Wanna know something funny? All recent (and it's been quite a lot) civil right advancement for the Queer community in the U. S. A. has been either legislatively or judicially.

Out of that, a decent portion of it has been done by either Republican judges or, to some degree, Republican congressmen (and, of course, we cannot forget Republican lawyers: Ted Olsen among them).

After plural sexuality is accepted as normal, wonderful, and the norm (and, if you've been tracing the trends from at least the 1920s like I have, believe me it will), the Republicans will argue that their party has been defenders for gay and Trans people since at least the 2000s and that crucial moments for the legal right of Queer people were made at their hands (which, admittedly, is true).

It'll happen. Just watch. Mark me here.

 

In other news, the U. S. Bankruptcy Court recently delivered a ruling that defines my legal view entirely:

"This court cannot conclude from the evidence or the record in this case that any valid governmental interest is advanced by DOMA as applied to the Debtors. Debtors have urged that recent governmental defenses of the statute assert that DOMA also serves such interests as “preserving the status quo,” “eliminating inconsistencies and easing administrative burdens” of the government. None of these post hoc defenses of DOMA withstands heightened scrutiny. In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: the Debtors have made their case persuasively that DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled." (emphasis mine)

Because I'll just create noise and strife rather than anything useful if I post this on Facebook…

 

I don't know what I love more about this day: the number of comments about Osama through the Islamic religion or the fact that aparently the best response to the death of a man who terrorized the Middle East and ruined American families is just chants of "USA!" (my all-time favorite was a site asking to submit one word in reaction to his death and a fairly prominent one was just the word American).

 

I mean, I never thought I, of all people, would be one to play judge during a moment such as this. Normally I'd tell the person that they're bothering themselves too much with other people's thoughts or I'd play devil's advocate and say, "Well, why shouldn't we be glad?" And, while I'm not exactly sure what I was, I know I'll never forget when I saw. Just going to boxturtlebulletin.com like usual and the opening article reads, Justice Has Been Done. And I was just shocked. For all those familiar reasons. For justice, because the specter of my childhood actually turned out to be there after all the newscasts and reactions and 10 years of living with it so that I was reminded just how ingrained he was in my memories, peers, psyche, and culture and now he could finally be extinguished, and (I admit) because I knew this was perfect political fodder. Forever the PR individual, this was what Obama needed for 2012.

For all these reasons, I was taken aback. I haven't slept since (and I only got 4 hours of sleep the night before). And yet, I keep feeling disgust when I see reactions. I mean, I know people are stupid. If you fall for anything within propaganda (which is PR and advertisement, as far as I'm concerned), you're stupid. The backbone is manipulation. Clearly my expectation was that people would eat this up, see it as "a reason to believe in America again" (fuck, was I ever this much of a cynic?).

And yet all I can see are the same problems that came up, starting with Reagan, during the Bush years. "USA! USA!" I suppose it's suitable enough to run around in a U. S. flag because of this; or at least, normally, you might be able to convince me that I shouldn't think negatively of it. But all I can hear when I see it is, "America is the best country in the world." That ridiculous, egocentric, and mind-numbingly stupid tag line of American politics.

I want to just sigh, give a bittersweet rejoicement (if I must party, celebrate resentingly), because life was spilt. If I thought I was a cynic before, I thought I was more of a cynic than to make a comment such as, "Is life so cheap now?" I'm glad he's gone. To quote someone else, "Glad Obama got the bastard." But I am not happy. Happy is unmuddled, too pure. It rings of celebration as if the Bears just won the Superbowl. "Yeah, we got 'im." Death (and news about a man who murdered people) should not be celebrated like a sports event; the reaction is so fundamentally detached from the notion of sadness that I can't help but think that the majority of those people only saw the man as a symbol, not a life, not a taker of lives, not an opressor, but an opponent to which our team was losing. Because, all along, it was just about us, right? It was America's personal agenda to settle because it's the strongest country in the world. Because we have a manifest destiny that entitles us to anything we fucking want.

