Repealing DADT – an important step
May 27, 2010
Tonight brought news that the House of Representatives has approved an amendment that will repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military. For my cave-dwelling friends, this policy in effect demands that gays serving in the military must never be asked about their orientation, and in turn must never reveal it lest they be dismissed from service. The policy is a relic of an era when it was feared that open gays would cause severe disruption to the workings of the military. To that effect, it was decided that in order to still permit gays to serve, they must effectively pretend to be straight for the duration of their service.
The policy itself is wrong for many reasons. To summarize a few of the big ones:
- It accepts the premise that being gay is something that is shameful and must be hidden. This is, at base, a religious and moral judgment that has no place being used to justify policy.
- It suggests that our troops are all raging homophobes who are unable to handle gays in their midst. It also suggests troops are not smart enough to know who is gay to begin with.
- It results in the dismissal of perfectly qualified, patriotic soldiers whose only sin is not being straight. Just from a logical perspective, this seems like a silly reason to reject otherwise fine people.
These reasons could go on and on, but that has been done in other places in great detail. My own view is this – it is an outdated policy that has no place in a society that endeavors to be fair and tolerant. Those aren’t just buzzwords – we need to move towards being a country that accepts any personal choice that causes no harm to others. In that regard, repealing DADT is an important step in that direction. My hope is that we can continue this trend, though we have a long way to go.
Those opposing it need to ask themselves some serious questions. First, is your opposition based in whole or in part on a view that homosexuality is sinful and wrong? Second, if you do believe it is wrong, do you feel that this belief should be translated into public policy? If so, then you should ask yourself why you feel like you have the right to impose your views on others, and whether you truly believe in personal freedom. I’m sad to say many of my conservative friends will fall into this category.
Why rooting for the Phillies is rooting for freedom
May 19, 2010
While lying in bed last night, a few thoughts occurred to me. Consider the following:
- The Pennsylvania Senate election is going to be hotly contested
- Philadelphia votes overwhelmingly Democratic
- The World Series could potentially end right around Election Day
With those facts established, consider this. If the Phillies were to go to the World Series, it would greatly distract the citizens of Philadelphia. Trust me – we love our baseball and when the Phillies won the Series two years ago, it was basically a region-wide party. If the Phils were to go to the World Series and win, the whole city would be in party mode and no one would care about the election. Or at the very least, turnout would be lower due to hangovers.
If Philly is distracted, the lockstep Democrat voters would not turn out, and Pat Toomey would have a much better shot at winning the race. It is my position, then, that by rooting for the Phillies to win the World Series, you are essentially rooting for freedom. A Phillies win helps a Toomey win which helps America. So, if you are a patriot, you will surely join me in cheering on the Philadelphia Phillies!
Of course I’m only half-serious. But in an election as important as this one, we all have to put aside our differences!
Unacceptable Candidates
May 16, 2010
Clearly, it is still early on to be speculating about potential 2012 Presidential candidates. We should be focusing on the 2010 elections as much as possible. But, like every other political dork out there, I cannot resist observing and commenting on who appear to be the current frontrunners. I think it can help one tell where the party is currently. In particular, I am curious to see how the Tea Party movement has affected things, and if the party really has taken a step towards truly limited government.
Judging by the results of a recent poll posted at NRO, it would appear that the effect may be smaller than we had thought. For starters, the emphasis the Tea Party has seemed to place on fiscal conservatism, as opposed to social conservatism, has not dented the approval of candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. One can perhaps see the appeal of Sarah Palin, being the icon she has become to many. But it is very, very worrying that Huckabee is even in the picture. He is both an aggressive social conservative (and, I believe, a bigot), and not a good fiscal conservative at all. He is a populist entertainer, and that’s being kind.
If the Republican Party is going to continue to embrace the style of Palin and Huckabee, we are in big trouble. Both are mainly popular amongst white Christians. Needless to say, that is a major part of the party base but not near enough to win any future elections. To win these elections, the GOP needs to focus on the issues that matter to people at this point in time – things like massive spending, expanding government, unemployment, and energy. In focusing on these over the past couple years, the GOP has regained the help of many previously dispirited Americans and made a good case against those who say the parties are no different.
