The Name Game

In an equal world there would be no difference between you and I. In an equal world, a person's gender wouldn't matter.

We do not live in an equal world, and we all receive the most fundamental piece of this unequal world right at birth, a name.

Giving people gendered names instantly classifies a baby as a male or female. This identity then dictates what the child will play with, what will be his favorite color, what games she will play on the playground.

As the child moves into adulthood, the gender pressure will only increase. She will be given a range of acceptable careers to choose. He will be expected to show some emotions in a specific way and hide others altogether. She will be told that she can be strong, but expected to still display an underlying of weakness. And when this person dies, the tombstone will have the name that started this whole social process engraved on it, etched in stone.

'Men' and 'Women' are just caricatures. In a manner that is nothing short of totalitarian, our over-culture dictates to us how we are to behave and think based upon our gender. All the while, this tyranny of sorts masquerades as 'normal' and 'human nature.' There has rarely been a more insidious form of oppression. This whole process starts with a person's name-the presumed core of their identity.

I wonder how many couples sitting around me at Thanksgiving will be little more than unions of two gender stereotypes rather sincere unions of two individuals? What will happen to them when their role-playing runs stale? If a person is truly committed to liberation from the dictatorship of culture, then he or she should not give his or her child a name that symbolically sets all the social expectations in motion. They don't say that one in the parenting books.

Obviously we live in a time when some social gender norms and expectations are less rigid. I acknowledge our advances and the increased right to choose our own paths. However, progress must never be mistaken for resolution. Huge gender norms have yet to be dismantled and the need, no the requirement, to give a baby a name that is either a man's name or a woman's is one of them. Actually, it is the first big one.

Will We Ever Get a Millitary Cut?

Included at the end of this three paragraph post is an open letter addressed to Senators Bowles and Simpson of the Bowles-Simpson commission on deficient reduction. Any plan to reduce the crippling national deficit must include military cuts. The letter elaborates on the fact that the origin of our nation's strength lies not in the military but rather the economy.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has called for a rather conservative reduction in military spending to the tune of $200 billion over five years (the federal stimulus was about $800 billion). Given the current political climate, any politician would be hard pressed to convert this recommendation to a bill.

Still, defense cuts and maintaining our absolutely necessary global military dominance are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who has studies American military capabilities knows that our nation is so far ahead of all the others that we can stand to safely make cuts. Anyone who argues against defense cuts is simply not serious about reducing the deficit. Also, frankly, those who would cut health care benefits yet not insist on defense cuts posses a cruel outlook and do not understand what really makes America strong.

"Dear Co-chairman Bowles and Co-chairman Simpson:

We are writing to you as experts in national security and defense economics to convey our views on the national security implications of the Commission's work and especially the need for achieving responsible reductions in military spending. In this regard, we appreciate the initiative you have taken in your 10 November 2010 draft proposal to the Commission. It begins a necessary process of serious reflection, debate, and action.

The vitality of our economy is the cornerstone of our nation's strength. We share the Commission's desire to bring our financial house into order. Doing so is not merely a question of economics. Reducing the national debt is also a national security imperative.

To date, the Obama administration has exempted the Defense Department from any budget reductions. This is short-sighted: It makes it more difficult to accomplish the task of restoring our economic strength, which is the underpinning of our military power.

As the rest of the nation labors to reduce its debt burden, the current plan is to boost the base DOD budget by 10 percent in real terms over the next decade. This would come on top of the nearly 52 percent real increase in base military spending since 1998. (When war costs are included the increase has been much greater: 95 percent.)

We appreciate Secretary Gates' efforts to reform the Pentagon's business and acquisition practices. However, even if his reforms fulfill their promise, the current plan does not translate them into budgetary savings that contribute to solving our deficit problem. Their explicit aim is to free funds for other uses inside the Pentagon. This is not good enough.

Granting defense a special dispensation puts at risk the entire deficit reduction effort. Defense spending today constitutes over 55 percent of discretionary spending and 23 percent of the federal budget. An exemption for defense not only undermines the broader call for fiscal responsibility, but also makes overall budget restraint much harder as a practical economic and political matter.

We need not put our economic power at risk in this way. Today the United States possesses a wide margin of global military superiority. The defense budget can bear significant reduction without compromising our essential security.

We recognize that larger military adversaries may rise to face us in the future. But the best hedge against this possibility is vigilance and a vibrant economy supporting a military able to adapt to new challenges as they emerge.

We can achieve greater defense economy today in several ways, all of which we urge you to consider seriously. We need to be more realistic in the goals we set for our armed forces and more selective in our choices regarding their use abroad. We should focus our military on core security goals and on those current and emerging threats that most directly affect us.

We also need to be more judicious in our choice of security instruments when dealing with international challenges. Our armed forces are a uniquely expensive asset and for some tasks no other instrument will do. For many challenges, however, the military is not the most cost-effective choice. We can achieve greater efficiency today without diminishing our security by better discriminating between vital, desirable, and unnecessary military missions and capabilities.

There is a variety of specific options that would produce savings, some of which we describe below. The important point, however, is a firm commitment to seek savings through a reassessment of our defense strategy, our global posture, and our means of producing and managing military power.

Since the end of the Cold War, we have required our military to prepare for and conduct more types of missions in more places around the world. The Pentagon's task list now includes not only preventive war, regime change, and nation building, but also vague efforts to "shape the strategic environment" and stem the emergence of threats. It is time to prune some of these missions and restore an emphasis on defense and deterrence.

U.S. combat power dramatically exceeds that of any plausible combination of conventional adversaries. To cite just one example, Secretary Gates has observed that the U.S. Navy is today as capable as the next 13 navies combined, most of which are operated by our allies. We can safely save by trimming our current margin of superiority.

America's permanent peacetime military presence abroad is largely a legacy of the Cold War. It can be reduced without undermining the essential security of the United States or its allies.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed the limits of military power. Avoiding these types of operation globally would allow us to roll back the recent increase in the size of our Army and Marine Corps.

The Pentagon's acquisition process has repeatedly failed, routinely delivering weapons and equipment late, over cost, and less capable than promised. Some of the most expensive systems correspond to threats that are least prominent today and unlikely to regain prominence soon. In these cases, savings can be safely realized by cancelling, delaying, or reducing procurement or by seeking less costly alternatives.

