAO Thought Police, nor do I want that power. I'm just expressing an opinion. I think the material is sub-par, unfunny, and moderately insulting.

Now, when I broadcast this view over there, some of the commenters had some positively delightful observations, many of which involved calling me, "fag". One called me a pervert, and told me not to have sex in public restrooms. Not that my private life is any of his business, but, um--no thanks, and I didn't need your advice on that matter. In fact, I think that most of the people who've been caught "with their pants down" (as it were) in a public place were closeted (and some--Senator Craig--still remain so), not open and out like myself. I addressed this and other things in a comment I made over there:

I didn't say that you, Harvey, should absolutely stop or be forced to stop, I was just expressing my opinion as a long-term reader. And, of course what I stated was my own opinion. I thought that that was relatively obvious or at least implied anytime a person expresses an opinion like saying that something is "distasteful". Subjective qualifiers like that, I thought, implied "this is an opinion."

As per your request for an example of 'tasteful' jokes, just look at The Producers (either version) by Mel Brooks. See the difference [again, of course, as always] in my opnion, is that being gay is not the punchline of a gay-based joke, it's something based on a stereotype applied in a way that's not meant to be demeaning. For example, RWD's Top 10 for Dumbledore--hilarious. The reader contributions--not really.

Basically, the beef I have w/ the Edwards things, is that an element to the joke is always something which makes him "less-than" because of implied gayness. People may not share that opinion; I'm just expressing it. And it doesn't offend me, per se, just irritates me, I guess.

And people, get past the dumb stereotypes. Most gay people aren't the sort to go in for bathroom assignations.

Also, Casper, seriously, can't you come up with something better than "twinkletoes"? And for heaven's sake, could you please not address me as "fag". Would you address a black person as "n*****"? Maybe some gays do it to each other, but I don't, and I think it just as inappropriate when they do. We are not a monolithically single-minded any more than you guys.

The Onion on Mel Brooks

2007-11-06T16:20:00.000-05:00

The Onion has an excellent article up on the new Mel Brooks charity, Schmucks for Schmuck. Just read the whole thing. It's hilarious.

Mel Brooks Starts Nonprofit Foundation To Save Word 'Schmuck'

NEW YORK—The organization has compiled schmuck-related data revealing that, in 2006, the word was spoken a mere 28 times—17 of these by Brooks himself.

Do They Even Bother to Read What They Post: AFTAH

2007-11-06T01:52:00.000-05:00

So, the charming little group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality has an interesting 'news' item posted on their charming little website. The title of the charming little piece is, "Study Finds Extensive Partner Abuse among Homosexual, Bisexual Men". And now, a brief excerpt:

A new study in the Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of The New York Academy of Medicine found that 32 percent of gay and bisexual men - nearly one in three - are victims of intimate partner abuse.

Little has previously been researched and documented about the patterns of intimate partner abuse in same-sex male couples. This study’s results provide an important addition to the body of knowledge on this subject, and a call to action for health providers treating men who have sex with men (MSM).

“Men in same-sex relationships experience abuse rates similar to those faced by women in heterosexual pairings,” said lead author Eric Houston of the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago. [emphasis mine]

So, now, let me get this clear: they did a study and found that rates of abuse in gay male relationships is similar to that in heterosexual relationships. Right? So where does this "extensiveness" they talk about come from? It would seem to me that it's more like, "Study Finds Extensive Partner Abuse among Homosexual, Bisexual Men, Heterosexual Women," assuming they're using the same standard of "extensiveness" in both cases.

But then again, the Americans for Truth About Homosexuality could hardly publish the article, "Study Finds Same Abuse Rates in Gay and Heterosexual Relationships". "Gosh," they might say, "that might actually be the truth, but it wouldn't advance our agenda of ~~exposing the evil of~~ telling the truth about those wacky gays and their wacky ways. That fact there just leads to moral equivalence and to suggestions that these evil people are just the same as good normal heterosexuals. And data tell us that that's just not the case. Just look at our articles if you need proof!"

But, my point is, if they have the reading comprehension level of a third grader, then clearly they can see the facts there. And, as should be expected, they ignored reality and substituted their own distortion on it.

But we all knew that already. So, I guess my real point is one of exasperation over human stupidity.

Sigh.

Romney Gets Another Strike

2007-11-02T20:05:00.000-04:00

As if more reasons were needed to not vote for this man:

MA [interviewer]: … Governor Romney, Mac or PC?