I want to be happy. Today is a good day.

But it makes me a little sick inside to call myself an American.

Just because I'm American, don't assume I'm Christian.

Just because you worship a particular deity, don't assume that I do too.

And, if your organization's purpose is not for the proselytizing of a particular faith, do not waste my interest and insult my identity by implicitely, or explicitely, telling me I should follow your faith or assuming that I have religious belief (and that belief is yours).

Am I the only one thoroughly (or, at least, enough) pleased with how the whole budget thing went down?

I direly feel I must preface this with the fact that I love Connor as a friend. In some ways, he reminds me of Vikki in how close I've quickly gotten with him. I think he's incredibly intelligent and means best all the time. There's much I admire and respect about him. And, admittedly, I should have brought this up during the original conversation but I've always properly assessed things after the fact, plus to bring it up now would seem attacking and out of left field after the conversation. That said, this has been infuriating me for the longest time.

There's a conservative position that differs with the libertarian argument that we should remove marriage from the legal system, revert everyone to civil unions, and have the individual people apply whatever religious (or non-religious) significance to the event that they wish.

The position says, simply, that there is a stake that the government has in preserving heterosexual marriage. I wouldn't know the actual statistics but the argument simply goes that the nuclear unit is the most stable unit that continues stability and that stability permeates through the rest of society, holding a society together.

Now, my argument has always been one that the government should not concern itself with morality. It should be concerned with establishing a system that ensures that every individual can live their life without (generally physical) restriction or harm from any other individual. What Truth and morality is should be yours to determine on your own and to your own suiting - and this is most kept possible when others cannot restrict you (and vice versa, of course). Hence, you can believe in the tenets of the KKK as much as you want so long as that does not restrict me. For a less sensationalist example, you can believe whatever you want about street racing so long as you do not engage in it (because of the possibility to harm me with death or other near-fatal injuries). This could equally be applied to medical issues - you cannot reject medical treatment if that means you could become a health hazard for others you may come in contact with, no matter what you think of medicine. And so on.

Of course, this could get more complicated. After all, doesn't stability mean less restriction from others in the long run? While true, I'm sure we could argue we'd have more stability if we just all got along and agreed but I doubt anyone would be in support of repealing our First Amendment freedoms anytime soon.

I would actually go as far as to say that you would have more stability by following my rule. But that's neither here nor there and would take more attention that I really have the span for right now.

The point of this exhibition is that Connor would say that the government is not codifying morality by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. He would say simply that that is the most stable form of relationship and it encourages procreation (which is further stabilizing in our world of overpopulation) and, thus, should be what we define marriage as. If others want to get something similar, they can get a civil union.

And, you know, I'll skip the ways that words change (including exactly what a marriage would have been seen as during the very start of our young nation, which was further verified by the Dred Scott case).

Instead, I want to focus on something he particularly pointed out in defending why people verified as impotent or not even wanting to have kids should be allowed to have marriage while homosexuals should not. His basic argument was that they still have more likelihood. His parents were said they would be unlikely to have kids and yet he was born.

So, somehow, the scarce chance of being able to procreate despite being to all known sources impotent trumps the assuredness of being able to adopt despite the inability to naturally procreate.

Now, now, understand - I am not being mocking (even though, even to me, that sentence appears as such; but I assure you I am not). Now, my argument as to why we don't need to revert to a libertarian model is that marriage actually should be suited to account for children. It shouldn't be a requirement, mind you, but marriage as it stands is a legal document that allows for benefits (and things such as the separation of property in death, etc.) that include the possibility of children that need to be accounted for that a civil union between my brother and I simply would not need to. It's a highly specialized legal agreement but a suitable one.

In short, I agree with Connor that marriage - as it is used socially and legally now - likely would account for children (though I would remark that it does not expect them).

