One small step for civil rights

So California courts decided to give gay marriage an okay. Which isn't terribly surprising. I mean, we've been here before in California. Repeatedly.

Interestingly enough, the legislature in the state of California recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage. The governator decided to veto it; in spite of his campaign promise never to exercise such a veto.

So, as I understand it, the general rule of thumb in the states is as follows:

-the actions of the judicial branch are invalid, since they are not the "will of the people", however, in California, the actions of the courts are preferrable to the legislature, so the opposite rule applies.

-the actions of the representative legislative branch is invalid, as it doesn't represent the "will of the people", except in Massachusetts, where the judicial branch is the invalid actionary member and the legislature acting to overturn their constitutionally-based decision is the proper course of action.

-the actions of the executive branch, acting against the will of the courts and the legislature is a heinous abuse of power, if it is in San Francisco or New York and the action being taken is to bestow rights upon citizens. If it is the governator of California, acting against his own campaign promises and against the elected representatives of the people, then that's an okay thing.

-In other words, it would seem that the good ol' GOP intends to implement a full chaosocracy where the majority has absolute power over the minority and can abuse them and deny them any and all rights via the voting booth, thus overturning the constitutional, representative government which has served us up until today, using the "might makes right and makes your rights invalid" theory of government. The mob mentality right now makes this the most efficient path to achieve their desired results, much as has been done in many past governments, with limited, yet hideously disasterous results.

Summary: Tearing apart the very basis of government in this country and hurtling towards ruin is okay, as long as, in the process, they make sure them faggots don't get adequate health care, family, and estate options, since that'd be disastrous.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Since when is being "elite" a bad thing?

Barack Hussein Obama, the current front-runner for the democratic nomination has been labeled left and right as an "elite."

What bothers me about this is they throw around that label as if it were a bad thing.

Seriously: when did it happen that being "elite" was something to draw condescension? There was once a time when being "elite" drew respect and admiration. I'm working my ass off for 60-80 hours a week in the hopes of someday becoming an "elite scientist." It's my goal to be the absolute best at what I do. I'll realistically never reach that goal, but shouldn't I shoot for it?

Why shouldn't we demand the same of our elected officials? Why should we not demand the best from the people who will lead our country for the next four to eight years? Shouldn't the person we elect as president represent the absolute best from among us. In other words, what the hell do you want from a president, if not the "elite?"

Scratch that, I don't want an "elite" president. I want one who's embarrassingly superior to me in every conceivable way. I want a repeatedly self-made trillionaire who, in his spare time after bringing about world peace, can solve the climate crisis, the oil crisis, develop stem cell therapy, teach grades K-12 in all subjects, and still find time to walk the dog every day.

We've already tried the president that you'd want to hang out and have a beer with. That didn't work too well for us. In fact, I think it's probably fair to say that it worked absurdly badly for us. Insanely badly, in fact. Our economy is circling the drain; we're stuck in an endless, pointless and quite likely illegal war; the rest of the world hates us; we're falling behind China in every conceivable manner; and scientific literacy among high school students is right now barely above Turkey.

Seriously. We could use an elite president right now.

The "I" Word.

Well, it finally happened this week. CNN used the "I" word.

I have to admit that I (reluctantly) accepted the arguments against impeachment of the moronic monkey-boy currently inhabiting the Oval Office. Namely, that impeaching Bush would make the Democrats seem petty and partisan; or that it would make impeachment seem like a mere political tool, rather than the rarely-used check on the President's authority it's supposed to be, if two presidents in a row got impeached; and, of course, the single strongest argument against impeachment: Dick Cheney.

That said, it should be mentioned that the people who first voiced those arguments at me were the same people who felt that impeaching Clinton for an extramarital blowjob was clearly what a sober reading of the constitution demanded. Call me crazy, but somehow I don't see that someone who thinks sex is a constitutional crisis, but thinks we should look the other way when the president defrauds the entire country into an illegal war, and subverting the actual constitution can really be described as a dispassionate observer of presidential offenses.

The litmus test for impeachment is supposed to hang on one single question: has the person holding the office violated his or her oath of office? The presidential oath of office states:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Think about that for a second. Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. How, exactly does an extramarital blowjob constitute a failure to preserve, protect, or defend the constitution of the United States? On the other hand, it is clear to me that subverting the writ of habeas corpus, on its own, constitutes a failure to protect the constitution, and everything it stands for. If that were his only offense, which it isn't, that would be enough for me to say "impeach the bastard."

I mentioned earlier that I was on board with some of the arguments against impeachment. It's time I revised that position. Frankly, if the things Bush has done fail to qualify as impeachable, what does? Well, if we go by historical precedent: blowjobs, B & E, and botching reconstruction (although technically, Nixon wasn't impeached for that B & E, it's clear that he would have been, had he not resigned).

Basically, we have a destructive buffoon of a president who's talking about going into Iran and Syria, not to mention the 20,000 troops he wants to send into Iraq. He's basically thumbing his nose at Congress and saying: "yeah? Well, how are you gonna stop me?"

Congress decides where the funding goes. They approve the budget. They can, and should, cut off funding for pretty much anything Bush decides he wants to do. This will have political consequences, but as an American citizen, I'm beyond the point of caring. It's the right thing to do, and they should do it. But frankly, I'm not sure that the consequences will be as bad as everyone fears they will be. This troop surge is roughly as popular as a guy with a rash at a nudist colony; and let's be honest, the war itself isn't doing much better. But even if it weren't, cutting funding to this war is still the right thing to do.

The other way is impeachment. If Bush has decided that he's the King, or the Decider, or whatever; and that he can expand this war the country wants out of even if Congress says "no," we have exactly one way to stop him: to knock him the hell out of office. Yes, it's extreme; yes, we'll be stuck with Cheney as our next president, but it's still the right thing to do.

That'll teach me to make my Email address available on my blog...

So I got a very angry email from some anonymous asshat, who had excised a few key passages from a few entries in this blog (often severely out of context), had decided that I was a radical left-winger, based upon what I can only assume was a severely twisted view of what constitutes "radical left," and proclaimed proudly that I simply "[didn't] get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans."

