Posts tagged republican party

The GOP’s War on Marriage

June 29, 2009 · Filed under Culture War · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thank you, Mark Sanford, for protecting the institution of marriage for us, the American people, against those evil homogays who want to destroy it. You, like many other Republicans, have been working hard over the past decade to prevent the full enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment — especially those parts about “liberty” and “equal protection under the law”.

I think my favorite part about the Republican Party platform is that it has nothing to do with, say, the evils of cheating on one’s wife or divorce. No, apparently the only — or at least the biggest — threat to marriage is same-sex marriage. But here’s the funny thing. The divorce rate in the United States is estimated to be 40-50%. Estimates vary, but the most conservative put the infidelity rate at about 20%. So, basically: not only is who I marry none of the Republican Party’s business, not only does it have no effect on anyone else’s marriage, but even if neither of those things were true, divorce and adultery would still be the biggest threats to the institution of marriage.

But I guess none of that matters to the Crazy Crusaders for Marriage. Let’s take a look at the hypocritical douchebags who go on at length about the “protection” of marriage against “them evil homosexuals”. In only the past five years, we’ve had Mark Foley — the crusader against internet predators who was actually a predator himself; Ted Haggard — fundy-wingnut-in-chief who apparently was down with hiring male prostitutes and doing crystal meth; Robert Allen — member of the Florida Statehouse and state chairman of the McCain campaign; Larry Craig — the Republican senator from Idaho with the “wide stance”; Bill Clinton — the “Democrat” who signed the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act while doing naughty things with a cigar with his intern; Glenn Murphy — the national chairman of the Young Republicans who got another Young Republican drunk to take advantage of him; John Ensign — senator of Nevada and fellow adulterer; the list really does go on and on.

You’d think that the massive hypocrisy of the Republican Party might reflect somehow on the legitimacy of their rantings about “protecting marriage”. You know, considering that they themselves are responsible for more damage to the institution of marriage than anything else. Well, I suppose that’s a bit of an exaggeration. It’s a totally legitimate argument to say that the 24-hour Britney Spears marriage and the other shenanigans which go on in Las Vegas are far more harmful to the moral fabric of this country than anything that gay marriage could wreak.

In conclusion: if the Republican Party leadership wants to prevent the “decay” of the institution of marriage, they should do a number of things: (1) pass tougher divorce laws; (2) stop cheating on their wives; (3) come out of the closet already.

Leave a comment »

My Vote for Nader, Vindicated

June 14, 2009 · Filed under Uncategorized · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to AMERICAblog, Barack Obama’s legal team — likely on instructions from the White House — filed a motion to dismiss a legal challenge to the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act (DOMA). The full-length, fifty-four page rape of the Constitution and queer constituents can be found here. Among some of the claims the team makes are:

* Homosexuality is comparable to incest and pedophilia. Maybe if the Obama administration lawyers had a basic understanding of reality, they might comprehend that since children aren’t able to consent (unlike adults, the persons in question in same-sex marriage) the comparison to homosexuality is not a very good one. They might also understand the fact that incest has been scientifically linked to genetic problems in offspring, whereas homosexuality…not so much.

* DOMA is fine because it saves the federal government money. (Funny, I don’t recall that being a concern of the Obama administration.) Besides, aren’t our rights priceless? Or something? Maybe?

This shit goes on and on; I encourage every person who voted for Obama to read this in full and then seriously reconsider voting for him again. You can’t write this off as simply him doing “his best” for gay people in today’s political climate: this was a relatively minor proceeding (i.e. whether the case would be able to go to court or not) and Obama would have been perfectly capable of distancing himself from the actions of his legal team. Instead, he chose to aggressively seek out and destroy the rights of same-sex couples.

I was happy to see that a number of gay-rights groups, including the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, and HRC, among others, wrote a letter to the Obama administration complaining about his desertion of gay Americans. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone who even vaguely recalls the Clinton administration. In fact, the Democratic Party has a strong tradition of trying to screw gay people, even though we’re way out of their league.

To me, the recent actions of the Obama administration, combined with his announced refusal to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for a long time, are merely a vindication of my belief that an Obama White House wouldn’t mean anything for gay rights.

Barack Obama should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

Leave a comment »

Accurate Observation is Accurate

June 10, 2009 · Filed under Internet, socialism · Tagged , , , , ,

Leave a comment »

The Left Hates America…Says the Neo-Secessionist

June 10, 2009 · Filed under Basic Decency, Culture War, Insanity · Tagged , , , , , , , ,


This is exactly the kind of person that really pisses me off. In an unfortunate turn of events for my IQ, I came across his MySpace blog while doing a Google search for someone on the far-right with whom to have a rational debate. Not surprisingly, I suppose, such people don’t seem to exist: all of their blog pages seem to be exactly like this.