So, basically, the argument that Connor (and others) put forth is that the remote possibility of higher likelihood for natural procreation trumps the millions of those out there who would happily take children to raise for a family even though they cannot naturally procreate. Furthermore, even if a couple are both paralyzed from the waist down and incapable of having children, they still should have the right to marry because they are a man and woman and, somehow, this is benefitial for further raising of our young in this world without a remote biblical argument.

 

Here is where I get emotional.

FUCKING BULLSHIT.

This is no argument to create stability but simply a means to dictate your own morality behind pseudo rationality.

Why?

Well, it so beautifully makes itself apparent in that impotence argument. While that impotent couple has a higher chance of having children - even if by a fraction - than a homosexual couple, that fraction shouldn't make a difference. Do you honestly think that two couples - one impotent and one gay - are going to be stopped from getting children (whether by adoption or otherwise) if they want it? You really are concerned with the nuclear family? Then you would allow the creation of millions of nuclear families that blatantly want to be given that they're fighting for the damn right to be married right now. Seeing as all studies point to no difference between children raised by gay couples versus those raised by heterosexual couples, it makes no sense to restrict the creation of so so many new nuclear families.

But, hypocrisy aside, want to know the simplest reason as to why this decision reeks of personal projection?

 

 

Because it doesn't affect him.

 

 

He's not the one who gets to be disallowed marriage. Going back to my original argument that the government should only be concerned with the non-restriction of its citizens, do we all remember why Brown v. Board of Education resulted in the case that it did? It was because, when given the choice between black and white dolls, all little girls given the choice for the court (white and black) chose white. Why? They were conditioned and taught that white was better. If you want to do that for your private school, fine - but not public institutions and certainly not government backed ones.

So, yes, it's quite easy to sit on back and say that - begging your pardon and, honestly, nothing against you - it just makes more sense for marriage to only be for heterosexuals.

Because, quite pleasantly, he doesn't have to deal with the rejection and frustration from those closest to him. He doesn't have to deal with the permeating feeling of being marked as "less than" that plenty of queer youth deal with daily.

And, while maybe the biggest concern for your gay friends is the lack of a dating culture at Williams, that's not what the case is for mine so please don't assume that's the extent of our misfortunes.

 

And, for the record, faggot still refers to gays and is still understood by nearly all (including those using is pejoratively) to mean such. I have far too many memories I'd like to forget associated with that word, thank you very much.

The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell?

I actually think I don't need any other Christmas presents, tbh.

Alright, I generally try to be tempered with politics. If it isn't gay rights related and it doesn't involve inane, regressive social policies (keep your abstinance only education out of me and my siblings' schools), I tend to be live and let live. When it comes to economic issues, I admit my own general ignorance and try to listen and learn from anyone. And, as I've said many times before, I hate how politics tears apart people who are otherwise friends and how it causes fighting. I don't want to fight and I don't want to degrade. So, I try to stay tempered.

The issue? I quite secretly (okay, maybe half secretly) love politics. It's something over the past 3 years or so that I've tried to strengthen. And so, of course, I can't possibly not form an opinion around it (even if said opinion is hesitant and vague).

Though, admittedly, while the recent election results more than infuriate me, I still offer my congrats to my fellow conservative Americans to their victory. And, were it simply a matter of economic conservatives coming out in droves to vote their opinion, I might reside myself to non-hindering and unoffensive grumbling off in the corner.

But let's be honest, that's not why the Dem majority got ousted. It was people fed up with the job they perceive Obama to be doing. And, were it often reasonable objections, I – again – might not be so angry at the moment. No matter which way I twist it, high spending will never look appealing to an economic conservative. I understand that's liberal economics (well, technically conservative, but I'm not talking liberal economics in the classical, laissez-faire sense, clearly). However, to complain that Obama is the worst president ever??? As I said some post before – I've ceased to have any intellectual respect for you (also, if you really think the Nazis were proper socialism in any sense of the term, please shoot yourself. They hated the communists, too; stop twisting history to fit your agenda. There, Godwin's law, I thought I'd get it out on the table). 