I get a lot of email from asshats, usually in the form of spam, but this one deserved a response, I felt. Unfortunately, attempts to respond to said email were bounced back to me; so I can only hope that said asshat is reading this now.

In truth, the asshat in question isn't the first to claim that I "don't get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans," not by a long shot. I've had members of my own family tell me that I "don't get that there are people who want to kill Americans." As if I'm running around with my fingers in my ears singing "lalala, nobody wants to kill us." As if, were the amazing revelation that people out there want to kill Americans were to penetrate my thick skull, I'd suddenly love Bush, support the war in Iraq, and hate Muslims.

Why? Because apparently not supporting the war in Iraq means that I somehow don't get it. Somehow, because I think that attacking a country that presented no threat whatsoever to us is stupid, I'm missing out on this mysterious truth that "there are people who want to kill Americans."

Let's pretend that's true, for the sake of argument. Let's assume that if I don't support the war in Iraq, then I simply "don't get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans." One would have to therefore accept that because a certain group of a certain race and religion want to kill Americans, that the logical response is to go after a country that had absolutely nothing to do with any attack on American soil, ever; but happens to have people living in it who have a similar race, and sorta-similar religious beliefs.

I'm hoping that the aforementioned asshat realizes just how absurd that position is.

Now, I can hear said asshat's whiny voice now saying "well, what do you think we should do?" For the record, I can't say for sure whether the asshat has a whiny voice or not, but the voice my brain made up for him was sure whiny when I was reading the email. I have a bunch of answers for that question. We could've actually finished the job in Afghanistan, for starters. I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, for the record. I was all for going in there and making sure that it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism. And we could've done it, too. If, after the Taliban had been overthrown, we'd dedicated resources to rebuilding that country, getting it back onto its feet, making it a reasonable contributor to the world stage, we may well have actually gained an ally in the middle east. At the very least, we'd have one less country populated by "people who want to kill Americans." We could've actually caught Bin Laden, rather than abandoning the search for him for no logical reason whatsoever. We could've spent money that we would instead waste in Iraq, trying to rebuild a country which still desperately needs rebuilding.

I could think of a dozen things, and it's mostly things that would cost a miniscule fraction in both dollars and lives than this unending, pointless, and very likely illegal war in Iraq cost us. It's not sexy. It's not a grand gesture like blowing the crap out of a country which does not present; and could not, in the foseeable future, have presented; any reasonable threat to the United States of America, but at least it would make some degree of sense.

While we're on that subject, let's talk about the fact that we're getting our asses kicked in Iraq. Who's kicking our asses? Yes, admittedly, they're "people who want to kill Americans." But really, can we hold that against them? They were, quite literally, minding their own business when we decided that we, for some reason, didn't like them and ploughed onto their soil to depose a dictator we put in power in the first place. Frankly, I'd be a little pissed at Americans myself if it were me. It's like having someone kick in the door of your house, rip up your furniture, light a fire in the middle of your living room, take a shit on your couch; then watch them complain indignantly when you try to kick them out. So, yes, there are people in Iraq who want to kill Americans, because we made them hate us. To presume that the people who are mopping the floor with us in Iraq had any thing to do with the guys who blew up the World Trade Center is absurd in the highest degree. We're not preventing another 9/11 in any way, form or fashion by fighting the insurgency there. In fact, I would go so far as to say that by annoying an entire new generation of terrorist recruits, we're guaranteeing another one. In his six years in office, Bush has done more to ensure that at some time, we will have another 9/11 than any other president before him. But I guess he figures that's okay. He'll probably be out of office by the time that rolls around anyway.

So yes, I disagree with the majority of this administration's policies. I disagree with the Patriot Act, I disagree with the Military commissions act. I disagreed with Congress when they suddenly decided that the thing that most needed doing was the creation of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. I disagreed with congress when it decided that the greatest threat to American society was Gay Marriage. I disagreed with Bush when he decided that stem cell research was a dire enough threat to require him to exercise his first ever veto. Bush keeps claiming that those people who "want to kill Americans" hate us for our freedom; and he's doing his damnedest to ensure that pretty soon, that won't be a problem.

So, a couple of final notes to the anonymous asshat.

1. If you're so pretentious to put an "MA" after what I can only assume is a pseudonym, you should realize that "it's" is only spelled with an apostrophe when it's a contraction of "it is." "It's" is not the possessive of anything. On an unrelated note, "catastrophic" has no "f"s in it; if you're going to compare Bush to the mythical character Gilgamesh, you really should know a little more about it: it's not as much of a compliment as you seem to think it is.

2. You really shouldn't put an "MA" after what I can only assume is a pseudonym if all your ideas are stupid.

3. Yes, I do get that there are people out there who want to kill Americans. Do you?

Best. Week. Ever.

The democrats took back congress, which means that for the first time in his presidency, Bush might actually have to listen to the other side of the aisle rather than having them just rubber stamp the bills he sends his way. It also means that for the first time in six years, I'm actually cautiously optimistic about this country's political future.

Rummy's gone, and although his replacement is an ol' buddy of Bush's, he's also worked under several administrations that aren't Bush, and with a little luck, and a nod from the gods, I'm actually cautiously optimistic that we'll actually have an exit strategy some time in the near future.

A creationist whackjob in florida just got nailed for tax evasion, which just goes to show that although creationist whackjobs can manipulate school boards to force their particular flavor of christianity into the class room, they aren't completely above the law.

Stem cell initiatives have passed in one state, a ban on gay marriage was defeated in another, and a complete ban of abortion was defeated in a third, giving me reason to be cautiously optimistic that the US as a whole hasn't slid hopelessly far to the extreme right.

Oh, and I passed my PhD. thesis defense.

America needs Edward R. Murrow

On the 19th of October, a small minority of the American people may have seen something which has been absent from the newscasts for far too long. A man speaking with true passion to the masses.

In the '50s, a relatively minor newscaster stood up to announce that the country he loved dearly was destroying itself from within. He stood to speak with passion about the systematic persecution of people who had, at the time, committed no illegal action. He stood to speak in defense of those who were permitted none. He stood to speak on behalf of those who had no voice.

America needs that passion again. It needs people who are willing to say that something's wrong with the country. It needs people who can speak passionately about the country that they love, and what they love about it.