Does anyone else notice how the self-prolcaimed “patriot” — like many of his brethren — has the flag of the Confederacy in his background? Apparently there are more people than I’d care to believe who are stupid enough to think that one can be both a neo-secessionist and “pro-America”.

According to him and the rest of the far-right, the only way to prevent the “encroachment” of “inferior cultures” is through “intelligent and traditionalist conservative dialogue” (how many contradictions can you fit into one sentence, really?).

In his status updates, he claims that, “Obama = Lenin = Stalin = Hitler… What is that spook doing?” According to Godwin’s Law, he loses. At everything. Unfortunately for thinking people, it seems that it’s not just him who buys into this kind of whackjobbery perpetuated by right-wing pundits — like Limbaugh.

I could go in-depth about the not-at-all subtle differences between the Democratic Party (on the center-left) and Marxist-Leninism (on the far-left), and the differences and outright hatred between Communists and Nazis, but this douche is clearly a gigantic waste of time.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (1) »

Smith v. Allwright…alright?

June 10, 2009 · Filed under Basic Decency, Culture War, Insanity · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In his last post, Tim makes a number of legitimate points, but seems to have missed the last couple of paragraphs of my original post:

Admittedly, their right to freedom of association does cover their right to be total dicks. Undoubtedly, the fact that they are on private property shields them from the righteous fury of First Amendment scholars everywhere. However, that doesn’t preclude me from: 1. exposing them as total dicks; 2. urgings others to do so; and, most importantly, 3. calling for their tax-exempt status to be rescinded.

I’d take issue with anyone who said otherwise (imagine what would happen if we had to let the Klan into shabbos services!). I suppose this would be a more serious matter if “Liberty” “University” faced any other destiny than to embarrass itself into irrelevancy and oblivion.

However, since I think it’s fun to play with ideas (even those with which I disagree), let’s explore some forum analysis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Yes We Can; But So Could They

November 6, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This about summarizes how I feel about the whole gay thing.

This about summarizes how I, as a religious person, feel about the whole gay thing. Click the image for a larger version.

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

Last night, when I found out Barack Obama had won, I was ecstatic. I ran out of my dorm with my friends and we, and probably 200 other Columbia students, marched up to Harlem to watch the last few minutes of Obama’s speech.

But when I got back to my computer and television, I was horribly disappointed. The ban on gay marriage in Florida had passed, the ban on gay marriage in Arizona had passed, the ban on gay marriage in California had passed, and the ban on gay adoption in Arkansas had passed. Al Franken looked like he was going to lose to Norm Coleman, and convicted felon Ted Stevens was ahead by three points in Alaska (my friend has vowed to start donating to the Alaskan Independence Party so that incubator of corrupt and incompetant politicians will leave us alone and take their two corrupt Republican senators with them).

I know I should be happy. My friends keep telling me that Barack Obama will be good for gay people. And “at least it’s not McCain”. And yet, for the past eight years — for nearly half of my lifetime — my countrymen have been voting to stop me from having equal rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (1) »

Beyond the Issues

October 23, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

Over this past weekend, Sarah Palin released the following statement:

I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage

For those of you who weren’t able to make out quite what she was trying to say — I couldn’t, at first — she is declaring her support for a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Needless to say, I disagree with her on a fundamental level for a variety of reasons — every amendment has been thus far designed to expand freedoms, not restrict them; I believe that marriage is a fundamental human and Constitutional right (see the 9th and 14th amendments); and, quite frankly, there’s really no non-religious argument against same-sex marriage (and even the religious argument is debatable). But, you know, I’m friends with all sorts of people, some of whom don’t believe in same-sex marriage and we get along just fine as long as we don’t talk about politics. But the one thing that I can’t accept is blatant hypocrisy. Sort of like the hypocrisy that Sarah Palin demonstrated in the following statement:

I’m not going to be out there judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment telling what they can and can’t do, should and should not do, but I certainly can express my own opinion here and take actions that I believe would be best for traditional marriage and that’s casting my votes and speaking up for traditional marriage that, that instrument that it’s the foundation of our society is that strong family and that’s based on that traditional definition of marriage, so I do support that.