MR: I have a PC. My sons have a Mac and swear by it, but I have a couple PC’s.

I knew I didn't trust him. Now I know way. You know that and certain other things:

Oh, and other things...like FMA.

An Open Letter (Specifically to my boorish neighbor)

2007-11-02T18:36:00.000-04:00

Dear Neighbor,

I am not a confrontational person by nature, hence the paper letter. I would kindly ask you to please not blast your music so loudly day and night. We do not need to hear it in our room, nor do the folks down the hall or below you, I'm certain. If I wanted to listen to music, which I often do, I would play my own music in my own room; I do not depend upon your 'charity' for my entertainment.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Your Neighbor

P.S. When and if I want to watch football on Sunday, I have a TV in my room which I am more than capable of turning on.

[I would love to add this post-post-script to my letter, if ever I were to actually send it.]

P.P.S. If my requests are left ignored, be warned, my wrath is mighty--IT'LL BE SHOWTUNES FOR YOU AT 2 IN THE MORNING SOMETIME!!! TAKE THAT!!

Reformation Sunday

2007-10-26T15:56:00.000-04:00

So in recognition of Reformation Sunday, I think it only appropriate to post some Martin Luther quotes. Our Bible study this week in LSC revolved around the reformation, as do the Psalm (46) the Gospel Lesson (John 8:31-36). Psalm 46 is widely regarded as the basis for that quintessential Lutheran hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" (tune and lyrics by Martin Luther, LBW 228 and 229).

Luther wasn't overly fond of the Pope. He also had some, shall we say, "gastric troubles" later in life which confined him to the toilet a lot. (Apparently if you go to visit Germany, the toilet is still in existence and is on display. Exciting, no?) This as also likely a source of his predilection for references to bowel functions.

Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn't help, I instantly chase him away with a fart.
(Do Not Debate with Satan When Alone [Spring, 1533], LW 54:78)

If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.
(Letter to Philip Melanchthon, 1 August 1521, L W 48 :281)

Mr. Devil, do not rage so. Just take it easy! For there is One who is called Christ. In Him I believe. He has abrogated the Law, damned sin, abolished death, and destroyed hell. And He is your devil, you devil, because He has captured and conquered you, so that you cannot harm me any longer or anyone else who believes in Him.
(Lectures on Galatians, WA 40/1, 276:2832. LW 26:162)

First... the Lord wishes to have his church built on himself, the rock, that is, he who wishes to be a Christian should believe in him. "No", says the ass-pope, "it means that one should obey me and regard me as a lord..." Again, the Lord gives the whole of his sacrament to his Christians. "No", says the fart-ass pope, "one element is enough for the layman; the whole belongs to the Priests."

Again, the Lord wants to have his sacrament given to strengthen the poor consciences through faith. "No," says pope fart-ass... Again, the Lord wills that whoever dies in the true faith shall certainly attain salvation. "No", says the papal ass, "one must first go to purgatory and atone for sin" Again, the Lord wills that whoever confesses his sins and believes the absolution should be forgiven. "No", says ass-pope fart, "faith does nothing; but your own repentance and atonement do..."
(Against the Roman Papacy an Institution of the Devil (1545), L W 41:3356)

So, that's that. For now. I have class to get to.

Bill Maher and the "Truthers"

2007-10-25T01:18:00.001-04:00

So, I'm not the biggest Bill Maher fan in the world. I find his Salon.com columns to be snarky and humorless as often as not. (Well, I always find them snarky, it's just as often as not that I find them humorless). But you've got to hand it to him, he stands up for what he believes, and he's not a complete loony. When crazy people in the audience start screaming at him about "9/11 truth", he gives them the good old heave-ho. He even helps to evict the first guy:

Maher makes a keen observation, "In this instance, I'm actually defending President Bush. I don't think President Bush brought down the World Trade Center." Now I'm no huge fan or supporter of the president, but the people who just reflexively lash out at everything he says (or anyone who ever dares to agree with him, however infrequently) drive me up a wall. Reflex politics are not a good thing to adhere to.

Maher also lays down an amazing "smackdown" line, "You're in the audience. Audience comes from the Latin, 'to listen." BAM! I really like that line. Too bad he used it, and now I can't.

Why is it that these people think that they are more entitled to speak than the host of the show and his guests. I know they think that they are carrying the new gospel to the masses, but for heavens sake, if you make yourselves look like complete asses, do you think that that helps your nutty cause? Do you think that screaming like a lunatic at a host of a debate show makes you look credible. Or even sane???