It needs dreamers. It needs idealists. It needs people who see the world through rose-colored glasses. It needs people who aren't willing to compromise on things like compassion, liberty and equality.

Recently, the US government passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In particular, the writ of Habeas Corpus is denied to non-US citizens.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the term Habeas Corpus is the right of every person to stand in court and get an answer to one very simple question: "Hey, why am I in prison?" While technically this is only denied to non-US citizens, there's a rather disturbing loophole: if the American Government decides you are not a US citizen, with Habeas Corpus no longer applying; you have no way to challenge the claim.

In short, democracy is dead in America. As Olbermann puts it in his special commentary, the president has been given a blank check. He has the power to arbitrarily place someone in jail, hold them without trial, and convict them with evidence they are not allowed to see.

Edward R. Murrow once said: "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." While I doubt he knew at the time how prophetic his words would be, we need to remember his words now; for they are as true now as they were during the red scare.

America needs that passion again. It needs people who still believe in the idealism of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It needs dreamers who dare to believe in the great society that America once was; and who believe that it can be so again. We need idealists, not pragmatists. We need people who see what principles the country was founded upon, and seek them again.

We need Edward R. Murrow; but until then, Keith Olbermann will do.

I have included an embedded video of Olbermann's speech, if you have about ten minutes to watch it; it is truly worth seeing.

Collateral Damage

It's official: the American people elected a total asshat into the whitehouse in 2004.

Good ol' Dub-ya has, after six years of presidency, exercised his first-ever veto of a bill passed through congress.

And what, you may ask, was such a horrendous threat to the world that our illustrious president decided to block a bill that had already received congressional assent? What was so terrible that Dub-ya felt that for the first time in his entire presidency, he had to stop it from happening? What could possibly make Bush exercise the Presidential veto that the past three presidents never once used in their entire times in office?

Stem cell research.

Yes, our great and illustrious president decided that Stem Cell research was such a horrid threat that he'd veto a bill which would have allowed it.

Yep, Bush thinks that life is so sacred that he's blocking research performed on invisible clumps of cells; which he apparently thinks is the equivalent of walking up to someone and shooting them in the head.

'Course, when it's dropping bombs on Iraqi civilians, it's "collateral damage."

And, lest we forget, while Governor of Texas, Bush shattered all records across the country for most death row inmates executed while under his charge. But that's "justice."

As of this writing, there are approximately 400,000 embryos on ice in the United States of America. Until this bill was vetoed, those embryos could have been used to find cures for Parkinsons, Diabetes, paraplegia, MS, ALS, severe brain damage... Stem cells could mean an end to organ shortages. Now that this bill has been vetoed, those embryos can be either used for InVitro Fertilization, or destroyed. This bill would have allowed those slated for destruction to be used for research. Apparently, according to the Pro-Life brigade in the US, this would be the equivalent of mass murder.

Now, for some reason that is somewhat beyond my capacity to grasp, Bush decided to announce his vetoing of this bill while surrounded by "Snowflake Babies," their term, for the record, not mine. These babies were formed from embryos which were frozen; exactly the type of embryos that would have been used for this research. The irony is that none of these babies would exist if it weren't, literally, for decades worth of research performed on human embryonic cells; but Bush is going to studiously ignore that one, methinks.

Oh, and let's not forget, IVF requires implantation of several blastocysts in the hope that just one of them will grow into a full fledged human being.

All the others, I guess they're just "collateral damage."

Flag Desecration

So, my other country came within a hair's bredth of a constitutional ban of flag burning.

The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.

Coincidence? Um, no.

But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.

Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.

Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.

In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.

Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?

Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.

In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.

"Liberal" Science

So, I've been unwilling to jump on the Anne Coulter Hate-a-thon, largely because I figure that's exactly what the woman wants. But I was bought a copy of her latest book "Godless." Believe me, I wouldn't buy one of her books if I had a choice in the matter; but since someone had been nice enough to buy it for me, I figure it would be just impolite not to read it.

Unlike just about everybody else, I'm going to say absolutely nothing about her comments on the 9/11 widows. She's perfectly entitled to defame or abuse the memory of anybody she sees fit. That's the definition of freedom of speech. Likewise, I'm perfectly in my rights to point out that she's full of crap.

I'd like to take a moment to talk about Coulter's stance on so-called "liberal science."

There are basically two different areas that Coulter uses as evidence that liberals hate science: stem-cell research, and the theory of evolution.

Let's start with the former. Ms. Coulter claims that because liberals support stem-cell research, they obviously hate science.

First and foremost, it should be noted that a number of political conservatives also support stem-cell research. Guvernator Aaaaah-Nuld, for one; Nancy Reagan, for another.

Coulter goes on to write that "[l]iberals just want to kill humans."

Um, what?

The potential for stem-cell research to save lives is, in a word, enormous. The number of diseases which could be cured, the number of injuries which could be repaired, and the number of lives which could be saved by this one branch of scientific research is potentially numbered in the billions.

And I'm not overestimating the potential benefits of this technology in the least. If anything, I'm vastly underestimating its potential.

And yet, apparently, liberals hate science and want to kill humans.

If you can explain the logic behind that one, you're smarter than I am.

Coulter's thesis statement on evolution seems pretty damning, if you happen to be completely and utterly ignorant of the facts: "[l]iberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientists laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." Note her subtle implication that one must necessarily be a libral (and in the US, there can be no greater insult) to accept the theory of evolution.

It should first be noted that a number of political conservatives subscribe to the theory of evolution; ergo, it cannot, by any definition of the term, be described as a "liberal creation myth." It's not liberal, it's not about creation, and it's not a myth.

Now, as for her claim that Evolution is a "make-believe story," with "no proof," there's really only one possible way to describe that claim: a lie. Either that, or she's completely ignorant of the, literally, thousands of fossil finds which support the theory of evolution. She's also completely ignorant of the thousands of lab experiments which have been performed which clearly support evolution.

In other words: she's either lying or stupid. There are really no other options; and I don't think that she's stupid. She writes too skillfully to be a complete moron.

