The final nail for DADT
December 16, 2010
This morning, word came that Scott Brown would support the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that just passed the House (again). This, combined with the votes of several other Republicans, would provide the votes needed to break a filibuster and approve the bill. The problem lies in the fact that Harry Reid has tried to jam so much into the lame duck session of Congress that there might not be enough time for the vote.
The reasons that DADT might finally be repealed are many. The public now supports repeal, due in large part to the fact that Americans are much more comfortable with open gays than they were at the time DADT was enacted. The military also supports it, including many of the top officers. And now that these things are in place, the politicians are finally finding that they support it.
But the final nail may be the support of Pat Toomey, Senator-elect from my state of Pennsylvania. While Toomey cannot actually vote for repeal as he is not yet in Congress, his support is huge because of the mainstream conservative cred that he commands. Long a darling of conservatives in the Commonwealth, Toomey’s support represents a major moral victory for fans of DADT repeal. If someone like him can support repeal, then other conservatives might follow suit.
And all of this, quite frankly, is good to hear. DADT is a policy that has long outlived any usefulness it once had. Soldiers report they have no problem with it. The public is ready for it. And finally our leaders are coming around to the realization that it’s time for DADT to go. I’m sure if Harry Reid really wants to do so, he will surely find the time to hold a vote before Christmas and give a nice present to gay rights supporters.
Has Dexter lost its edge?
December 16, 2010
WARNING: If you are not up to date on Dexter, be aware the below may contain spoilers.
For those who don’t know, Dexter is one of my personal favorite shows. I own most of it and await every new season excitedly. I think it is one of the most interesting, well-acted shows out there, with consistent twists. I realize it is far too dark for some people, but to me that has in a way been part of the appeal.
That said, I finally got around to watching the Season 5 finale of Dexter last night. The whole past season was, in a word, disappointing to me. I imagine it is likely due to the way Season 4 ended – the end was so shocking and game-changing that it is hard to top. In a show that thrives on violence, it was still an act of brutality and emotion that raised the bar. It simply was an event that, even though it was foreseeable, still managed to be powerful.
So in fairness to Season 5, it would be nearly impossible to top that. It felt like the first four seasons were leading up that ending in a way. Season 5, then, felt like more of an epilogue – seeing what happened to everyone after the event. This is not to sell short the fascinating character of Lumen, and the excellent performance by Julia Stiles. Nor is it to diminish the continued excellence of the rest of the cast, nor of the quality of the writing.
Yet so much of Season 5 felt like a letdown. Everything worked out just about perfectly in the end. After five years, not a single one of Dexter’s closest friends and family has even the slightest suspicion. The cops, including Debra, continue to miss the obvious and are always at least one episode behind. Even the drama with Astor had disappeared by the end, with her and Cody back to their normal, happy selves. Quinn, the only character to even suspect Dexter, ended up getting off and being forgiven by Debra.
It is my feeling then that Dexter needs to bring the big guns next season, or it should be its last. In my opinion this should involve someone close to Dexter, most likely Debra, finding out about him. The show has stretched the plausibility of having us believe he can get away with it undetected to the breaking point. If not this, then something else big needs to happen, something that will surprise almost everyone. It can’t just be another story like Season 5.
Dexter easily has it within its capacity to pull this off. The question is, can anything happen that will affect us in the way Season 4′s ending did? I can remember how seeing that made me feel. And after seeing Season 5 and being shocked in any way approaching that. Once again, Lumen was great, and having Dexter needing to deal with being found was good character development. But this show can bring the big drama, and it needs to to continue to live up its potential.
Life as a non-belligerent
December 8, 2010
If there is one thing you can count on around this time of year, it’s the resumption of the so-called War on Christmas. It has become as associated with the season as candy canes, Santa, and awkward moments under the mistletoe. Year after year, it seems, the same battles are fought. The battlefields may be different but the sides remain the same. And people like me remain on the sidelines wondering why people act so angry when they should be enjoying the season.
On one side of the conflict you have the Christian conservatives, a group of people for whom being offended is nearly a way of life. During the whole year, one group or another will raise hell (pardon the pun) about some slight or another. But when it comes to Christmastime, the defenses are on high alert. When someone dares to wish them “Happy Holidays” it becomes a insult. When a parade is named a Holiday Parade, it becomes an attempt to denigrate their faith. All around they see possible attacks.
But the other side is hardly better. This is the side that includes ardent atheists, cultural liberals, effete journalists, and others who simply loathe religion and are generally grumpy when anyone actually openly practices it. This side is bathed deep in political correctness, diversity, and other such silliness. They spend their days scouring the landscape for anything that might offend anyone. They censor their own speech and try to censor everyone else. A perfect example is the thoroughly miserable little person that wrote this silly rant about office holiday celebrations.