Recent efforts to reform Defense Department financial management and acquisition practices must be strengthened. And we must impose budget discipline to trim service redundancies and streamline command, support systems, and infrastructure.

Change along these lines is bound to be controversial. Budget reductions are never easy - no less for defense than in any area of government. However, fiscal realities call on us to strike a new balance between investing in military power and attending to the fundamentals of national strength on which our true power rests. We can achieve safe savings in defense if we are willing to rethink how we produce military power and how, why, and where we put it to use."

Sincerely,

Gordon Adams, American University
Robert Art, Brandeis University
Deborah Avant, UC Irvine
Andrew Bacevich, Boston University
Richard Betts, Columbia University
Linda Bilmes, Kennedy School, Harvard University
Steven Clemons, New America Foundation
Joshua Cohen, Stanford University and Boston Review
Carl Conetta, Project on Defense Alternatives
Owen R. Cote Jr., Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michael Desch, University of Notre Dame
Matthew Evangelista, Cornell University
Benjamin H. Friedman, Cato Institute
Lt. Gen. (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr., Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
David Gold, Graduate Program in International Affairs, The New School
William Hartung, Arms and Security Initiative, New America Foundation
David Hendrickson, Colorado College
Michael Intriligator, UCLA and Milken Institute
Robert Jervis, Columbia University
Sean Kay, Ohio Wesleyan University
Elizabeth Kier, University of Washington
Charles Knight, Project on Defense Alternatives
Lawrence Korb, Center for American Progress
Peter Krogh, Georgetown University
Walter LaFeber, Cornell University
Richard Ned Lebow, Dartmouth College
Col. (USA, Ret.) Douglas Macgregor
Scott McConnell, The American Conservative
John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago
Steven Metz, national security analyst and writer
Janne Nolan, American Security Project
Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College and Harvard University
Paul Pillar, Georgetown University
Barry Posen, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Christopher Preble, Cato Institute
Daryl Press, Dartmouth College
David Rieff, author
Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland
Jack Snyder, Columbia University
J. Ann Tickner, University of Southern California
Robert Tucker, Johns Hopkins University
Stephen Van Evera, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stephen Walt, Harvard University
Kenneth Waltz, Columbia University
Cindy Williams, Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

**This letter reflects the opinions of the individual signatories. Institutions are listed for identification purposes only.**

(No Title)

I was volunteering my time at an GLBT organization in my state when a recruiter asked me if I was interested in joining a random health spa. He claimed that gay males over 18 and under 30 become free members. I neither trusted the individual nor the 'spa' for which he was recruiting. I was instantly put off because not only was his proposal risky, but I do not appreciate as an individual being socially typecasted. It makes me feel more like an object than a person.

That said, I know how a man trying to convince a young woman into joining such a spa would be perceived. I feel this particular comparison puts this ordeal into perspective.

Now just to make sure that I do not paint an entire community with the same broad brush, I know that many in the gay community do not accept behavior such as the above (obviously!!).

All the same, I think a dialogue is in order-at least in that one organization.

Why Do You Say That?

At work tonight, I had a discussion with my co-worker (more like a venting session) about having to implement a very specific telephone survey geared towards African-American males over 18. It was hard because no one was getting respondents easily over the phone.

In the course of the conversation I said to my white co-worker "the fact that we are only asking for African-Americans makes this number of respondents so small" to which she interjected "yeah as if they would even own phones."

Upon realizing the topic of this conversation now took a racist turn, I simply remained calm and ask "what do you mean by that?" I thought asking that simple question would simultaneously maintain decorum and reveal the statement for racist comment it truly was.

It worked, the woman apologized and the awkward situation ended.

I firmly believe that just calmly asking "why do you say that?" to a person who has just made a bigoted statement is the best way to begin to get your message across. Effective dialogues can only begin through benign patience by the person initiating it, even if the bigoted person isn't worthy of it.

Ray of Light

Lately, I've had an on-again off-again relationship with the Queen of Pop because I felt that she doesn't care anymore. Well, I think I may have been mistaken. On Ellen today she decided to send a message to everyone and to the Gay Community in particular about bullying. At first I thought that her statement was a little behind-the-curve. Then I found out that on November 5 Brandon Bitner, a 14-year old Freshman who had braces and loved music by artists like Madonna, killed himself as a result of gay-related bullying. Icons of the gay community have and obligation, not an option, to speak out, so I was pleased that she took the time to say the following:

Ellen Degeneres: I appreciate that you wanted to speak to this cause here because it is a very important cause to me and I understand for you. So speak to us.

Madonna: Well, I just feel it would be incredible remiss of me to not say something. I’m incredibly disturbed and saddened by the overwhelming number of teen suicides that have been reported lately because of bullying. Suicide in general is disturbing. Teenagers committing suicide is extremely disturbing but to hear that teenagers are taking their lives because they are being bullied in schools and dormitories, what have you, is kind of unfathomable. I know a number of people have spoken out about it but I feel like I need to say something. The gay community has been incredibly supportive of me. I wouldn’t have a career if it weren’t for the gay community…I have a teenage daughter and I have ongoing discussions with her about this topic so I feel like I need to say a few words…

Ellen Degeneres: Were you bullied as a kid? Did you feel different than other people when you were younger?

Madonna: Yes, that’s an understatement. I still feel different. I can totally relate to the idea of feeling isolated and alienated. I was incredibly lonely as a child, as a teenager. I have to say I never felt like I fit in in school. I wasn’t a jock. I wasn’t an intellectual. There was no group that I felt a part of. I just felt like a weirdo…It wasn’t until my ballet teacher who was also gay took me under his wing and introduced me to a community of artists of other unique individuals who told me it was good and okay to be different and brought me to my first gay disco and ironically made me feel I was part of the world and it was okay to be different.

Ellen Degeneres: What do you say to your children, Madonna? You said you started having these conversations when you talk about bullying. What do you say?

Madonna:..We talk a lot about the importance of not judging people who are different. Not judging people who don’t fit into our expected view of what’s cool and what isn’t. Think about it across the board. The concept that we are torturing teenagers because they are gay. It’s kind of like I said earlier. It’s unfathomable. It’s like lynching black people or Hitler exterminating Jews. Sorry if I’m going on a rampage right now but this is America. The land of the free and the home of the brave….