I'd also like to talk about her claim that "liberals think evolution disproves God." There's really only one way to describe this claim, too: a lie. The late Pope John Paul II spoke in favor of the theory of evolution, offering an official papal concession that the theory is more than a wild and wacky idea, but actually a fact. As much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun, or that masses generate a gravitational pull.

Call me crazy, but I think it's a reasonably safe bet that Pope John Paul II believed in God. If he didn't, I think he probably would have sought out a different carreer. I also think it's fair to say that it's a bit of a stretch to claim that Pope John Paul II was a liberal by any conventionally-accepted definition of the term.

On the Dover, Pennsylvania trial, she goes on to say: "They didn't win on science, persuasion, or the evidence. They won the way liberals always win: by finding a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter."

I know I'm having to say this a lot, but there's really no other way to describe this claim than to say that it is a lie.

Let's start with her claims on the court itself: Judge John Jones III, the judge presiding over the case, is a Bush Appointee, chosen specifically for his very conservative credentials. In fact, at the outset, the former members of the school board thought they had a slam-dunk case specifically for that reason. He is demonstratably not a judge with proclivities towards judicial activism, and upon reading his 139-page judgement, it is equally self-evident that his judgement is not a case of judicial activism. In fact, for him to have ruled differently than he did would have required a level of judicial activism which would have made a mockery of the American judicial system.

Actually, if one actually takes the time to read Judge Jones' judgment, it is very clear that he went to enormous lengths to understand the science which supports the theory of evolution, and to understand the history of the so called "Intelligent Design" theory. It's extremely difficult for me to imagine a judgment which is more diametrically opposed to any rational human being's definition of "Judicial Activism." Then again, though, the judgement is 139 pages long. Maybe Coulter just couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing. Or any of it for that matter.

No, the "liberals" didn't win because they had a court to hand them everything they want on a silver platter, they won because they had science, persuasion, and evidence on their side. Of course, it certainly didn't hurt that the righteous members of the school board lied repeatedly during the trial (also stated in the 139-page judgment; had Ms. Coulter read it). Details that Ms. Coulter studiously ignores. Instead, she lies about it and hopes nobody noticed. It's not like she couldn't access the trial transcripts or the judgement. I've offered a link to the judgement, and the trial transcripts are public record. A 30-second google search of "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board" produced them. And if I'm smart enough to find them, it stands to reason that Coulter is.

Now, Ms. Coulter has every right to make all of these claims; as ignorant, misinformed, dishonest and ridiculous as they are. Lying, to the best of my knowledge, is not in itself against the law, except in specific instances: libel, slander, perjury; to name a few, however writing and publishing a book which tells lies is not in itself illegal. Morally reprehensible, to be sure, but not illegal.

Ms. Coulter is certainly skilled in rhetoric, and I wouldn't like to face her in a debate, even if I had the facts on my side (which, in the instances described above, I would); and apart from being rather heavy on the dishonesty, her book is quite well-written. It is clearly written by an intelligent woman, which is why I am very specific about my claims that she is being deliberately dishonest. I don't believe she's actually dumb enough to be that ignorant.

But you never know, I could be wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But in this particular instance, I don't think I am.

On Constitutional Amendments

I'm trying hard to decide whether these people are completely devoid of any capacity for logical thought, or simply stupid. Heck, the idea of actually having facts to back up their blind assertions is apparently completely foreign to them.

Take, for example, this couple described in this article. They spend their vacation money to go to DC to hold up signs that say: Stop Same Sex Marriage: It Endorses Masturbation.

I think I speak for the rest of America when I say: WHAT!? Frankly, I seriously doubt any Amercan who has ever masturbated (which, I imagine, is pretty much all of 'em who ever passed the age of 12), has ever said "damn, if only gay Marriage were legal, I could do this without feeling guilty."

If you follow what the far-right has been saying in the US, gay marriage is somehow responsible for everything from drug abuse to decline in air quality.

Now, granted, it's a little hard to study this, since exactly one state in the US has been forward-thinking enough to legalize Gay marriage we don't have much in the way of sample size, but let's see what's happening in that hellhole they call Massachusetts, why don't we? Massachusetts is a pathetic dead-last in illiteracy, a pitiful 48th in per-capita poverty, and an abysmal 49th in the number of divorces. Those poor sods in Massachusetts, how can they live in such horrid conditions?

The reason I bring this up is that our esteemed president has again tried, and failed miserably, to push a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage through congress. It fell massively short of the required 2/3 majority to create a constitutional amendment. No surprise there. Frankly, I wasn't the least bit worried that the bill might pass. But frankly, the idea that the Constitution of the United States; a document I happen to take very seriously, a document which has been perverted more by the Bush Administration than just about any other; is being used as a blatant political ploy frankly turned my stomach.

Bush desperately needs to learn that the constitution is not just a piece of paper. It's not a set of loose guidelines that you can simply ignore whenever you feel like it. And it's certainly not a document meant to be used to score political points. The constitution is the document that makes America America. It's the collection of the founding principles of the nation. It's not a symbol to be perverted whenever the current party in power is lagging in the polls.

The constitution, to those who have actually read it, is a piece of history which presents everything that the US of A is supposed to represent. Freedom from tyrrany of all kinds, freedom to express onesself in whatever manner they choose, regardless of how offensive some may find it.

Freedom to be onesself, provided that they do no harm to anyone else.

By adding an amendment to the constitution which specifically limits one freedom to one group of people, the American government not only would have perverted the very freedom that the constitution enshrines and symbolizes, but they would have sent the message to the American people that they can no longer be assured of the protection the constitution guarantees. If they can deny marriage to one group of people constitutionally, then logically they can deny freedom of speech, or religion, or belief, or any of the rights assured by the constitution. A second set of McCarthy trials could, in principle, be constitutionally assured. In short, the government would be telling the American people that they could no longer look to the one document designed to protect them from the government.

The American government is founded on a very simple principle: the Constitution doesn't trust them. The power doesn't lie in the government, it lies in the document on which that government is founded. And that document places the power in the people's hands. The people have the power to choose one government over another, to hold opinions which are in the minority, to stand at center stage proclaiming at the top of their lungs what others would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of theirs. The American government was founded on the principle that it is far, far better to have a man wrap himself in the constitution so that he can burn the flag, than one who wraps himself in the flag so that he can burn the constitution.