If, instead, a strong social conservative is nominated, the conservative-libertarian coalition that has powered the Tea Party movement would shatter. Quite simply, libertarians and conservatives are worlds apart on social issues. To the average libertarian, for example, the idea of supporting a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is an absolutely unacceptable attack on freedom, and a gross abuse of power to satisfy a base that is, sadly, largely anti-gay. Yet Palin, Huckabee, and other social conservatives like John Thune find this to be an acceptable use of power. This type of thing shows the existence of the always-present fault line inherent in the GOP. Were the fracture to happen, it would demolish the GOP and any chance of winning anything but the reddest of red states.
We must, then, reject and shy away from any candidate that would further such a break. The above mentioned candidates would all do so to some degree. Huckabee and Palin are just two well-known examples of politicians who believe in a sort of “freedom for me, but not for thee” ideology that makes libertarians’ skin crawl. Their positions on economic issues are largely sound, but when it comes to issues of personal freedom they hold some atrocious views. Their voices are welcome in the party, but they must not be allowed to become seen as leaders, let alone the party nominee. That would be a complete disaster.
Quick Hits Volume 1
May 6, 2010
Sometimes you can’t come up with a topic that deserves an entire blog entry by itself. This has been the case this past week or so. I’ve had a few ideas but nothing that I thought could produce a whole entry. Thus, I am introducing Quick Hits, essentially a series of brief comments about various subjects.
- First of all, I would like to follow up on the comments being made across many of the blogs I follow regarding the flooding disaster in Nashville (and Middle Tennessee at large). To put in mildly, the pictures have been shocking, and yet it has hardly been mentioned across the media. The current damage total is exceeding $1b and will surely climb – to my knowledge much of the city is still flooded. I want to thank my Twitter friends for their updates on the situation. I think a large part of the reason the media seem to be ignoring it is because it doesn’t suit one of their narratives. Unlike New Orleans they can’t make a point about racism or an incompetent Republican president. The people of Nashville seem to be helping each other out and taking care of themselves.
- I also have had some time to think about the Arizona immigration law. The insane and ignorant comments of a number of people on the Left caused me to seriously look at my own position. There is nothing like agreeing with Al Sharpton to make you rethink things. Now, I still think it’s a bad law. It is ripe for abuse and will likely catch mainly the most harmless of illegal aliens. But the idea that this somehow is violently racist or Nazi-like is freaking insane. People are asked for their “papers” all the time, and as I understand it, with the new amendments to the law it can only be during another police action and something like a driver’s license would suffice. I don’t see it as especially Hitleresque when I’m asked for my ID at the bar because I look young. So please, can we stop with the insane rhetoric?
- Media ignorance has also been on full display lately. In an audio byte that’s making the rounds, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer explains her exasperation that the Times Square bomber ended up being Pakistani. I think it in a nutshell summed up both the extreme PC side of the media that hates taking about Muslim terrorism, and the nasty side that wanted the bomber to be a Tea Partier. This was expressed perfectly by the idiotic, despicable mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who suggested the bomber was someone who was “mad about the health care bill.” Another example of media malfeasance? This past Sunday’s exceptionally left-leaning panel on ABC’s this week, as pointed out over at Jimmie Bise’s blog. From my view, Bill Maher is one of the most atrocious human beings out there and has no place anywhere respectable, but he wasn’t even the most liberal member there (that likely goes to Katrina vanden Heuvel). The panel was basically three far-leftists, one left-leaning moderate, and George Will. The fact that this seemed balanced shows a great deal about the MSM.
- Finally, a brief word of warning to some of my brethren. I think we need to avoid becoming like the Left was during the Bush administration – obsessively negative, not even giving Obama the slightest bit of slack. Now, I believe Obama has been terrible in many ways, and I also believe he actively resents criticism. But I will always recall a statement I read years ago regarding Keith Olbermann’s treatment of Bush – that he doesn’t even give Bush the “benefit of humanity.” That is, people like Olbermann did not even treat Bush like he was a human being, but rather some sort of evil demon. We must avoid doing the same with Obama, as much as we dislike him. Let’s be careful about saying some things, like suggesting he bombed the oil rig in the Gulf, wants Americans to be killed by terrorists, or similar things. Let’s squash the poisonous birther nonsense, not even giving it the slightest credence. By doing so, we maintain credibility, which is crucial when we are trying to convince independents.