Madonna: I think it would be interesting for everybody to try one simple experiment. If you want to talk about solutions or how can we solve this problem? Try to get through the day each and everyone of us…without gossiping about somebody. Without gossiping about anybody. And not only that. Not even listening to gossip. Walking away from it. Can you imagine what your day would be like? How much more free time you’d have? I also feel like you’d feel about better about yourself…

Pretty good statement. I think there is hope for Madonna. This statement reminds me of the Madonna who used her career to help fight homophobia when many other artists were distancing themselves from gays during the bad old days of the 80s and 90s AIDS crisis. It reminds me of the singer who not only wrote songs like "In This Life" and "Why's It So Hard" to commiserate with the victims of homophobia in all its guises, but also "Deeper and Deeper" to remind people of the joys of living an out gay lifestyle.

I must say as probably the most visible gay icon, she is long overdue. But then again this whole dialogue about bullying was long overdue.

Natural Selection

The "unnatural" argument against homosexuality is truly the cleverest of all the stupid points raised by anti-gay forces. I believe it is so clever because the argument really summarizes homophobia at a very visceral level: we hate you because you are not like us.

To a person who does not really analyze his or her culture, homosexuality may actually seem unnatural. There is even a twisted logic to the argument. They say Men and woman are biologically complimentary, therefore heterosexuality is proper. They also make the claim that most people are heterosexual, so then it must be nature's norm. Finally, they point to Western Culture and how it has been built around Judeo-Christian values, the traditional family unit and a basic definition of a given individual that is inherently based on the man/woman divide. You are given a name at birth, and it is either intended to be masculine or feminine. In short, being heterosexual is just expected.

So if a person is not heterosexual, then he or she is falling short of traditional cultural expectations and is not following the natural order of things. But when a person really thinks critically of what constitutes the natural, this mentality should rapidly fall apart.

After all human behavior is not unchanging. By which standard to you measure a lifestyle in order to call it "natural"? A life of mansions and plastic surgery must surely be as unnatural to a nomad as a life of collapsible huts and fur skins would be to an heiress. they have different lifestyle standards. Or are both of their lives equally natural, as any anthropologist would claim?
Is the meat heavy diet of the paleolithic hunter-gather unnatural, or is the neolithic farmer, with his diet of mostly grains, truly representative of the natural human diet? Which invention is more natural, the Ipod or the hammer, and which paint colors are closer to nature, pink shades or earth tones?

Since there is not one universal measurement, when we start to pick and choose which aspects of human life to consider natural, we can easily start sounding absurd.

Some people actually believe that nature itself is that one universal standard. They go to great lengths, and spend a considerable amount of money, on trying to prove that homosexuality does not exist in the animal (even insect!) kingdom. Well it doesn't. How could it when the very word itself describes a group of human beings? However, Same-sex behavior is recorded among animals and yes, insects too (Still, these cases are purely in terms of mating because life forms obviously can't experience true love, a human emotion). In any case, nature is value-neutral and should never become the standard by which human beings judge others. After all, there is no constitution, or Bible for that matter, in the middle of the jungle.

And besides, why would human beings want to restrict themselves to behaving in ways that are defined by arbitrary social or biological norms. Isn't the sentient ability to overcome the confines of our environment and become more than the sum of our parts what really makes us human in the first place? Our very ability to grow to be more seems to be in our nature.

Tax, Spend, Arm

Two choices are for certain if America is to effectively combat its debt and spending. First we are going to have to up the retirement age. obviously no one wants to do this, but what's a viable alternative? The second is large military cuts.

We will bankrupt ourselves if we continue down our present course. But why do we have to make so many cuts to our social programs when we have such an extravagant war machine?

The real question is how will our military respond to the proposed cuts if they can't even handle civilians telling them to end Don't Ask Don't Tell?

Gay Conservatives

While they are undoubtedly misguided, there is undeniable value of out gay and lesbian conservative organizations within the larger gay movement.

Openly gay conservatives support the Republicans' agenda and stand against the Democratic platform both financially and through volunteering. The two largest of these organizations are GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans, and these groups' raison d'etre is fundamentally subordinating civil equality to signature conservative stances such as limited government, individual liberty and national defense.

Recently, at a gay conservative fundraiser for GOProud, the audience posed tough questions for Ann Coulter over gay rights. The organization was, well, Proud to have her as their special guest and even deemed her "the Judy Garland of the Right" (not 100% sure who should be insulted by that title).

Does the existence of these organizations hurt or actually help the LGBTQ Movement?

They clearly provide a much different political outlet for some in the Gay Community, and that can be a very good change. The more the public sees how diverse gays and lesbians really are, the more they will see their sexuality as just another facet of their lives, rather than the defining facet. The staunch Republican working with the gay conservative on a common ground issue such as advancing the idea of limited government would presumably realize that gays are not necessarily political enemies.

Also, through cooperation on a campaign, they may even learn to see homosexuality for what it truly is: a healthy expression of the human experience. Therefore, organizations like GOProud are uniquely positioned to reach out to a significant part of the American population that other gay groups cannot.

On the other hand, the diversification of political expressions for gays and lesbian that these groups represent can be a weakness. The damage to the Gay Community caused by infighting over the status of gay conservative groups is self-evident. A political and social movement fighting amongst themselves severely weakens their effectiveness. The presence of gay conservative groups, as well as their vocal detractors within the Gay Community, compromises the overall goal of equality.

The divergent activities of gay conservatives and the mainstream gay-rights movement also undermines the bigger picture. How much longer will the battle for equal rights take when GOProud donated and volunteered for John McCain while more mainstream gay political action groups did the same for Barack Obama? True, both candidates were against gay marraige but politcal groups of the Gay Community would have more of an impact on politicians if they all worked together on one candidate. Since gays and lesbians are s minority group, it is only logical that they pool their resources together in order to have the maximize impact in politics.

To many within the Gay Community, civil rights trump all other issues. It is not that gays are single-issue voters but rather the suffering they have to endure as a direct result of inequality comes before any other political concern. Civil rights becomes the trump card when voting, and this is why many are enraged by gay conservatives. In some cases, they are considered worse than ordinary conservatives because they are perceived as betrayers of their own kind.