Both sides are – let’s just be honest here – stupid. One side wants to pretend that this is a Christian country that has a right to force that on everyone else. The other wants to pretend that it is possible and desirable to remove all traces of individual expression and faith from society. Yet in the end, they are both wrong. Both are waging a war that has no purpose and no end in sight, because both are focused on molding society into their perfect image instead of just relaxing and letting people celebrate and live as they choose.
I say all of this as someone who several years ago may have sided with the Christian conservatives, and now feels more at home with the atheist/agnostic crowd. But still, I am able to see that both visions are lacking. And this is why I propose a cease-fire in the War on Christmas. Christians need to stop acting persecuted all the time. You are by far the dominant social group, but by no means the only one. And the hyper-secularists need to stop trying to remove religion from society. You’re not going to win – religion is here to stay and that is fine, as long as it is not causing anyone to harm anyone else. You may profoundly dislike it – I do in many ways – but part of being a member of society is letting other cultural groups celebrate their own holidays and beliefs.
If we can take a step back and just let each other live our own lives, we’ll be fine. One thing I will say is this – it terms of public entities, holiday expression should be kept as innocuous as possible. I can see how someone can view this as de facto establishment of religion. But private businesses? Feel free to do as you choose. And as for the average person, just enjoy the season, or don’t enjoy the season, whatever your choice – just don’t try and ruin it for everyone else.
Purple is not the color of equality
October 20, 2010
Inspired by the recent spate of suicides amongst LGBT teens, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, encouraged everyone to wear purple today as a way of showing solidarity with all those being bullied and tormented due to their sexual orientation. While one sympathizes with the plight of these students, the idea of a special day just to recognize particular victims strikes me as a bit counterproductive. If we want to create an environment where everyone is viewed as equals, why are we effectively saying that certain victims of bullying deserve a special day, while those bullied for other reasons do not?
I find it to be the same flawed and destructive logic that leads to “hate crimes” laws. Under these laws, certain offenses are treated much more harshly than others simply because of the traits of the perpetrator and victim. If the victim, for example, is a minority of some kind, the underlying crime is then loaded up with additional charges that can often be much harsher. Implicit in this system is the idea that if a crime is committed with certain motives, it is far more serious. The crime and intent, then, are punished separately, and often with very different consequences.
The problem with this is that the laws effectively create a world in which certain people of certain classes are regarded as worth more than others. From a perspective of basic fairness, whether I decide to kill an immigrant or a fellow white person should have no bearing on the nature of the crime – I have taken an innocent life. Yet with hate crimes law, the first murder is more serious. This clearly serves to elevate certain people above others simply based on minority or protected status. It certainly does not help to create a world where all are treated equally.
For this reason, then, wearing purple today likely does more harm than good, and clearly represents the same thinking that has led to such legislative travesties as federal hate crimes laws. These laws put people on trial at two separate levels and charges are often based on the mere assumption of racism or homophobia. Much like wearing purple, they serve to impress upon certain classes that their deaths are more noble and more deserving of punishment. Clearly this is not the way to go if we want a fair and just legal system and culture.
Emotionalism vs. reason
August 26, 2010
One of the enduring things one must remember in politics is that every actor, whether conservative, liberal, or otherwise, is at base a human being. This fact is lost when many refuse to acknowledge the basic humanity of opponents. It is also lost when we don’t realize that as human beings, we are prone to make judgments based on things outside the realm of principles and logic. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing, but regardless, it is a fact of life.
Much can be said about this tendency to forget basic human nature. In the course of debate, it is sometimes common to both ignore the nature of opponents, or to impute to them the entirety of human failings while ceasing to be honest about one’s own. This is true on both the Left and the Right. Both sides are guilty of attempting to portray adversaries as either cold and calculating, or as enslaved to basal emotions. Each tactic serves as an effort to gain the moral high ground.
As responsible people, though, it is important that we try to avoid these tools as much as possible, and recognize the human nature of both our rivals and ourselves. We need to realize that all sides are both served and undermined by emotions and human needs and desires. While it is certainly not possible to remove ourselves from this equation, I think it is important that we at least try to keep a clear head, come back to our core beliefs, and try our darndest to make decisions based on these principles instead of our passions.
I think the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate provides an excellent example of this. Both sides have reacted and acted with much emotion, quite understandably. When the subject of 9/11 is brought up, it very reasonably brings up all manner of feelings, hearkening back to that dark day and the pain it still causes. Because of this, the debate has been very heated and personal. Leftists have tried to demonize conservatives by concluding that their objections are not out of genuine feelings but rather out of nascent Islamophobia. And conservatives have reacted with great passion, in the process saying some regrettable things and falling prey to emotionalism and pandering.