Scary Evangelical Video

2007-10-23T20:59:00.000-04:00

Obviously as a Lutheran, I have my own personal strictures about such things. But some evangelicals have this tendency to take things way over-literally. And here's an example. While I know this is supposed to be humor by exaggeration, I must confess to not finding it amusing but more along the lines of "mildly disturbing and frightening". Notice the follow-up Bible verse which is used to justify to this literal interpretation. (Sorry it's not embedded, but the code provided by the site doesn't seem to be compatible with Blogger.)

On Andrew Sullivan's blog, he posted some interesting observations from readers and himself. Strongly suggested read. The most interesting two bits, from readers:

Notice that the star of the spot can't simply close the window. He can't just click through to a different screen. Instead, his reaction is violent--he has to destroy the computer.

AND

Watching this video as a woman, it's more than creepy -- it's terrifying. What if the boss that came in and handed him a cup of coffee weren't an older man, but a beautiful woman in a skirt and open blouse? What would the subtext be in this case -- having just seen him absolutely rip apart and destroy the computer with the tempting images?

Onion News Network: Bullshit Most Important Issue

2007-10-23T20:25:00.000-04:00

Videos like this are why the Onion News Network is my favorite source for fake news:

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Best line: "I've always been a big fan of Hillary; she's so full of bullshit."

On a Lighter Note

2007-10-22T01:10:00.000-04:00

Apparently Albus Dumbledore is now officially a corrupting influence on children (or just "even more officially, depending on how much of a loony you are).

One could note the similarities to non-fictitious comings-out. And there is the potential for that, I suppose. But I'd feel kind of silly discussing the "personal life" of a fictitious character from children's literature.

And that's enough of that. Back to the real world now.

Clearly Barney Frank Is Trying to Kill Me

2007-10-22T00:53:00.000-04:00

As I said a few days ago, if we agreed once more in such a short time period, my head might explode. Well, it didn't, obviously, as I'm still capable of typing this. But that's not for lack of him trying. He went on and said something sensible again after I had specifically warned him (via this blog which nobody, least of all he, reads) of the potential consequences.

Here's what he had to say about Rep. Tammy Baldwin's (D-WI) proposed amendment which adds back in the transgender protections to ENDA and which will be voted upon on the floor of the House:

The decision to offer such an amendment came out of a Caucus which Chairman George Miller held of the Democratic Members of the Education and Labor Committee. After some discussion, it became clear that offering such an amendment would offer us the best chance to achieve Speaker Pelosi's goal of adopting in the House the most inclusive ENDA bill for which majority support existed.

I argued in favor of transgender inclusion when I testified on the original legislation on September 5, but many of us believed that sending the full inclusive bill to the floor would open the door to a series of demagogic procedural moves that would have endangered our chances of a passing any bill at all. The discussion held by the Democratic Members of the Education and Labor Committee, Congresswoman Baldwin and myself resulted in this approach and I believe it meets the goal of giving people the opportunity to support a fully inclusive bill while avoiding the potential parliamentary death traps that would otherwise have resulted.

I will on the floor of the House be repeating essentially the arguments in favor of transgender inclusion which I made in the September 5 hearing, because we will now be able to do that in a procedural setting that allows us to maximize support for an inclusive bill without endangering our chances of getting any bill at all.

(Hat tip: Chris Crain.)

Seriously, though, I guess in the past I've not given Rep. Frank the credit he's due. In this area at least, he's providing exactly the kind of strong and pragmatic leadership that's needed. We may, strike that, will disagree in the future and we have done so in the past, but for now, on this issue, he has my support. (For what little that's worth.)

There's a phrase I never thought I'd say in any context, "I support Barney Frank."

Ron Paul Has the Best Donors List EVER

2007-10-18T15:34:00.000-04:00

Seriously. I mean, how freaking awesome to have "a tax slave to the federal government" and a professional "curmudgeon" as donors to your campaign:

Wade Talkington of Panama City, Fla., who donated $1,000 to Paul, lists his occupation as “tax slave to the Federal Govt.” Erik Hovden of Olalla, Wash., is the “Head slacker in Chg” at Simpson LLC, and housewife Pamela Schuberg of Moorpark, Calif., a $2,300 donor, lists her employer as “our children.”