Yet groups like GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans are not the Judases of the Gay Community. They have decided, like countless other political groups throughout history, that the integrity of the State comes before civil rights. To them, this integrity means limiting government and maintaining an overwhelmingly strong defense. Their position is not unique and their political positions fall within reason. Indeed in terms of history, the position of mainstream gays are the true anomalies. Conservative gays are not suffering from internalized homophobia, they are simply expressing their beliefs. While they can, and frankly must, vehemently disagree, the mainstream gay political groups must also treat gay conservatives as equals.

Under pain of disunity, this basic divide must some how be bridged by all within the Gay Community. A reasonable, realistic perspective is absolutely urgent. Mainstream gays must accept the existence and legitimacy of gay conservatives and work within this reality. Many conservative gays have ample time and money that can be used to advance equality, and all of them have valid viewpoints so long as they do not directly advocate inequality. However, the conservative gay groups must stop supporting candidates that are overtly anti-equality such as John McCain.

In order for real change to occur, the Gay Community as a whole must stop advocating for one party over the other and advocate for individual candidates that support gay rights. If mainstream gay political groups expect to work with gay conservatives, then they must compromise. As a result, more candidates could become more conducive towards equality. If enough do, then the party platforms will follow. Gay conservative groups are certainly legitimate, if misguided. In this modern age, there still should be enough room for the whole Gay Community to work together, and if there isn't then they need to learn to change. I hope our society will come to a time when both parties are for full civil rights and the Gay Community has the luxury of dividing itself over economic and national defense matters.

Snuffed.

Seth Walsh was 13. He was incessantly taunted by his peers for being perceived as gay. He went to his backyard. He hung himself from a tree. Yet the rope didn't snap his neck. Instead, the noose strangled him. But slowly. His lips turned blue. His body produced one last adrenaline rush. So he involuntarily struggled against the noose. His legs twisted wildly. He gasped. Often in these cases fear and reflex causes them to vomit. Eventually he went limp. His body was tortuously deprived of oxygen. He slipped into a coma. Nine days later, he died. During the police interrogation, his tormentors broke down in tears. They said they wished they had stopped.

Walsh's family does not wish to place blame, but rather focus on promoting tolerance and understanding. As a grieving family, they have every right to react in the way that best gives them some solace. However, there is much blame to be cast, and frankly those responsible more than deserve to be exposed.

Here are the people who are responsible for Walsh's death and thousands of other LGBT youth:

1) The monster who promotes and maintains a culture of homophobia. This person wishes that gays would deny who they are and not assert their civil rights. He or she fights them in the public arena with the ultimate goal of re-closeting. He or she calls them faggots. Sometimes he or she is more clever and uses phrases such as 'disordered,' 'sinful,' 'unnatural' and 'perverted.' He or she is religious, but dirties the concept of god through such intolerance.

2) The bigoted peer who uses the word 'gay' as an insult and teases the gay or perceived to be gay kid. It is true that this person is a child and does not fully understand the potential consequences of she or her actions. However, it is the careless taunting and bullying without regard to the consequences that is the problem with this person. Thoughtlessly throwing around words or actions have real consequences.

3) This bigot can be the straight parent who just doesn't care enough, or the straight friend who refuses to take that critical jump to acceptance. While not exactly as bad as bigot of #2 or the monster of #1, this person is clearly uncomfortable with gays and lesbians and shows it. Sometimes the things left unsaid can be most hurtful to an LGBT teenager.

4) The people who side with neither tolerance nor intolerance. They do not actively join the taunting, but they allow the bullying to continue unchallenged. These individuals are only slightly less contemptible than the previous type.

5) The Gay individual who does not try to make life easier for his or her kind. This person does not vote and does not call elected officials. He or she does not attend civil rights events. This person in fact does not contribute to the struggle for justice in any way either physically or financially. He or she does want the cycle of homophobia to be broken across the country, yet does nothing to contribute. This person should know better.

There is plenty of blame to go around. When a LGBT youth kills him or herself due to homophobia is a domestic travesty of the highest magnitude.

The Trevor Project is the best outreach organization for this topic, but unfortunately, it is still not enough. If there was greater cooperation between individuals in Tehachapi, California, to stamp out bullying and provide genuine mentors, perhaps Seth Walsh would be alive today.

Count Me Out!

The folks at "Debaptized" explain that defection is the next logical step after initially rejection your religion and its tenets.

For all the people who have been victimized, scapegoated, prejudged or generally turned-off by the Roman Catholic Church, there is a site based in Ireland that makes formally defecting easier, "Count Me Out."

According to the Catechism, one must make a formal declaration of defection in order to cut ties with the church. The person seeking to defect must sent a declaration of intent to the diocese they are currently registered (however, the Catechism does point out that your soul is permanently and eternally Catholic-whatever!). Once sent the Church will make the note of defection in their records. Basically, a formal declaration of defection is the most public act a person can do to distance themselves from the Church (other than mockingly hang on a cross in front of millions of spectators.)

There is a point in formally defecting. It truly doesn't matter if a person has proclaimed their disbelief or has not set foot in a church again, the Church still counts you as one of the 1.2 billion faithful. It is only logical to formally leave the institution if a person is truly appalled at the history, beliefs, or criminal actions of the Church, yet is still formally counted as a full member in Church records. Formally defecting also provides a final emotional sense of closure for those who want it, not to mention it makes things simpler if you have chosen a different spiritual path.

This should not be a quick decision. One thing to keep in mind that when a person formally defects, he or she is no longer welcome to take communion. It may also cause complications concerning other sacraments, such as the ability to have a Catholic Marriage, as well as end-of-life choices like the option of being buried in a Catholic cemetery. Nevertheless, these should mostly be non-issues for people who truly do not want to be formally considered Catholic.

In today's world people should look at their beliefs honestly and decide for themselves if they still line up with these ancient cultural belief systems. Given the history of these groups people owe it to others and themselves.

Here is the pdf Declaration of Defection.

The Rite of De-Baptism

What does the image of a hair dryer have to do with atheism? The creators of "Debaptized" have adopted it because they intend to dry away the waters of baptism for all.