So, this is not aimed at conservatives. This is to my liberal brothers and sisters who have said that Obama has not done enough or anything at all. This is not a debate of whether conservative or liberal policy is better. This is purely from a liberal standpoint (whether it's good or bad, I have to admit – cut me and I bleed blue).

As I've said countless times on here, I didn't like Obama at first. He seemed to be another Clinton – "I'll say whatever it takes to get elected." Well, I was partially right. Obama is pure politics and, to somewhat of a degree, he knows how to work politics. The difference between him and Clinton? Obama actually works it to get the policies he promised done.

 

I keep hearing, "What has Obama done, what has he done?"

How about financial reform requiring lenders to verify applicants' credit history, income, and employment status, allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to actually vote on executive pay, and prohibiting banks from engaging in proprietary trading?

The elephant in the room (no, not that elephant) but I'll say it anyway - fucking government public health care!!! (okay, not really. But damn well closer to the ideal thing) Ever since my economics teacher in Junior year of high school was completely baffled that Canada had perfectly functioning public health care and we didn't, I've been in total support. I mean, progressives have been wanting this since Teddy. Obama did it.

What does that really mean? Extending health coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, for one. It also cuts prescription drug cost for those on medicare by 50%. I'm partially parroting, but it also means, starting in 2014, insurance giants will be banned from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and from imposing annual caps on benefit payouts. Which, of course, also means not having to wait until they near death and then using government funds to save those in the ER who are uninsured. "As of September, insurance companies can no longer arbitrarily revoke coverage for those who get sick. Children with existing illnesses can no longer be denied insurance. Younger Americans can stay on their parents' policies until they're 26. And 1 million elderly citizens are receiving checks for $250 to fill the gap in Medicare's coverage of prescription drugs." And? Accomplishing "all this while extending the solvency of Medicare by a dozen years and cutting the deficit by $143 billion over the next decade."

Yes, we didn't get the public option. In fact, Obama used that as a bargaining chip so that, when the bill was whittled down for compromise, we'd still have something to rejoice over. Harsh? Yes. But – we still got it!! Remember how hard a battle (even WITH an f-ing Democratic majority in both chambers!) it was? As a friend of mine had said, Clinton would have taken some sort of compromise rather than fighting for it.

What else?

Providing $12.2 Billion in new funding for Individuals With Disabilities Education Act?

Hell, he's also supported getting the Matthew Shepard act passed and extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees for his administration. He's also given more coverage and voice to the gay, bi, and Trans community than it's received from just about any president since Clinton (and we all remember how that turned out, don't we?). Hell, the man's appointed more openly gay officials than any other president in US history – and a transgender woman ('bout time the Trans community got more public, official attention; it's still small steps (did my pathetic hyphen and specificity not tip you off?)...but they're big and necessary steps).

Should I get started on the stimulus plan? No, I won't even. I'll just highlight how he saved the auto industry from tanking. Some say he should have let them go bankrupt – because apparently the part builders and dealerships that would undoubtedly have suffered on top of just GM and Chrysler and have resulted in the loss of more than 1 million jobs isn't all that big of deal. Maybe I'm just a bit biased, being from Illinois and all (and, therefore, in the midwest), but I'm pretty sure my parents really appreciate that. Sure, admittedly, I don't like active use in the government. I actually do believe in as much limited government as is reasonable (so, no, public health care is not stricken from my list). Basically, create the rules (read: laws) and then let it function on its own. Taking active role smacks a little too much of king (though, keep in mind, congress can always refuse; checks and balances for a reason). However, this was a crisis. No one seemed to mind Bush making special rules in light of a crisis. Of course, I'd love to hear what people would say about Obama handling the economy had he just let it run its course and let the auto industry just fail. All in all, I'll take the bailout rather than not.