Donald Cowles lists himself as self-employed and his occupation as simply “Capitalist.” On the opposite end, David Cameron of San Jose, Calif., lists his employer as “Looking for Work” and his job as “Unemployed.” Still, Cameron has given a total of $1,900 to the campaign.

Griswold Draz of Wellfleet, Mass., a $500 donor, is a self-described “curmudgeon,” and Andrew Maul of Pittsburgh, Pa., is a “Citizen Fighting Tyranny.” Others are more coy. James Harper of Vancouver, Wash., a $600 donor, offered “guess? ;)” as his occupation.

On the subject of Paul, he keeps getting more and more tempting. His foreign policy leaves something to be desired, but I do really, really like what I've heard described as, "His 'F**k you!' attitude toward the government."

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Andrew Sullivan: Hillary as Galadriel??

2007-10-18T14:03:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan has a good post up on the thematic similarities.

Last Saturday: PSU vs. Wisconsin

2007-10-18T13:39:00.000-04:00

We beat them, of course. A good score: PENN STATE: 38, Wisconsin: 7. I was sitting pretty high up, which provided a good view of the band, but which also exposed us to the antics of the folks who were too blitzed out of their minds to have any clue as to what was going on. But here are a couple spectacular pics of the Blue Band:

The famous PSU formation (albeit upside down, due to my vantage point in the student section):

The (also famous) Floating LIONS drill:

A Frightening Week

2007-10-17T00:50:00.000-04:00

Is when in the past seven days, I have read two statements by Barney Frank and agreed with them wholeheartedly...

The statements were made concerning the GLB only version of ENDA which he has submitted (there being a lack of support for a GLBT version).

Granted, on this issue we have some things in common to agree about, plus he's more pragmatic that I would have previously given him credit for. But Representative Frank, please don't let it happen again--my head might explode. You wouldn't want that to happen, would you?

Here's instance one, courtesy of Chris Crain's blog:

There were efforts in the seventies … to explicitly include in equal rights amendments language that protected people against discrimination based on sexual orientation. That is, the amendments – federal and various state versions – prohibited discrimination based on sex, and people sought to add sexual orientation. I and others opposed that because we knew at the time that it would defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.

[Note: Not a big fan of the ERA, politically or philosophically, but the analogy is a sound one.]

Here's the other instance, which I found at GayPatriot.

I talk a lot to gay people, gay men and lesbians. I find the view that we should not do anything until we can do everything very much in the minority. I understand the passion of those who are in organizational positions. But, you know, we talk about politics here. There are politics in organizations too. There are people who I have privately discussed this with who have said, yes, we wish you would go ahead, but I can’t say that. I can’t stand up against this organizational consensus.

Well, idealism by itself is going to be pretty fruitless, and idealism that is empowered by pragmatism is the way in which we make progress, and that is what we are called upon to do here. And so I am asking my colleagues, Democratic and Republican because there is bipartisan support for this, please do not be dissuaded by those who say do nothing until you can do everything. Look at the history of civil rights. Look at the fact that we helped one group here, we dealt with a certain form of discrimination there.

I do not believe that the majority of gay men and lesbians in this country want to take the position that nothing shall be done to enhance legal protection against the prejudice from which they suffer until we can do the job perfectly. I also believe that from the standpoint of including people who are transgender, for which I have and will continue to work, we will not accomplish that nearly as quickly. Maybe in 50 years it will all get done. I’ll be dead; so tell me anything. I won’t be able to argue with you. But in the interim, we will get there much more quickly if we continue to follow the sensible strategy of working with allies, of accepting support that is overwhelming but not complete, of understanding political reality, of moving forward, of alleviating some fears by taking some partial steps. We are a lot likelier to get there. So we have two choices today: we can say until we are able to do everything, we are going to abandon this effort; and I believe the consequences of that will be profoundly negative for any effort to revive this. Or, we can take one of the biggest steps forward in the anti-discrimination march, in the march to make the American Constitution’s wonderful principles fully applicable with everybody, we can take a major step forward on that issue. And having done that, we will be, in my judgment, better able to take the next step. That is the choice. And I hope, both for the substance, and for giving people a lesson in responsible governance in defense and in advancement of our values, my colleagues, especially on this side, but in the whole House, will opt for sensible and real progress that serves the interests of the majority and rejects the counsel of those who say that, absent perfection, we should leave everything as it was.

(Full text can be found here.)