In recent years many Atheists have become more outspoken in the Western World. Famous Atheists such as Richard Dawkins loudly proclaim their beliefs and challenge theists. Since the Pope is touring through merry England, the nation's religious landscape has been under close scrutiny. One atheist group has had considerable success reaching out to British citizens, the creators of "Debaptized."

This group intentionally mocks the Christian ritual of Baptism in creating a counter-ritual: Debaptism. Once a person chooses to be debaptized through this group, they send a Certificate of Debaptism "suitable for framing." They maintain a website that has made over 100,000 requested British debaptisms.

They are unapologetically irreverent of baptism and religion in general. They describe baptism as :

"the ritual cleansing of sins. Typically administered to infants shortly after birth (without their consent) to remove Original Sin, of which they are guilty before even breathing."

And their understanding on the Christian concept of Original Sin:

"Original Sin is an hereditary sin. It is a sin of which all are guilty by having had ancestors who committed a particular sin. Despite no have actually committed the transgression yourself, you are nonetheless still required to be punished for it. Having to pay for crimes you do not commit is a human right violation."

And finally here is what they have to say about the concept of the soul in Christianity:

"A soul is a thing that, despite being both invisible and undetectable, is considered more important than a living person's happiness, well being and very life. This morally bankrupt viewpoint leads to the devaluing of human life and the reliance on an imaginary afterlife to give meaning to people's lives."

They believe that the symbolism behind debaptism is as significant as baptism itself because "debaptism can provide a new symbolism and ritual to ease you away from this morally empty worldview."

To these atheists, the whole religious hoopla is so utterly without reason, ultimately meaningless and potentially dangerous that they feel creating a fictitious rite to wean people off the need to believe in superstition is well worth the effort.

The whole point of the group and the popular website is to get people thinking about their beliefs and offers counterpoints to those beliefs, a very noble cause. The religious will see this whole activity as anathema to all they hold dear, but don't we need counterpoints every now and then? Don't we need our beliefs challenged in order to save us from complacency or worse?

There is real value in their campaign as well as their ideas. However, like religious zealots, dedicated atheists must refrain from going too far in pushing their beliefs on others. Still, the fact that the rite of debaptism exists is an especially poignant and clever way to create much-needed pressure to traditional beliefs.

Tea Party of the Jersey Shore

I recently read an editorial in a local newspaper entitled "Frank Pallone's Tyranny" by one Ernesto Cullari of the Tea Party. It isn't very good, and is full of the usual Tea-Party lies such as the existence of foreign-controlled unions, democrats who are part of a conspiracy to squash the Constitution in the name of Big Government and descriptions of the kind, paternalism of huge American corporations.

It attempts to cast fear and suspicion on Congressman Frank Pallone's activities in Washington by zeroing in on one bill, H.R. 5175 (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act-an earful of a title!). Yet his rather uneloquent attempt to derail the New Jersey Democrat's bid for re-election not only fails, but it actually self-incriminates the Tea Party of the very undemocratic goals he wished to pin on the Congressman.

H.R 5175 is a bill drafted in response to an extremely controversial Supreme Court decision in January 2010. The Court's decision in Citizen's United vs Federal Election Commission overturned the prohibition on campaign spending on corporations and unions. In other words, Exxon-Mobil can spend as much as it wants on a candidate that will preserve or advance its interests. H.R. 5175 reimposes the restrictions on the corporations but not the unions, and this is the reason why Mr. Cullari is hurling his Lipton's at Pallone's campaign.

While it is true that unions do not have perfect track records, dismissing the bill on the grounds that it does not hold unions to the same standards as corporations is remarkably unreasonable. Who's campaign contributions would you rather restrict, Wal-Mart's or the AFL-CIO, AIG or the Change to Win Federation? I'd say that in terms of helping the Americans living on the ground, Unions have a better history. American rage has all-too-often been rightly directed towards the large and overbearing corporations. Just the fact that the bill doesn't include unions doesn't invalidate the need to restrict corporations.

Yet Mr. Cullari in his editorial points out that "all-American corporations like Pepsi" would be prevented from funding elections while unions will not. Yet the debate about the unions aside, do "all-American" multi-national corporations like Pepsi or Coca-Cola deserve to spend limitless amounts of money on campaigns? How can this be good for the average American who depends on unions to prevent abuse from corporations such as these? He notes that labor unions are foreign-influenced, but what about BP? This bill will protect the American public from truly foreign-influenced companies such as BP (short for British Petroleum). Upon not-so-deep digging into the quasi-logic of Cullari's editorial, his true agenda comes clear.

A bill such as H.R. 5175 overwhelmingly helps the American worker. Siding with the CEOs of corporations on issues such as this one serves as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party leaders are really not for the average American. They are just using the rage of ordinary Americans to push their agenda. This to me is the scariest aspect of the Tea Party Movement. Not the latent racism, not the homophobia, not the unwillingness to compromise, not the inability to accurately learn from history, but rather the adherents' willingness to let the leadership mold and distort them into supporting monsters that are bigger than the issues just mentioned. Overwhelming corporate influence of the United States government is a truly horrifying specter because it can steamroll everything. Corporations, if gone unchecked, do not care about rights, the environment, families and most human beings in general. They could usher in tyranny just as effectively as any dictator.

By using Pallone's support of H.R. 5175, Cullari exposes the true consequences of a Tea Party that is given real power come November. It really is a movement that supports corporate "rights" (interest is more accurate) over the needs of the citizens. This makes his own words against Pallone actually more relevant to himself and the Tea Party Movement, "if left unaddressed, will leave a lasting scar on your legacy that will take you, your family and our Republic years and perhaps a generation to recover from."

The Cowards or the Bullies?

Someone noted that in November we have a choice between a "party of cowards and a party of bullies." That assessment accurately describes the current political environment.

Since President Obama's inauguration, the Democrat's popularity has been steadily declining. It is clear now that the economic stimulus was not big enough and that top economic advisers underestimated the troubled state of the economy. While the idea that health care reform was passed is certainly a political milestone, in reality the reform has not sat well with constituents.

The Democrats have alienated their core supporters and their overall platforms in their quest to hold on to power. In this bid, they mistakenly reached out to Republicans. It is true that the Democrat majority was fundamentally fragile, but to reach out to a party that has been blatantly obstructionist is simply foolish.