Well, we’re all educated people here. Can anyone else tell me what’s wrong with this? There are a lot of things wrong with it, such as what she did to the English language, which, honestly, ought to be criminalized, but that’s not quite what I’m going for. My point was that, first, by supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage she is by definition “judging individuals, sitting in a seat of judgment”. In fact, her statement about “strong families” directly implies that same-sex couples cannot foster strong families (which, incidentally, they can. Oops.) — this is, again, a moral judgment. Secondly, again, by definition of supporting an amendment, she is “telling [individuals] what they can and can’t do, should and should not do”.

The prospect of giving Sarah Palin any more power or influence than she already has is, quite frankly, terrifying. In fact, I find it profoundly disturbing that any educated person who has been exposed to her statements could vote for John McCain, who has a one in three chance of dying in office.

Beyond any policy differences I might have with John McCain and Sarah Palin (and believe me, there are very many) the sheer number of personality flaws which make both of them unfit to lead is staggering.

John McCain’s well-documented and well known anger issues, his mysogyny (he tells unfunny rape jokes involving gorillas and called his wife both “a trollop” and “a cunt” in front of a group of reporters), his old age and poor health (the fact that he couldn’t remember that Iraq shares a border with Iran, not Afghanistan, and that he couldn’t remember the number of houses he has demonstrates a failure of memory, not necessarily a disconnect from Joe the Plumber), and his evidently poor judgment (he picked Sarah Palin) all combine into a terrifying prospect of a McCain presidency.

And, if, for some reason, John McCain were to die in office and Sarah Palin were to take charge, I would be even more horrified. Sarah Palin’s ignorance of American and legal history (she could only name one Supreme Court case: Roe v. Wade), her inability to form a coherent sentence (see above, or any interview with Couric), her belief that some parts of this country are more “pro-America” than others, and her ethical questionability (she attempted to ban books at the Wasilla library, fired the police chief for personal reasons, and charged victims for rape kits) all paint a very, very dim prospect for America under a Palin administration.

Comments (1) »

Reality’s Liberal Bias

October 22, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

In her latest editorial, Lauren Salz — executive director of the CU Republicans (you know, those guys who taunted the hunger strikers with doughnuts and had the affirmative action bake sale?) — levels a common complaint among conservatives: liberal bias.

Everything, it seems, has a liberal bias in their eyes. And I mean everything: universities, newspapers, television, popular culture. Even wikipedia.

That’s right folks, conservatives think that wikipedia has a liberal bias. So, of course, they did what every self-respecting-intelligent-homeschooled-teenager would do. They started an alternative wiki, called Conservapedia. There, they can contest Wikipedia’s liberal lies about the origins of kangaroos which didn’t evolve but rather they are:

the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark prior to the Great Flood.

The article then goes on to state, very matter-of-factly, that

After the Flood, these kangaroos, bred from the Ark passengers, migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land with lower sea levels during the post-flood ice age, or before the super-continent of Pangea broke apart.

Of course, we wouldn’t want anyone getting any silly ideas into their heads, so thankfully they added this little tidbit.

The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

This, of course, makes so much more sense.

Anyway, I’ve gone off on a tangent, so allow me to return to my original point. While conservatives often complain about the bias of professors, or wikipedia, or the media, their analysis often fails to take into account the possible reasons behind that bias.

For example, as one columnist pointed out last year, there may be a reason that not only many Columbia professors are liberal, but that, in addition, most professors in general are. That reason is that they come from the highly educated, a demographic that is, itself, very liberal.

So, then, why are the highly educated overwhelmingly liberal? They are overwhelmingly liberal because, maybe, liberal policies are better policies. Because they understand that doing things like opposing gay marriage (or, indeed, a wide variety of other rights as well, as most of the Republican Party does), wanting a blanket ban on abortion, proposing to entirely deregulate the economy (as Reagan wanted to and largely did), and eliminating social security nets are all, primarily, very bad ideas, and, secondarily, douchey.

Secondly, Lauren fails to take into account a very, very important concept: devil’s advocate. The fact that our faculty is overwhelmingly liberal does not necessitate that they will either: 1) impose their beliefs on their students or give an unfair advantage to those beliefs; or 2) fail to give their students a proper education by denying them what I am sure is are very logical arguments in favor of all sorts of wonderful conservative things, like denying me my fundamental human rights or invading countries with a military force larger than their population.

Lastly, if you detect a “liberal bias” in, oh, I don’t know, a biology classroom about something like, I don’t know, evolution, maybe it’s time to reconsider your position that God created everything in seven days, magically, out of nothing, armed though you may be with the confidence that Jesus told you so.