I can’t say much about the Left – their reasons for dehumanizing the Right are clear. It is a well-known tactic for liberals to assume they have a monopoly on both reason and compassion. But I do wish to say something to my conservative friends. Try, as best as you can, to remember the things you stand for. Things like treating all religions equally, not blaming the group for the actions of the few, being welcoming to all peoples, and standing for rights even for people who may disregard and despise those rights.
If we can do this, we can cool the fires that have fueled some very troubling, and yes, anti-Muslim statements. I don’t believe for a second that most conservatives hate all Muslims. But far too often in this debate we have tolerated and participated in widespread condemnation of the entire faith. The passions that this debate bring forth are understandable and healthy. But we are even better served by a cool head and sticking to our principles.
On perfection in baseball
June 2, 2010
There are a few things that animate people on Twitter like no other. In my sphere a major political event does the trick. Other potential culprits include a popular TV show, awards show, or movie. But often all of these pale compared to a major event in sports. One team winning, another losing, an amazing accomplishment, or an athlete’s stupid behavior can all get Twitter going quite well.
Tonight’s event was the near perfect game by Armando Gallaraga of the Detroit Tigers. In the next 24 hours many people will see the video, so I won’t bother posting something that will be on many sites and on TV. The short story is this – an umpire, Jim Joyce, blew a call on the final out, ruling a runner safe when he was clearly out. This blown call resulted in a single hit that destroyed the perfect game. Fans of all allegiances were justifiably outraged. Within seconds, all manner of nasty things were being said about the ump. Only after he graciously apologized for his error did the attacks die down.
Now, clearly an inevitable result of this event will be the resurrection of the debate regarding instant replay in baseball. Replay is something well known to fans of football, hockey, tennis, and other sports. Each of these sports utilizes cameras and technology to help correct erroneous calls. Fans have become completely accustomed to the football challenge especially, and the red flag that signifies such a challenge. I don’t see any significant movement in play to go back to the days before the challenge. The idea essentially amounts to this – fans want the right call to be made. With the game often on the line, being accurate is important.
With baseball, though, some fans tend to react quite differently. This is largely because baseball, unlike football or hockey, has a great deal of romance to it. It is deeply linked with American history and is viewed as a quintessentially American thing. Baseball fans, then, view any change to the game with skepticism, especially one that removes what is viewed as part of baseball’s “magic.” These fans, then, argue that instant replay expansion would destroy the crucial human element of the game. To them, the failure of the umpires to make perfect calls is one of the important parts of the game.
In my view, these fans are misguided. I can understand the need to preserve the “essence” of baseball – it is my favorite sport, after all. But fans that refuse the introduction of modern technology into baseball are ignoring the fact that such technology could potentially eliminate many of the questionable or flat-out wrong calls that plague every team. When something as meaningful as a perfect game is on the line, it is simply too big to be robbed by an obvious human error. The fans who oppose replay seem to be fetishizing this sort of preventable error, as if the baseball gods will be pleased that we kept their sport unblemished. (Though, in terms of blemishment, I’d say baseball is pretty damn damaged already by widespread steroid abuse.)
An analogy I could make here is to those who are purists in the political arena. There is a certain subset of any political group that insists on total purity, and in candidates meeting every requirement and proper opinion. They are willing to accept defeat and minority status in order to maintain such standards. In a similar way, baseball fans who oppose replay seem willing to accept that their beloved sport will be filled with easily-correctable mistakes, including earth-shattering ones like tonight’s, in order to maintain the sanctity of the sport. They are willing to see history prevented, games lost and won wrongly, records affected, and seasons changed by generally honest mistakes that could be erased. And all to preserve this sense of baseball as something more than a sport, in almost a religious fashion.
I come at it from the complete opposite direction. I’ve long thought, for instance, that computer assistance could be used in many parts of the game. While I am sure such changes won’t be adopted, I’ve thought computer-assisted strike zones and safe/out base calls could be implemented using current technology. Both of these changes would be accepted in time and eliminate a huge amount of uncertainty and frustration for players, managers, and fans. And in time, such events as occurred to tonight could be avoided entirely. The game would change, for sure, but it would be into one where winning and losing is not affected by an umpire being distracted or a constantly changing strike zone. And I, for one, think that it would be a better game for it.
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!
Can we end this debate now?
May 26, 2009
I was happy to hear about the California court decision on Prop 8 today for two reasons. Firstly, overturning the constitutional amendment would be a great blow against the rule of law and a significant overreach from the court's duty. Second, the court provided an avenue to the only real, fair solution to the gay marriage debate – civil unions.