Add to these lackluster accomplishments, a dire economic situation. Despite what the economists claim, many Americans are living in a depression. Once thriving areas of the nation are struggling to stave off financial ruin and there is no end in sight.

In every step of the political process, the democrats have proven to be cowards. They do not even have the backbones to pursue their special interests through to completion, let alone work for the country's interest in general. By all counts they do not deserve to be voted back in office and they do not deserve their majorities. It remains to be seen whether they still deserve the presidency.

Yet only viable political alternative has degenerated into a legion of bullies. The Republicans continue to point the finger to place blame for the economic situation when they caused it. Whereas the Democrats have mismanaged the problem, the Republicans are responsible for starting it. And their only suggestions are ruinous ones: great austerity measures and a return to a non-existent America of yesteryear.

Because the true power of the party now lies in the enraged Tea Party Movement and the reviving Christian Right, elected Republicans are now even more at their mercy. The nonsensical behavior of both groups speaks for itself and offers a truly terrifying prospect of a Republican Party in great positions of power.

The sheer amount of bullying and scapegoating of the Right, while frustrating, is typical of right-wing behavior in uncertain times, yet much of the American voting populace has been perceptive to their rhetoric. Despite this, the effect of the Republican party's fear-mongering has made them a political force to be feared. At this point in the game, the Republicans have more political energy than the Democrats because of the highly emotional nature of their core, and that advantage should not be understated.

So the outlook of the mid-term elections is grim indeed no matter who wins, the Cowards or the Bullies.

But If I had to choose, I'd rather be a friend to a coward than a bully simply because the coward at least offers the possibility of listing to my ideas whereas the bully would just steamroll them.

If I Could Turn Back Time...

"Every place that we ever knew was just a time we held on to."

The main problem with revival movements like the Tea Party and Christian Fundamentalism is their ultimately self-defeating objective of returning to a past time.

The yearning, often desperation, to turn back the clock is an unfortunate temptation of individuals and cultures. People look to the past in constructing their future. They try to recreate childhood memories, breathe life into long-dead relationships and remake times that they perceive to be happier-- all ultimately in vain. Whole societies put significant amounts of energies into returning to simple and perceived holier times. Leaders seize power or are elected on the premise that they will turn the society back to better times--again all in vain.

The problem with trying to returning to a past way of life is that it never works. In fact, for all intents and purposes it is utterly impossible. Civilizations have marched to their ruin in their attempts to march into their more glorious past. The chief lesson to extract from these societies, whether it is one of the plethora of states who have tried to relive the glories of Rome, Sassanian Persia or the American Great Awakenings, is that the attempts do not work.

They fail because each era in history, indeed each event, is a product of a complex, but completely unique, cause-effect relationship. The variables involved to create the Boston Tea Party took a while to gestate and still those background factors are a product of still more variables that came before. Historians and amateurs aren't even aware of the existence of some of these variables, and it is up to future scholars to uncover them.

Since a movement cannot possibly reconstruct the institutions, perspectives, and idiosyncrasies of earlier times, the most the movement can achieve is a recreation based on the memory of the past. One cannot bring back a past way of life, but only relive a specific interpretation of that past. The lessons of yesteryear should be cherished, but we should not pursue reliving the events that brought us to those conclusions. There is also something erroneously emotional about yearning to relive the past.

The emotion of nostalgia is truly a glossy lens by which to view the past. Those Americans who call for a radical return for the ideals espoused during the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers ignore the surrounding realities of why these events existed in the first place. The compromise, intrigue and sacrifice that went into both events simply do not live up to the glossy memory that some modern-day Americans assign to them.

That is due to the fact that they are making ignorant assumptions about the past fueled by their nostalgia. Great pangs of nostalgia tends to put past ways of life on a pedestal that it does not deserve. Are they chasing the past for concrete, logical reasons, or are they simply chasing the past in order to alleviate their negative emotions towards the present?

What these American conservative activists really mean when they say that they wish to return to the nation's founding ideals is this, "we are so frustrated by life now that we want to change things to reflect a time when it was better." Their analysis of the past is colored by their emotional reactions to the present. This is especially true for Christian Fundamentalists, and dangerously so.

Since, calling for a society to turn back the clock cannot truly be done, are revival movements the healthiest way to address the problems of the present? Human existence is a culmination of temporal cause-effect relationships that are in a constant state of flux. If this linear reality is true, then what advantage is there in trying to exist in the past?

Restoring (Dis)Honor

I must write more about the inherently false assumptions of "restoration" movements such as the Tea Party. Yet for the moment this excerpt from Aldous Huxley's Island sums up my general opinion of the Tea Party (or at least what it threatens to become):

"...And then the faces of the assorted listeners. Huge, idiot faces, blankly receptive. Faces of the wide-eyed sleepwalkers. Faces of young, Nordic angels rapt in the Beatific Vision. Faces of the baroque saints going into ecstasy. Faces of the lovers on the brink of orgasm. One Folk, One Realm, One Leader. Union with the unity of an insect swarm. Knowledgeless understanding of nonsense and diabolism. And then the newsreel camera had cut back to the serried ranks, the swastikas, the brass bands, the yelling hypnotist on the rostrum. And here once again, in the glare of his inner light, was the brown insect-like column, marching endlessly to the tunes of this rococo horror-music. Onward Nazi soldiers, onward Christian soldiers, onward Marxists and Muslims, onward every chosen People, every Crusader and Holy War-maker. Onward into misery, into all wickedness, into death!"

Doesn't literature just do it better sometimes?

Mea Culpa...Ego Operor Non Reputo Sic!

It came out today that Ken Hehlman, well, came out. Coming out ought to be a joyous occasion like any other fundamental assertion of the self. Often it is, but not when the likes of Ken Hehlman publicly states that he's gay.

This homosexual was the chairman of the Republican National Committee. This queer was George W. Bush's re-election campaign manager. The election of 2004 will forever be remembered by gays as when the Republican Party used the prospect of increased rights for gays to scare the Religious Right into tipping the balance that gave Bush the presidency again. He was Bush's Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

In short, he was at one point one of the most influential people in the United States, not to mention among the most powerful Republicans of the time. One could even argue that he was the homosexual in the most unique position to try to make tomorrow better than today. Here is what he did with his power:

1) I already mentioned his role in the election of 2004, a great setback for gay rights and civil rights in general.