This brings me to my post-script: it is important to examine where the most liberal members of the faculty are located, and then to understand why they are liberal. According to the Washington Post article I posted earlier:

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

So, we see that those professors who specialize in the fields most related to politics — social sciences — are among the most liberal, while those who specialize in the fields least realted to politics — engineering and business — are the among the least liberal.

Leave a comment »

The Real America

October 22, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ever since Sarah Palin’s comments about the “real America” and the “pro-America” parts of America, I started paying more attention to these sorts of utterings from the GOP. I had been hoping that it would be limited to Sarah Palin, or perhaps even a few on the fringes of the party, but, of course, I was disappointed.

On Monday I went to see the Daily Show live. That show was glorious, both because it was hilarious and because it was filled with with righteous fury about Palin’s recent comments. What really surprised me, however, was a comment from one of McCain’s staff members which referred to the “real Virginia”, as opposed to the fake, Democratic, part of Virginia.

Then one of my friends pointed me towards an apology that had to be made by a North Carolina Republican congressman. At a McCain rally he said to the crowd:

…liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God.

Of course, this is even more offensive than the remarks made by Sarah Palin. I suppose he was at least more upfront about what he meant, however. In his apology remarks he said this:

there is no doubt that it came out completely the wrong way.

Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter how it “came out”. What matters is the sentiment behind the words, and his sentiments were this:

1. Liberals are not “real Americans”

2. Liberals do not believe in God

3. Liberals do not work or accomplish things

4. Liberals hate people who believe in God

I don’t really consider myself a liberal, but I have no doubt that I fit into his ignorant definition of one, and, quite frankly, none of these implied or explicit statements apply to me. I believe in God and attend religious services weekly, I work hard and have accomplished any number of things of meaning to myself and those around men, I have a great apprecation for people who believe in God (as well as for those who don’t believe in God), and I am a real American.

The fact that this theme has crept up in the past few days is, quite frankly, terrifying.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I have a midterm tomorrow/later today for which I haven’t finished studying quite yet.

Comments (1) »

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

September 15, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , , ,

fuck reagan. seriously.

fuck reagan. seriously.

HEY GUYS.

Remember that time that Ronald Reagan FUCKING PRIVATIZED EVERYTHING and DEREGULATED THE SHIT OUT OF THE ECONOMY and everyone had an orgasm? Yeah, I sure am glad that America voted for him twice. He sure was an amazing president, despite the fact that he DESTROYED THE ECONOMY AT THE TIME. I sure am glad we have the GOP to combat irresponsible government spending! OH, OH WAIT. NEVERMIND.

Sorry, I’m getting distracted by how much I hate Ronald Reagan. It probably doesn’t help that everyone and their cousin loves the fuck out of him. Also, how does everyone love both Ronald Reagan and FDR? Like, how does that even work? The two are polar fucking opposites. The one destroyed the economy, the other one was all over saving it like a bum on a ham sandwich; the one was like HAY LETS USE AN INVADING FORCE LARGER THAN THE COUNTRY WE’RE INVADING FOR GLORIOUS VICTORY, the other one actually led the country in a real war; the one was a fucking idiot who never spoke to his treasury secretary once in eight years, the other one actually discussed policy ideas with smart people and listened to people other than just his wife. I could go on and on. But to sum it up in terms most people can understand: FDR rules, Reagan drools.

ANYWAY, I just wanted to take this time to remind us how we’re ALL FUCKED. Or, you know, maybe we’re just a “nation of whiners“. Thank you, John McCain. It’s a good thing you’re in touch with the average American and the “fundamentals of our economy are strong”. I mean, it’s not like he only didn’t know the price of milk (apparently, Giuliani didn’t know it, but the original reference was to George H. W. Bush). Quite frankly, that’s forgivable. Fuck, I don’t even know the price of milk. He COULDN’T REMEMBER HOW MANY HOUSES HE OWNS. Okay, first of all, that’s the sign of, oh, I don’t know–SOMETHING BAD.

“Oh, hm, I WONDER WHERE I PUT THOSE NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES. You know, I CAN JUST NEVER FIND ANYTHING THESE DAYS.”

Um, what was I talking about again?

Oh right. ANYWAY, I just think that we can all get together and thank the Republican Party for privatizing the living shit out of our economy so that it can go down the tubes while the difference between the richest and the poorest gets even bigger and bigger. This is fucking awesome.

Don’t believe me? Ask your history teacher.

Leave a comment »