And that on top of the new experiences from NCOD/W last week. (Really positive experiences, but still new for me.)

As Usual Scott Adams is Hilarious

2007-10-16T19:29:00.000-04:00

Scott Adams writes an excellent post (as usual), this time about selecting a good Halloween costume.

When it comes to selecting my Halloween costume, I ask four questions:

1. Can I wear my glasses?
2. Does it cover my legs so I can pretend I’m dancing?
3. How difficult is it to take a whiz?
4. Does it allow me to be witty?

And then it gets much better.

The "Goes With" Relation: Gbt

2007-10-16T15:35:00.000-04:00

It has been altogether too long since I have posted here. A few months. I really had good intentions when I started, but I got busy with other things. I kept "meaning" to post and then didn't. I even started composing a few entries at various times.

But I've started again now, and hopefully it's habitual. I start with some unorignal content:

I found this great blog post linked to over on Andrew Sullivan's blog. It's all about why logic-oriented professionals can't dress themselves well. It's I've reposted a good portion of the article here, including the worlds worst pun. Ever. It's in the portion about Alan Turing, which is, by the way, my favorite bit. (Incidentally, in my one course on computer theory, we are covering Turing Machines right now.)

So without further adieu here's the excerpt:

The nature of fashion is predicated upon the satisfaction of the "goes with" relation, G. An outfit meets the conditions of fashion acceptability only if it is comprised of a bottom covering, b, and a top covering, t, such that it is true that G_tb.

While the satisfaction of the "goes with" relation for top and bottom coverings is a necessary condition for an outfit to be categorized as "sharp," it is not sufficient for sharpness as the if-clause requires accessorization.

Initially, it was thought that accessories would require the "goes with" relation to be expanded from a binary to an arbitrary n-ary relation, but it was shown possible to group accessorization constants into a single variable which have been determined to satisfy the relation themselves. That is, one can show that shoes and a belt go together independent of the outfit and that if a given bottom covering, say a particular pair of pants P, and given top covering, say a given shirt S, have been demonstrated to go together, that is for which G_PS has already been demonstrated, then for a pair of shoes, h, to be fashion acceptable they must satisfy the "goes with" relation G_(PS)h. Such iterations must be repeated until a complete outfit has been assembled.

The reason why analytic philosophers (and similarly mathematicians and cognitive scientists) have a difficult time dressing themselves or dress poorly is that the satisfaction of any sentence involving the "goes with" relation is not finitely decidable. There is no algorithm by which one can in a finite amount of time, much less in the morning before you are too late for class, decide with deductive certainty whether an outfit is sharp and properly accessorized. Now, there are rules which by which we can rule out entire classes of ordered pairs, e.g., let x be a member of the class of checked clothing and y be a member of the class of striped clothing, it is fairly trivial to show that for all such x and all such y, G_xy must be false (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to provide a proof). But for the general case there is no finitely executable decision procedure such that for any two arbitrary articles of clothing one may determine the satisfaction of G.

There were, of course, hopes in the 40s and 50s for such a breakthrough. But the dream of a "Cou-turing machine" faded with the suicide of Alan Turing. "Not only did he have the greatest mind in history for devising formal solutions to problems like this, but as a snazzy dressing gay man himself, he was the only one who could bring all the elements together -- the Carson Kressley of the post-war computation theory set. Bloody MI-5, with their homophobic poppycock," a former colleague was reported to have said, "They doomed all of us geeks to a series of lonely Saturday nights."

It's worth reading the whole thing, otherwise how will you find out what the Klein Lemma is and what it says?

Tickets!

2007-06-09T06:17:00.000-04:00

I got my tickets on Thursday! What tickets? The tickets. In other words, my Penn State Nittany Lion Football student tickets. All home games for $190, and I get to sit (well, stand, really) with the number one student section in the country. I was worried this year about there being enough. My freshman year they were still available when I got down there. My sophomore year they sold out in thirteen days.

So this year I took measures to assure that I got my tickets again. I got permission from my boss to buy my tickets (and those for some friends who couldn't at the time) at work (but off the clock), and set up three computers side by side in the lab to purchase them. You can only buy one set of student tickets per ID, ergo the three computers.

All three of us got our tickets, but it appears that my concerns were valid. The tickets, all 22,000 of them, sold out in a whopping 59 minutes. Lets see Michigan or Ohio State beat that display!