To start, I would generally be of the opinion that the constitution, be it of the United States or of a state, should be the highest law in the land. In fact, it by definition is higher than all other laws AND higher than the courts. The courts themselves exist only due to, and in the manner described by, the constitution. Thus, when the constitution is amended, thus legitimately altering the law, the court has no business going against it. To use another example, we generally expect the courts, even the Supreme Court, to defend free speech rights and gun rights because both are enshrined in the constitution. We would not want courts to be able to override, ignore, or block those rights from taking force. Of course in reality they do sometimes, but the point remains – a constitutional amendment when properly ratified should be left to stand in all but the most extreme cases.
In addition, the court also provided a route to what I feel is the only real solution to this debate over "gay rights," or however you want to frame it. The only answer that both satisfies one side's desire to protect marriage, and the other side's desire to gain equal rights, lies in civil unions, and the removal of government as much as possible from the institution of marriage. In truth, amendments such as Prop 8 are an improper solution, and only are needed in order to keep the activist courts at bay and provide the necessary breathing room to come up with a real solution. By removing the government from the definition of marriage, we grant access for all combinations of consenting adults to enter into legally binding, committed contracts, and thus access to the legal and financial benefits they seek as part of marriage rights. And at the same time, we protect religious freedom by allowing every faith and church to define marriage as it will. By doing so we prevent gay rights activists from forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, lest they be targeted for hate and persecution.
Both extremes in this debate are guilty of hyperbole, and of demonizing and hating the other side unnecessarily. This is largely because the debate has taken hold as part of the much larger culture war between traditionalists and secular humanists. But once you take that away what you are really talking about is this – if two consenting adults, who happen to be homosexual, want to enter into a contract, why shouldn't they be able to? From a libertarian point of view we should allow people to enter almost any contract as long as there is no coercion involved. We also need to protect religious liberty at all costs. It is the absolute and legitimate right of any church or religious group to believe homosexuality is wrong, and thus not recognize gay marriage, just as it is the right of any group to sanction it. This is what is called religious freedom. You may dislike, even hate the laws of a given faith, but unless they are hurting people they should be allowed to practice freely.
The tragedy is this whole thing has a fair resolution, but instead of finding this, we are going to end up infringing on religious liberty to serve the interests of the gay agenda. It is sad to see things decided not by reasoned debate but by competing forces that are motivated not by a genuine desire to find a solution, but rather a desire to score victories in the larger culture war. And in this war, sadly the nasty, anti-religious forces of the secular humanists seem to be winning. Let's hope we can preserve at least something against this ferocious onslaught.
Happy Anti-Earth Day!
April 22, 2008
Just kidding, or at least mostly – I’m not really "anti-Earth." I just find it amusing that that is how I am portrayed by Saint Al and his acolytes. As if, by being skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (or CAGW, for short), I somehow want the Earth to be destroyed. I just hate the planet, I don’t care if my children melt, I don’t care if people die – I just want my freaking oil!
Things are starting to get bad with the CAGW agenda, and they are likely to get far worse in the near future. The world is currently suffering massive food shortages due to, among other things, the deliberate burning of our food supply to make ethanol, which was championed by CAGW advocates. Fuel prices are at record highs in large part due to environmentalist opposition to new drilling, new refineries, and nuclear power. Governments are passing fascistic laws doing things like banning light bulbs, mandating absurd fuel standards, and imposing all sorts of controls and penalties on people who dare to exist and desire a decent lifestyle. Dissent is being actively silenced, skeptics are being targeted and smeared, the media is blindly parroting the most absurd and fantastical disaster predictions, children are being indoctrinated by Al Gore’s movie, and far more. And with all three presidential candidates buying into the CAGW scam we’re in for a lot more.
This whole thing makes me absolutely furious due to the entire agenda being based on lies, exaggerations, and agendas. People are being deliberately deceived by activists and socialists who are playing on their good nature and fears to impose their agenda. So much of what is generally accepted is patently false. Polar bears aren’t dying, they are thriving. CO2 and temperature have no proven relationship. Hurricanes are not getting worse. The Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. The ice caps aren’t melting. In fact, the Earth might not even be warming. The whole thing is a giant scam using selective studies and spin to promote an agenda.
Luckily there is some reason to have hope. Though most people claim to believe in CAGW, they have largely been resistant to accepting the most onerous of regulations despite the constant barrage of CAGW alarmism. Not a single person listed global warming as their number one issue in November – pretty strange for something that’s supposedly going to kill everyone. In the end of the day, I have to have some faith in common sense, and that most people will make token changes but won’t make big ones – this is being shown by emissions continuing to increase even in the Kyoto-signing countries. I hope as people realize how many environmentalist predictions are false (increased hurricanes, increased droughts, sea level rises) they will begin to question the alarmists. People like me and my compatriots will continue to fight to raise awareness and stop the most insane and dangerous actions. It all begins with getting informed and explaining to friends and family the truth about the CAGW agenda.