2) He pressed not one, but TWO, constitutional amendment to explicitly deny gays the right to marry.

3)Helped develop the strategy where George Bush threatened to veto any hate crime bill-this one is surely the most sinister use of his influence.

4) Going back to the 2004, he developed the "72 hour strategy." Specifically appealing to homophobic churches in the preceding days to election day to scare them into voting Republican.

He is even worse than the religious radicals who come out or are caught in a compromising position because his position gave him real influence over the top executives of our nation.
So he is a collaborator, and an incredibly damaging one. There is a lot of suffering the Gay Community is yet to endure while it fights to dismantle the homophobic climate he helped to sustain. He must be chastised, no censured by any homosexual who cares about civil rights and healthy living. There must be no accommodation for collaborators who are not contrite.

Is he contrite? This is the closest thing he made to an apology:

"I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally...What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all"

To those who are inclined to doubt his sincerity, he added that “If they can’t offer support, at least offer understanding.”

I do not understand, stating your regrets is no act of contrition. How convenient for him to not be "in this place" when he was chairman of the RNC, a position that had real influence. Now that he is defanged, he comes out. Nothing other than enmity is appropriate between this individual and the Gay Community. I do not understand.

He claims that he will start fighting for marraige equality, and has donated money to the cause in various states. Yet until he publicly and loudly apologizes for his past action, holds himself accountable for the damage and heartache he caused the LGBT Community for years and notes just how much he was in error. Then, and only then, will his quaint charitable actions have any substance and meaning. Even the future St. Paul had to apologize to the Christian Community for persecuting them before they welcomed him as one of their own.

Thus far have his statements been a true mea culpa...I don't think so!

What's in a Name (Change)?

When many gay couples marry, one of them changes their last name and adopts the last name of their husband or wife. Is there anything wrong with this and does it even matter?

One clear advantage that I've come across is that it represents a precaution to the dreaded hospital-rejection scenario. For example, if Latisha Amoretta is dying of coma in the hospital that is not gay-friendly, her wife, Kira Amoretta, formerly Kira Vancouver, can simply say to the workers that she is Jane's sister. The convenience of a name-change is undeniable in that sort of situation.

Gay couples who change their name also add great symbolic weight to their situations. If Buddy Henderson adopts the last name of his husband, Gregor de Oliveira, their marriage seems to be formalized even more. Their union is even more like the majority of heterosexual marriages.

This may seem like a nice gesture on the surface, but the act of changing one's last name to his or her spouse's seems to me the wrong thing to do. It is a gesture that recalls the worst aspect of traditional heterosexual marriage-fundamental inequality based on gender.

Why do wives change their last names to their husbands anyway? They do it because the act is a throwback to the time when wives left their families upon marriage to begin their lives as a member of their husband's family-til' death do they part I should add. She no longer belonged to her father's family and now she belongs to her husband's family. The justification for this action is the underlying assumption that women are inferior (or at least must defer) to men. This is the true symbolism of the last name-change: family unity through deference to the man.

The concept of ownership in a relationship ought to be dead by now. Human beings don't belong to one another no matter what the circumstance. Marriage is an emotional investment, it is no longer viewed as an ownership contract.

Modern couples, and explicitly Homosexual couples, have the luxury of choosing which traditions they will accept in their marriage and which they will not. This luxury must not be wasted by retaining the vestiges of oppression and inequality. Yes it seems nice, yes it is romantic. But last name changing is also antiquated and symbolic of the wrong ideas. How can the thinking person accept it in the long term?

If you want to make a symbolic statement, yet still be romantic, hyphenate your last names in alphabetical order. For example, our couples from before should be known in their married lives as Latisha and Kira Amoretta-Vancouver and Buddy and Gregor DeOliveira-Henderson. It's not as traditionally romantic as one of them completely changing their last names, but it is healthier and fair.

Where's Athena When America Needs Her??

The Spartans, no not the steroid movie crazies, the real ones, had institutionalized homosexuality (or what we modern people would call homosexuality) as an important aspect of their army. Basically all we remember Sparta by is their fabulous army-for Zeus's sake they were the "elephant" in the War Between the "Elephant" and the "Whale." If they don't need "Don't Ask Don't Tell" we sure as Hades certainly do not.

Today Justice Vaughn Walker of the US District Court of Northern California has reached a decision deeming Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that nullified gay marriage in California, unconstitutional.

This is truly a victory for marriage equality, but merely a small battle in a struggle that has no end in sight. The decision will be appealed by supporters of the unconstitutional measure. Since our judicial system is divided into geographic zones (kind of like county level -state level -federal level but the geographical organization is different), the case decision will be appealed by the supporters of Prop 8 to the 9^th circuit.

Then the decision that the 9th makes has the possibility to be appealed as well. If that happens then the highest court in the land will weigh in, the Supreme Court, and make a final decision on the matter. Therefore, this will prove to be a long, hard campaign that has an uncertain course.

However, one thing is for certain, if the case were to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow, it would fall apart and Proposition (H)8 would be the law of the land in California. Besides the fact that the members of the Court aren’t very socially progressive, the strongest indication that the law would be upheld is that the Court rarely, if ever, makes decisions that the overwhelming majority of American would not endorse. Unfortunately, most Americans still do not support gay marriage. So it really is an uphill battle from here.

This victory had been long predicted and the Gay Community must not let it cloud their judgment of the two lawyers who took up the marriage equality position. Most gay rights organizations only reluctantly agreed to support the stubborn lawyers in their bid. Ted Olsen and David Boies have taken a great risk with this case that has and will gather much publicity (not to mention considerable historical prestige for the courtroom victors).

They have taken possibly too great a risk. While I guess I should not presume to know their true underlying motivations for initiating Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the truth of the matter remains that the cards are definitely stacked against Olsen and Boies. The risk is probably too great because it would be disastrous for the Supreme Court to rule against marriage equality, since any unjust court decision takes agonizingly long to fix. The prospect of waiting decades for a future court to overturn a bad ruling would be utterly tragic for gays and the integrity of the United States as a whole. At this point, the Gay Rights Movement cannot afford a legal defeat of that magnitude. It would set everything back decades at least.