There is a word for all of this: freedom. And we cannot promote freedom abroad by demolishing it at home.

The innocent have nothing to hide.

A friend of mine, and long-time republican voter recently said in response to the recent wiretapping scandal in the US: "why are people really upset about this whole wiretapping thing? I mean, if they're innocent, they have nothing to hide."

The most terrifying thing about this is that he actually thought that this was a reasonable argument.

But let's address that for a second. If the innocent really have nothing to hide, then maybe it's time for the Bush administration to release their information on Dick Chaney's Energy task force, as well as the documents they've the pre-9/11 and Katrina preparedness.

And while we're on the subject, maybe it's time that they come clean on that whole Guantanimo torture scandal.

Maybe we should start talking candidly about the whole Jack Abramoff thing.

Or for that matter, maybe we should talk about the Downing Street Memo; or the no-bid contracts with Halliburton.

Perhaps they'll finally come clean about who's idea it was to release Valerie Plame's name to the media, and why it was done.

Or maybe they could release the documents from Bush Sr.'s time in office, which Bush II had sealed (without any explanation whatsoever) on his first day in office.

After all, if the innocent have nothing to hide....

No real surprises here.

Well, a little bit. I always thought of myself a little closer to the political center. Turns out I'm reasonably far to the left (which for some reason is the right on these diagrams). 'course this is pretty much by American standards, where the political spectrum has been shifted so far to the right it's ridiculous.

By Canadian standards, I suppose I'm closer to the middle.

In fairness, I did vote for Kerry in the last US federal election; but on the other hand, I voted McCain for senate. Back then, he was reasonably close to what I thought was the political center. He's been shifting rightward as the mid-term elections approach.

You are a Social Liberal (83% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (31% permissive) You are best described as a: Strong Democrat Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

The heroism of DubYa.

You know, you hear it from a lot of people; hell, I said it myself: "Bush really did do a great job right after 9/11;" and I think it's probably fair to say that I probably have as great a loathing of dub-YA as just about anyone out there. You hear it in the media, you hear it from people of both political extremes about Bush's supposed heroism just after the terrorist attacks. And, like I said, I've heard it from me.

But let's really think about this. I mean, let's go back to a few months before the 9/11 attacks and really, seriously ask ourselves what made Bush so heroic after that fateful day.

January, 2001: Clinton is just leaving office, and the outgoing national security team warns Bush's incoming National Security advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, that she will probably spend most of her time dealing with terrorism in general, and Osama bin Laden in specific. To the best of anyone's knowledge, she did nothing to act upon this advice.

March, 2001. The bipartisan Hart-Rudman study was issued. I'm not going to go over the specifics of the study, but suffice to say that the study argued that the US was likely to face a large-scale terrorist attack in the not-too-distant future, and recommended steps to protect against such an attack. While we obviously cannot say for sure, it is certainly possible that some of the recommended measures stood at least a chance of preventing or at least mitigating the 9/11 attacks.

The report was largely ignored, and Bush had Chaney convene an antiterror task force to come up with its own set of recommendations.

As of 9/11, the task force had never met. That's six months after the issuing of the study, and they hadn't met once. It's worth mentioning that his energy task force met several times in the same six months. Apparently, energy was a more pressing issue than terrorism.

Somehow, even the August 6th security briefing with the rather ominous title: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States" failed to raise any red flags with the administration.

Now, I want to stop here and say that people smarter than me don't even know if 9/11 could have been prevented or not, so I'm not for a minute saying that it could've. But how it can be argued with a straight face that Bush did everything he could, or even everything that a reasonably intelligent 10-year-old would have done, is completely beyond me.

9/11. Now, in fairness, for about 48 hours, nobody had the faintest clue what the hell was going on; and it fell to the Mayor of New York City to hold the country together. And while I generally don't think too highly of Rudy, I have to admit, I put credit where it's due: he handled the crisis well.

So, now we're well into September of 2001; and in the week following 9/11, Bush had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cultivate international goodwill. We had countries which, a year ago, would just as soon have pissed on the american flag pledging their support. Iran offered their support, France, England, just about all of Europe and Asia, most of Africa. For the first time in history, we had a whole world offering their contolences and asking what help we needed.

Now, maybe I'm old fashioned, but it seems like it's just good manners to respond: "Thank you. We appreciate your offers. If we need anything, we will let you know." Instead, Bush snarled "you're either with us, or you're against us." Dirty Harry is not a guide to international diplomacy. Basically, he threatened half the world into do exactly what they'd promised to do anyway. Effectively, he squandered the tragic events' one silver lining: an opportunity to cultivate international goodwill, something which would have proven useful in a time when the major enemies are international terrorist organizations.

So Bush invades Afghanistan. And he had a lot of help doing it. Everyone in the US, and several other countries supported that invasion. Incidentally, contrary to any conservative nut that tells you otherwise, Gore was a full supporter of the invasion of Afghanistan. How can one legitimately call Bush a hero for doing exactly what absolutely anyone else would have done in his position?

And in a time of national unity unparallelled since the second world war, Bush squandered the one opportunity he had to ask us for sacrifice, and make significant changes to domestic policy. Presidents during wartime have a long history of asking for, and getting, shared sacrifice from citizens willing to give it, proudly united in the service of a common cause.

He could have called for energy conservation. He could have called for us to get off Middle East oil entirely, or called for an Apollo-caliber project for total energy independence. He could have used the tragedy of 9/11 to change the course of history for the better. I truly believe that the nation would have risen to it.

Instead, he suspends whatever liberties he wanted to, and subsequently let bin Laden escape from Tora Bora. He then went on to further abuse the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th to justify an invasion of Iraq, and furhter trashed international relations and national security.

In short, a real hero would have pretty much done exactly the opposite of what Bush did at every step of the way.

On Abortion.

I suppose when you come down to it, my position is pro-choice.

But that's largely by default.

It's not like I'm in favor of lining up women by the thousands and performing abortions en masse. For that matter, were I in possession of a uterus, I honestly don't know if I could undergo an abortion myself. I just don't believe that it's any of the government's damned business. Until a court somewhere rules that life begins when sperm meets ova, the government has no more place telling women that they cannot have an abortion than it does telling them that they can't have a face-lift.