Now, again, I don't want to turn this into liberal vs. conservative. However, Bush was our president for 8 years (though, in fairness to my conservative friends, I generally hesitate to ever call Bush an economic conservative, though a social one he often was (even if just to get votes: gay marriage, anyone?); spending as much as he did on Iraq is not fiscal conservatism and we all know it). So, I say this just to put things in perspective: in 2010 alone, more jobs were created in the private sector than in all 8 years under Bush. Honestly, take a look at some of the charts and the info. in the article. It's absolutely amazing what's been going on economically.

I really hesitate to throw in voluntary disclosure of White House visitors for the first time in US history as a show of transparency seeing as it was backroom deals that got us most of our progressive achievements. That's fair criticism.

I also hesitate to mention that he appointed the first Latina supreme court judge (I was raised in the suburbs – I see the world in a colorblind fashion, even if I know enough about race politics to know we cannot do that quite yet), but it really is important.

I could also add to the list eliminating subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans and protecting student borrowers.

For those Teddy fans out there, he's also increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%.

Fan of world peace (I say that only half sarcastically)? He signed a new START Treaty, a nuclear arms reduction pact with Russia.

I'm not the biggest enviromentalist nut, but one I was personally thrilled about: increased average fuel economy standards from 27.5 mpg to 35.5 mpg, starting in 2016.

Extremely passionate patriot? Now the Pentagon provides travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover Air Force Base.

Need something to go with the last point I made? He's reversed the policy of barring media coverage during the return of fallen soldiers to Dover Air Force Base.

Also repealed Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (oh, thank God, yes).

Dislike torture? He ended the Bush administration's CIA program of "enhanced interrogation methods" by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations.

Alright, fine, don't like taxes? Tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage.

And, while on taxes, could we end the complaints about them? Yes, no one likes taxes - but they pay for the services that your government provides. The reason why my public high school was so damn good was because of the taxes paid. Failed public schools? Not when you actually don't try to cut the system.

And, really, the list could go on. Seriously, way on.

Now, of course, I'm not entirely pleased. While I might be able to swallow creating a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, making the Tobacco industry susceptible to the FDA smacks a little too much of too much big government and government intervention for me (this libertarian streak in me is hardly surprising, seeing as social liberalism meets economic conservatism by virtue of a belief in a non-intrusive government; and the ability for every individual to choose their own course in any manner they choose so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else is core to my being).

And, have we gone over the offenses he's done to gay rights? His administration releasing a defense for Prop. 8. The removal of our large category of civil rights on the website early in his presidency. Promising us a gay marching band to make up for the lack of a gay speaker at his innaugeration. Not doing more to end Don't Ask Don't Tell and currently asking for a stay on the immediate cease that was declared for DADT by a federal judge? Offensive is barely the words I could muster.

However, much like I've always suspected that his whole "I believe in civil unions, though not gay marriage" thing was a political ploy (however, seeing how much everyone seems to hate him at the moment, he might as well go for broke since he's playing politics severely wrong), I suppose so is his hesitance on gay issues. He's not the open president we expected.

However, he is the progressive president we wanted. I was hesitant before. While I was, admittedly, incredibly impressed by his campaign and the image that was being crafted and will likely survive in history (as a PR person and an activist, I tend to look for these things; it also explains why I have an absolute love for memorials), I was not impressed by the man. I thought he wasn't doing anything. I can now say that I can place him in that great line with FDR (and when I say that, you know I'm meaning buisness). He doesn't have the openness that's made me an Adlai E. Stevenson man even though I never saw the man alive (then again, Adlai didn't win election twice, if we remember), but he's done more for progressives than has been done in a while.

I've complained for the past 10 years that politics is a sham and that, while my party fits just about every issue that I would ideally want covered, they don't actually stick to those issues. Obama has. For the first time I'm able to say, he's the president we've been waiting for.

Honestly, get off the man's back. He's done more in two years than many Democratic presidents have done in 8.