My predictions for this year:
--We will break the attendance record either at the opener against Notre Dame or against Ohio State. Especially if the weather's nice. (As it stands, I've been to the second, third, forth, and fifth most attended games in Beaver Stadium, and that's just in the past two years that those happened.)
--Ohio State's going down again this year.
--JoePa will roll his pant legs up. (Ok, so that is always the case, but I needed a third one.)

My prediction for this year that has no support and is wishful thinking, but which is perfectly realistic:
--We will finally kick Michigan's ass. And if there's justice in the world, it will happen in the last second after the ref gives us three seconds back on the clock... And you probably have no idea what I'm talking about there...

Sound Card, et al.

2007-06-01T01:05:00.000-04:00

Awh, isn't it just adorable! Or not. Whatever. It is freaking awesome, though. It's a very crude 8-bit sound card. Converts a digital signal from a processor into an analog one (i.e. music). It does this very poorly, since the resistor values are not carefully matched in the ladder network, but "Fight On, State" was recognizable. Confession: there are no op-amps seated in the sockets...bet you would have called me on that one.

And this one is a simple traffic light control circuit from my digital circuits lab. Note the two traffic lights in the lower right-hand corner. And the "it's safe to walk" light (green colored LED) near the cetner at the bottom of the board. The green and yellow LEDs up near the top? Those were just for debugging purposes, to let us know what number the counter was on. It's amazing how quick one can become at reading a four bit binary number and automatically interpreting the decimal equivalent.

Why did I post these? Insight into part of who I am, I suppose. Plus, you've got to admit: really cool.

(Informational note: This whole post is written pretty tongue-in-cheek. It's hard to make sure that emtion is properly conveyed, particulary when using such an informal and conversational writing style as in this post.)

Fred in '08

2007-06-01T00:19:00.000-04:00

Well, now that I got back at it, I'm going to end up innundating this thing, it seems. I have a lot to say to nobody in particular.

I'd like to post briefly about how glad I am that Fred Thompson is finaly making official actions toward candidacy, in the formation of his exploratory committee. He caught my eye about a month ago with the Chris Wallace interview, and I've been waiting expectantly ever since. I guess in more recent weeks, it's been fairly obvious, what with all his friends sticking out their political necks in the "Draft Fred" movement. But it's nice to see something official.

What really won me over early was, as I said, the Chris Wallace interview. There was one thing in particular that fred did in that interview, one thing he said that caught my ear, as it were. When he was talking about some of the wedge issues, he made a very wise statement to the effect of: We're never going to agree as a whole nation on these things, and like Barry Goldwater said, that's why we have states.

A. Finally a federalist!

B. He mentioned Goldwater! Everyone talks about Reagan these days and tries to attach himself to the Reagan legacy, but a refernce to Barry Goldwater would seem to indicate a little more depth in a candidate. Not that I have something against Reagan; he and Goldwater were very similar in their philosophies, and I have a huge respect for Reagan. (I have 5 hours of his speeches on my iPod, all of which I've listened to multiple times.) But it means a little more to me when sombody references Goldwater, as he's lesser known and not nearly as widely loved. But maybe I'm reading a little much into a brief comment.

Anyhow:
Run, Fred, Run.

This will probably end up being an excercise in futility

2007-05-03T05:27:00.000-04:00

But I'm going to give it a try anyway. I just kind of want to have a place to speak my mind in a public forum, however empty it is likely to be.

I'll try to be succinct for now; in introducing myself allow me three words: "conservative", "Lutheran", and "gay".

For anything more, you will just have to read more of me.

January 20, 2008	Stop the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" Now!
On January 17, 2008, Pennsylvania State Senators started working to pass a so-called Marriage Protection Amendment that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman and prohibit civil unions and potentially more. Please take a moment to call and e-mail your Senator and give a voice to the millions of Pennsylvanians who oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution. To find your State Senator's contact information, visit http://equalitypa.org and click on the link to Locate Your Legislators. In 2006, Equality Advocates, with the help of countless LGBT Pennsylvanians and allies across the state, defeated the attempt to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution. This over-reaching amendment would have prohibited relationship recognition for all unmarried couples in the state. Please act now to help ensure fairness for all Pennsylvanians! Additionally, if you are interested in becoming more involved to help defeat this legislation, and pass pro-LGBT legislation in Pennsylvania, please e-mail Jake at jkaskey@equalitypa.org. Thank you and with your continued support we will defeat this amendment once again!