So, the pro-life brigade was out in force on campus yesterday. I walked right past them without acknowledging their existence, which, I imagine probably pissed them off more than anything else I said in the subsequent few minutes when one of their lackeys ran up to me.

Have I ever mentioned how much it annoys me when someone I have made very clear I don't want to acknowledge forces me to pay attention to them?

Anyhow, he ran up to me, pointing at the billboards they had set up in the quad, and began to preach about how Canada had performed umpteen billion "murders" (and yes, that was the term he used), in the last year. I wasn't really paying attention to what he was actually saying, so I can't remember what the actual number was that he used. Frankly, I don't care.

He was taller than me, and broader across the shoulders; I figured he could probably beat me up, so I decided to humor him for a little while.

"Okay," I said, "let's assume that I accept your very flimsy definition of 'murder,' what do you suggest we do about it?"

"We would like Prime Minister Harper to introduce a bill immediately to render all abortion illegal within Canada," he announced, sounding all self-righteous.

I think I've mentioned before that there are very few things that piss me off more than self-righteousness. But I kept cool. "You think the bill has a chance of passing? I mean, even if every single Conservative votes in favor of it; there's no way they'll get any of the other three parties on board."

"Well, that's no reason not to try," He insisted.

"True," I conceded, "but what makes you think that outlawing abortion will actually reduce the number of occurrences?"

"Well, if it's illegal..."

"...Then that just means that women desperate enough to terminate their pregnancy will just go to Mexico to have their abortions," I finished. "Heck, that's what happened during prohibition, and all they wanted then was a drink."

"At least it won't be happening here," he said. I could almost hear a loud snap as his spine stiffened.

"Oh, so abortion is okay, as long as it's not happening in your backyard? Nice to know that your morality has a geographic limitation," I told him.

"Are you saying we should just give up?"

"No, I'm saying that you should focus your energy on a strategy that might actually have a snowball's chance in hell of actually reducing the number of Abortions. Make the Morning-after pill available in front of the counter; make the wait time to acquire birth control pills shorter; make condoms available right next to the toothpaste; educate children from the time they turn twelve on how to protect themselves. You want to reduce the number of abortions? Fine. Try something that'll actually work," I replied. "I'm not telling you to give up your ambitions, I'm telling you to try something a little less ham-handed."

"But if we make birth control available to teens, they'll start having impure thoughts." And for the record, he actually used the term impure thoughts. I hadn't heard the term impure thoughts since I was a student in Catholic school.

"You show your average teenager a socket wrench, and they'll have impure thoughts," I countered. "What are you more afraid of; abortion, or the idea that teenagers are getting laid more often than you are? Choose your battles. This can be about abortion, or this can be about sex. Pick one."

"Abstinence-only programs..."

"...Don't work," I finished. "At best, they make teenagers wait an average of two years longer before they first have sex; and then they are three times more likely not to use any kind of protection when they do."

"But..."

"Look," I said, "I'm not unsympathetic here, but you really need to do something that's going to actually work. Outlawing abortion is ham-handed, it's a solution which won't work, and until a court rules that life begins at conception, it's very likely illegal. Education will take longer to show an effect, it may offend your sensibilities, but it will reduce the number of abortions, and it will be a sustained reduction."

I walked away. He didn't follow.

I don't know if his views changed significantly in those five minutes; but I'd like to think that maybe I gave him something to think about.

Why do Creationists hate God so much?

Creationists seem to have a very low opinion of God.

From their point of view, God's an egotistical prick who requires you to believe in Her as a Conditio Sine Qua Non for salvation. She's basically a boogiewoman with a few magic tricks up Her sleeves.

Now, depending on how you define the term, I absolutely believe in God. I believe that there's a unifying governing mechanic to the universe; a binding logic, if you will; without which the universe is incomprehensible, and which may, itself, be impossible to obeserve (although I'm not ruling out that this could be measured someday). On occasion, I call that "God." I don't, however, believe in God in the Burning Bush sense of the word; and I certainly don't believe that She's the vindictive asshole that many fundamentalists seem to believe She is: vindictive and merciless enough to condemn the majority of the planet who aren't some specific religion to eternal damnation. Frankly, I fail to see how such a God deserves worship.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that God is an intelligence of some kind. Let us postulate that there is some intellect capable of creating the universe and all life therein by a sheer force of Her will. What exactly makes the Creationists out there believe that such a being can be summarized with a select few verses of a book?

If God created everything, then Her fingerprints are upon every tree and rock. She's in every sunset and sunrise, everything living and nonliving. Her brushstrokes are in every piece of trash, every building, and every cloud. If God created everything, then the place to find Her isn't in a book; it's in the world you see when you lift your nose out of it. If God created nature, then the place to look for Her is in nature itself. That's where you're going to find God's thoughts, not in a book written by people who have been dead for two thousand years.

Postulating the existence of God, reading the Bible won't tell you what She's thinking; but looking at what She's done so far might give you some insight.

Creationists don't reveal the message God sent, they ignore it. They ignore the one textbook they can possibly know that God wrote (postulating Her existence): the universe itself; in favor of a book which has been translated, re-translated, and re-interpreted time and time again. Postulating the existence of God, they choose to ignore what She actually did, in favor of the world's longest-running game of "telephone" which may describe what She's done. They assume that God's message can be written in a few select lines of text, and won't even consider the possibility that maybe the truth is bigger than the words used to describe it. They make humanity into some kind of special creature and they make God into a two-bit deity with a couple of funky magic tricks up Her sleeves.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that scientists are much closer to having an understanding of God (postulating, of course, that She exists) than any creationist is. At the very least, those who believe in Her certainly have a far higher opinion of God than most creationists seem to. Einstein once said: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." The observant among you will realize that he never once claimed that he already knew Her thoughs. Merely that he wanted to know them. And therein lies the fundamental difference between Creationism and science. Science is humble enough to acknowledge that they don't have the answers; creationism is arrogant enough to assume that they do, based solely upon a book which She might have had a hand in writing.