I've been hearing a lot lately that, apparently, a lot of people (I'm assuming this is referring to people in America) find the constitution outdated and the ideas of the founding fathers to be irrelevant or wrong (made by people who are talking about others than themselves, notably).

I was pretty sure that just about everyone agreed that the concepts of freedom of religion, speech, press, and ability to assembly are inherent human rights, that all Men are created equal, and that a government should allow for representation of the people and that a government which has ceased to serve the people in a complete and utter way should be overthrown. Also, that there should remain a set of checks and balances in the government to avoid any idea or thought to not be questioned (an example being the three separate branches of government - executive, legislative, and judicial).

For the more historically adept and who are familiar with the Federalist Papers, they believe that we are under a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic) because it allows representation for the people while enabling a voice for the minority voices in the greater society and avoids the mob mentality that would easily, and unrestrained, emerge under a Democracy.

 

 

I mean, really, even if people have utterly different understandings of what the founding fathers stood for, I thought the one thing we all agreed on was that they, for the most part (like, really the most part), had the right idea. Right?

Random comment from http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/721294#mwpphu-container (for the record, I think changing our currency is a horrid idea, even though the graphic designer in me gets giddy at the idea of new designs and the ability to give other American figures such as other past Native American figures (Sacagawea or otherwise), Susan B. Anthony, and FDR a national position of representation - but that's a discussion for another day):

"It would be such a disgrace to this country to remove the first president of the United Stated George Washington and put Obama on instead. Possibly the worse president this country has ever had and if he continues the way he is we wll be in a depression instead of recession if were not alreaddy there. He states that we are doing better, he better get out of the white house and instead of taking all those vacations start talking to the average american who is struggling to even feed their children. This is wrong."

My response?

The point of this is not some liberal vs. conservative bull. It's a simple...let's talk with our heads before our behinds.

For those who read this, you may remember that, before Obama was elected, I said that I wasn't exactly enthusiastic about him as a candidate. I forget if I said much after he was elected but his often complete lack of doing anything for liberal issues (and his complete regressive acts on gay rights) made me absolutely infuriated. In fact, outside of health care and how he's been handling the economy, I have found little for which I've necessarily wanted to praise him. He'd get more of a neutral from me rather than a positive or negative.

But to say he's the *worst* president we've ever had? Seriously?

That's like idiots who say Bush was the most conservative president we've ever had. Let's not forget, before 9/11 struck, he was going to sign a revision to NAFTA with the president of Mexico so that labor (i.e. people) could traverse across borders without restraint. Hell, the War on Terror, while arguably socially conservative, is not, by any means, economically conservative. To say otherwise is just blatantly false.

Do I think Obama should go on a dollar bill, so soon? No, I don't think he's earned it. I'm hoping that in the future he'll do so and I think he's just playing it politically safe for now (of course, if he loses reelection, that plan will have done him no good and look very poor in the histories of time). But at this current moment, no, of course I don't think he deserves to be on any currency.

But there's a far cry from that and then claiming he's running our country into the ground. Don't be so sensationalist. He's done some good, he's done some bad. But let's make sure we know what we're talking about (remember when everyone was freaking out over Michelle Obama taking a supposed "vacation"?). When people claim that he is just utterly awful, one of the worst people and presidents ever, and all other forms of hyperbole, I literally want to just flat out laugh - but I can't forget that these people actually think they're being intelligent (of course, they're criticism is usually followed by some inane remark of racism or trying to turn our country to communism). Just...stop, breath, and then think. That's all I ask.

The world does not exist in blacks and whites, people, it is many shades of gray.

 

(btw, if you want to see the different designs, go here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/15-amazing-new-designs-fo_n_719913.html#s141225. Like I said, I don't want to change our currencies, but the new ideas and implementations are pretty cool)

Every time I hear someone say thst we should get rid of the public school system, I always think they're making a splendid joke.

Then I realize they're being serious.