Now, if we only look at the evidence for evolution, then what do we have? Postulating the existence of God, She's telling us that we're not special or more important than any other living creatures; more than that, She's telling us that we're connected to every living thing on Earth. We're connected to every tree, every plant, every microbe and virus. We're connected to every animal and insect. We're a part of each and every one of them, and they are a part of us.

Extend that a little further; bring cosmology into the mix. Now, not only are we connected to every living creature, but everything nonliving as well. We're connected to every star, every planet, every rock. We're connected to the air we breathe, the water in the streams. We're connected to every single galaxy; every nebula; every piece of trash on the ground; every blade of grass; down to the most insignificant lonely atom in deep space.

If we ignore the book for a second and look at nature, then the one conclusion that we can draw is that God (postulating Her existence) is telling us something far greater than is written in any Bible; indeed, something far greater than its authors could possibly have imagined. She's telling us that we are connected, albeit distantly, with absolutely everything.

Postulating the existence of God; what more profound and moving message could possibly be sent?

Evolution is responsible for all the world's evils

I've heard some people claim, in response to the Dover Pennsylvania "Panda Trial" that the theory of evolution is somehow the root of all evil on earth. They seem convinced that it was somehow responsible for the Holocaust, racism, sexism, homosexuality, and just about any other evil that they can put through their minds.

So, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that they're right. Let's assume that the theory of evolution is responsible for death, sin, murder, genocide, global warming, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, solipsism, masturbation, mental instability, measles, mumps, rubella, the decline of religion, premature ageing, baldness, short sight, hindsight, drunk driving, myopia, hypermetropia, overpriced CD singles, the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1989, the Anchorage Earthquake of 1967, Pompeii, Mt. St. Helens, Pierce Brosnan no longer starring as James Bond, Daniel Craig starring as James Bond, AIDS, terrible daytime TV, movie pirating, music pirating, Mills and Boon, the hole in the ozone layer, the 8th season of Friends, the seventh season of Highlander, the second season of Sequest DSV, fraudulent Stock Exchange transactions, Florence Foster Jenkins, the assassinations of John Lennon, Abraham Lincoln and JFK, gay marriage, gays, lesbians, Brokeback Mountain not getting "Best Picture," Brokeback Mountain getting nominated for best picture, feminism, lesbianism, lesbian feminism, cancer, migraines, ulcers, antibiotic resistance in bacteria (well, okay, the theory of Evolution actually is kinda responsible for that one), George W. Bush, Dick Chaney's shooting of Harry Whittington, 9/11, The invasion of Iraq, the Big Bang, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Alzheimers, the hangover I had the other day, American beer, softwood lumber, sex and violence in movies, the collapse of Enron, the London tube strike, professional wrestling, rap music, missing socks, traffic congestion, the Tunguska blast, the ACLU, the Thomas More Law Center, Britney Spears, Hillary Duff, Teletubbies, televangelists, urban blight, poor grammar, lonely spinsters, the Battle of Stalingrad, neurosis, necrosis, halitosis, math class, blood doping in the Olympics, steroid use, every single meth lab in existence, fallen arches, fallen women, falling rocks, boy bands, boy toys, Fox News, bad news, the recent re-make of The Bad News Bears, junk mail, spam, internet porn, pedophilia, soggy cereal, warning labels, arsenic, Pat Robertson (who I suppose falls under "televangelists," but he bears repeating), Osama Bin Laden, the decline in quality of education in the United States, cell phones, people who talk during movies, people who bug me when I'm talking in movies, PETA, overpriced concert tickets and every instance of bad hair that has ever been known.

I think that probably covers all the bases.

Now, why does that mean that Evolution can't account for the diversity of life on earth?

Something bothers me about this....

There's a reason why this bothers me, I'm sure.

For some reason, it really bugs me that almost 1/4 of the money Bush has promised for HIV/AIDS prevention both in the US and abroad is going to faith-based programs who seem to truly believe that HIV is God's wrath upon the promiscuous.

There's a reason, I'm sure, why I'm concerned about the fact that much of this money is going to so-called "Abstinence Only" programs which have been proven to be, in a word, ineffective. On average, while some of their pupils may wait longer before they first have sex (an average of two years), they're far less likely to use protection when they do so.

I'm sure that there's some reason that I'm bothered by the fact that this money will support misinformation about sex, safer sex, and sexual responsibility. I'm positive that there's a reason why it bugs me that the Catholic Relief services who have, as one of their stated objectives providing "complete and correct information about condoms" but will not promote, purchase or distribute them, according to Carl Stecker. Which means that they will not make the very truthful statement: "Condoms help prevent disease," since that would technically be promotion.

There's a reason why, I'm sure, it worries me that that money is going to faith-based organizations rather than to doctors.

I know that there's some reason why I'm concerned that this money is going to religious organizations to prevent the spread of HIV, rather than an organization which actually has a chance of preventing the spread of HIV.

Now... If I could just remember what that reason was....

Oh, now I remember.

Because it's fucking stupid.

Quick Question:

This is gonna be a short post, but I'm wondering; am I the only one who sees Stephen Harper on the news and thinks to himself: "So that's what happens when you don't let gay guys touch your hair?"

When did "liberal" become a dirty word; Part II

I feel the need to clarify that I don't consider myself to be liberal. Actually, I call myself apolitical. I vote for the person who I believe best represents me (even if that happens to be nobody). In fact; I don't even vote for parties in federal elections; I try to remain as ignorant as possible of what a given party platform is, and focus upon the individual I'm voting for. That's probably part of the reason why I'd vote for my current MP, if I were actually planning to vote in the next Canadian Federal Election (which I'm not). Not because he's a member of the Conservative party; but because he's doing a decent job as MP.

For my Canadian readers, I also feel the need to specify that when I mention liberals and conservatives, I mean lower-case "l" and "c" respectively; I'm talking about the political view, and not the political party.

And finally, I feel the need to quote someone smarter than me; so I will:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "liberal?" If by "liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "liberal." But if by a "liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "liberal."

John F. Kennedy said this in what was arguably a more enlightened time; when being labeled as a "liberal" wasn't the political kiss of death that it apparently is today.

But seriously; why is being labeled as a "liberal" such a bad thing? It's such a bad thing, apparently, that they've had to come up with a whole new name for themselves: "progressives." Liberals ended slavery in America; got women the right to vote; got African-Americans the right to vote; they gave same-sex couples the right to marry in Canada and in Massachusetts (and hopefully, coming soon to a neighborhood near you); they created medicare; they passed the Civil Rights act and the Voter's Rights act; they ended segregation.

Now, I feel the need to again clarify, I'm not a liberal; but frankly, many who eargerly label themselves as such have accomplished some pretty decent things. All of those things I listed above: they were actively blocked by conservatives.

In the interest of fairness, conservatives have also accomplished great things. Nixon ended the Vietnam war, Reagan ended the cold war, Bush (Sr.) ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and then did something that Bush Jr. hasn't yet figured out how to do: he went the hell home. Nobody likes to send their country to war, but at least Bush Sr. had a decent excuse for doing it.

I've had some people ask me what my political views are: my answer is pretty simple: I do what makes sense. I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good reason to keep doing it. Sometimes "the way it's always been done" is still a good way of doing things; sometimes it isn't. Either way, I don't belive that we can make decisions based upon tradition. Saying that we need to keep doing something in one particular way because that's worked in the past is, frankly, stupid. For example: I support government-sponsored daycare; something which is viewed as a typically-liberal position, provided that there is a requirement that those using the service have a job while they're using it. Frankly, I'm not gonna pay taxes so that someone out there can unload his or her kid, then sit at home and watch Oprah. But, if provide daycare service to people who are not working because they have to stay home and take care of the kids; we now have people who are making taxable revenue; thereby increasing government income, allowing the government to provide more services like government-sponsored daycare.

I like to call myself a "reasonist." I do what's reasonable; no more, no less.

Compassionate Conservatives

Am I the only one who's starting to think that one of the identifying characteristics of people who identify themselves as "compassionate conservatives" is a complete and total lack of compassion?

Recently, the Family Research council has denounced the possibility of vaccinating teenagers against two different strains of Human Papilloma Virus; which, combined, could prevent approximately 70% of all cervical cancer. This vaccine has the potential of saving the lives of 3700 women in the United States alone every single year; and the FRC has gone on record claiming that they don't want it offered to teenagers with their standard set of immunizations.

Why? Because HPV is sexually-transmitted. The FRC and Focus on the Family have both released statements voicing concerns that vaccinating teenagers could be the equivalent of telling them that it's okay to have sex. Neither have openly denounced it just yet, but neither wants the vaccine given to adolescents around 13 years of age; which happens to be exactly when it's most needed.

In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Reginald Finger, a former medical analyst for Focus on the Family said: "There are people who sense that it could cause people to feel like sexual behaviors are safer if they are vaccinated and may lead to more sexual behavior because they feel safe."

Now, maybe I'm a little nuts, but isn't that like saying "we should only sell bicycle helmets to people who are planning on riding their bikes into a brick wall?"

Now, interestingly enough, both Focus on the Family and the FRC have been very vocal in the Pro-Life end of the spectrum. Again, I stay out of that particular debate simply because I don't believe that it can be boiled down to a black/white, pro-life/pro-choice debate, but suffice it to say that they seem to think that allowing abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is tantamount to murder.

So why is potentially allowing thousands of women to face the possibility of death or infertility suddenly okay?

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the way to deal with it isn't to make abortion illegal, it's to educate the people who may potentially have them. Teach them about birth control; abstinence; teach them to be responsible for themselves sexually; and if they choose to have sex, make sure that they're safe about it.

But as far as they're concerned, that's no good, 'cause it still allows for the possibility that (gasp) people might actually have sex! So, they oppose just about anything that could make sex less risky: birth control pills; condoms; morning-after pills; HPV vaccines; I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you looked for it, they probably opposed use of Hepatitis vaccines too. As far as they're concerned, abstinence is the only option; which means that they're either seriously delusional, or they have their kids under 24-hour surveillance. The point is that if this vaccine is sending the "wrong message" - that we expect that they'll have sex - what's the "right message?" That we care more about their maidenhead than their lives? Why are those who are so adamant that abstinence is the only way to go so convinced that fear is the only way to promote abstinence? If not gettin' it before marriage is such a wonderful thing, it seems to me that the last thing you'll have to do is terrorize teenagers into not doin' it.

See, I really didn't get the reason why the far right wing have this unhealthy obsession with sex. They don't seem to want anybody havin' it. They oppose homosexuality; not because being attracted to someone of the same sex is wrong, but because they might actually have sex with someone of the same sex. They preach abstinence, rather than promoting the teaching of responsible sexuality. The overwhelming message: SEX CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE! While flatly rejecting just about any medical advancement that goes even partway to ensuring that sex doesn't ruin their lives.

It wasn't until a friend of mine provided me with a rather brilliant hypothesis. It's so simple, so elegant, and rather beautiful in its simplicity.

They're not gettin' any; and what they're gettin', they're not enjoyin'.

I have to admit, I don't have any data to back this up. For all I know, they could spend their evenings banging the hell out of the local college football team; but you have to admit that there does seem to be a fair amout of sexual frustration inherent to the far-right. Seriously: what issue have they been more vocal about than sex? They're against homosexuality, but not against the idea that someone could be attracted to the opposite sex; they tend to focus on the act itself. They're not against people dating, they're just against the idea that the daters may be having sex in the process. They're not against sex after marriage; but they object to any kind of birth control being used. And they've gone to the point where they are so adamant that nobody have sex before marriage that they've endorsed so-called abstinence-only programs; tax-funded programs which promote abstinence, and only abstinence. How do they do it? You guessed it: fear mongering; even if that fear is completely unfounded. For example, contrary to research, these programs insist that "touching another person's genitals can lead to pregnancy," that "there's no such thing as 'safe' or safer' sex," and (this is my personal favorite) "loneliness, embarrassment, substance abuse, and personal disappointment can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage." I hope I don't actually have to say this, but for the record, not one of these are supported in the least by any empirical data.

In short, the only reason why sex is really an issue is because the far right sees a need to make it one. Why, I'll never know. Guess there are a few things that even I don't get.