The opponents of marriage equality have used many tricks in the past, including scare tactics, they have monetary resources that regularly surpass the resources of those who fight for equality, and they have well entrenched political allies-especially on the Supreme Court. Yet they lack the one special weapon that is the most important factor in any campaign: time.

Attitudes in the US are changing towards Gays and Gay Marriage. The younger generations are already greatly accepting of gay marriage and as the “Greatest Generation” and older “Baby Boomers” slip into senility or die out, their political influence will also. Yet the political influence of the younger generations will only increase. Hopefully by the time the Supreme Court hears this case, if it indeed gets that far, public opinion will have decisively turned towards marriage equality. So the key is not how fast things go for homosexuals and their families, but rather how slowly.

Whatever their underlying motivations, Ted Olsen and David Boies are now the true defenders of marriage in all its forms. Today’s victory in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a limited one, but one that made tomorrow, Aug 5, a better day than today.

"Ground Zero Mosque"

A New York City panel is set to vote on the status of the 9/11 site on Tuesday. This vote should only be based on the need preserve the city’s heritage because there are indeed historic buildings in the area. The vote should unite people through common historical remembrance, not divide.

But it is dividing because the real reason behind the vote has more to do with the possibility of a mosque and Islamic center being constructed two blocks north of Ground Zero (the commission in charge of the vote says otherwise, of course, but the public understanding of this has realistically changed the meaning of the vote). If the panel grants the 9/11 site “landmark status,” then the buildings currently occupying the site cannot be torn down, effectively killing the plans to build the new Islamic Center.

The opposition to this proposed construction has taken a disturbing turn. Sarah Palin herself tweeted, "Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing." Her sentiment is echoed by many conservatives. Not only are they completely misunderstanding Islam (again), they are twisting an established legal procedure in order to infringe upon the rights of a minority group (again)-in this case preventing Muslims from freely and publicly expressing their faith.

How does building a Mosque, a house of worship, amount to stabbing hearts? Islamic fundamentalists attacked our nation on 9/11, not mainstream Muslims. It is only logical to make a clear distinction between those who practice the generally accepted tenants of a religion from the lunatic fringe since they are so unlike one another. Now, building an Islamic Fundamentalist Mosque would rightly cause victims more pain, but there is a difference between fundamentalists and mainstream adherence in any faith-a big one. These opponents are letting their perceptions of Islamic Fundamentalism color their entire opinion of Islam in general. Is it okay to treat Christianity in this manner as well?

Mainstream Muslims are exactly the people who are trying to build this mosque. Oz Sultan of the Cordoba Initiative, the Islamic group behind the building proposal notes that the Muslims organizing this initiative are “committed to promoting positive interaction between the Muslim world and the West.” This statement is clearly not what Palin describes as “UNNECESSARY provocation,” but her words are clearly so. While those like Palin are using divisive rhetoric, the victims of their rhetoric instead respond with unifying language. That should say it all, but the bigoted have more supporters in surprising places.

The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights Antisemitism and bigotry in general, would like the Muslims to build their mosque further away from Ground Zero because “building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right.” Strange statement coming from an anti-defamation organization.

The result of all this is very unnerving and insidious; the calls to prevent the center from being built will no doubt influence members of the panel. If this “landmark” vote is used to prevent Muslims from freely and openly expressing their religion in public, once again New York will prove that it still doesn’t quite get it. It’s a shame that the opponents can’t recall a time when Americans opposed the construction of too many Jewish and Mormon Temples or Catholic Churches.

A Fistful of Anarchy

When reading about foreign affairs, it is essential to note that the word “anarchy” in international politics describes the current world political order: there is no higher authority than the state government. It would be incorrect to accept the meaning of the word “anarchy” in the international context as synonymous to “chaos.” It merely defines the condition where there is a lack of authority above the state level.

This definition of the word within the field of international studies is radically different from the domestic-political understanding of the exact same word. In that much more widely known context, it describes a coherent political philosophy. You can read about anarchy as it relates to domestic politics here. Unfortunately, this confusing aspect of international politics occurs with the word “liberal” as well, but not so much for the word “realism.”

That said, I’ll get to the point: how should the United States conduct itself on the anarchic international scene? The following is a political philosophy of international politics, realism.

That everlasting question cannot be answered before reiterating the purpose of the democratic government. Who is it there for?

The democratic government (roughly) exists to protect its citizens from harm and ensure that they all enjoy the preconditions necessary in order to live satisfactory lives. To these ends, the democratic government is supposed to serve its citizens and its citizens alone. Any governmental action abroad must reflect this existential mission. Why would the state make decisions that are in the best interests of foreign people over the interests of its citizens?

After reiterating the reason why a democratic government exists, the next step is to understand how that government can achieve its mission in an anarchic world political order.

The solution is clear: power. When there is no rule-of-law the only important possession is raw power. Simply put, the stronger you are, the safer you will be. Conversely, the weaker you are, the more vulnerable you will be. The democratic government would not be able to protect its citizens from harm and ensure prosperity for them if it is constantly threatened by a foreign state. Thus, in a world that has no definitive international police, judge, or senate, power is the closest thing to safety.

Since power is a nation’s best (only?) hope to ensure that its citizens are protected from the outside world, the state must do all it can to maximize its power vis-à-vis its rivals. Power can take on many forms-most notably military or economic-but the truth of the matter remains that if a state is powerful enough; it will not be easily taken advantage of by other international actors. Therefore, such security then is obviously in the best interests of the state’s citizens.

If only we could live in a world where nations respect some international rule-of-law without exception. Yet the reality is clear, in an atmosphere of anarchy, power is the only thing that commands. A state must maximize its power relative to its rivals in the world in order to prosper. All other objectives concerning a democratic government’s international actions, including humanitarian concerns, must be subjugated to this essential need.

Here is the most classic real-world example:

During the Cold War, the only thing that stopped the USSR from waging war on the US was the power of the American military and economy. It wasn’t the UN and it certainly wasn’t morality. It was that the US had nuclear weapons, aircraft, ships, tanks and factories that would go to use if attacked. All of the foreign policies of nations within this period reflected this state of affairs.

This is why international politics has a different set of rules than any other political realm. It has no room for morality, no room for good for Good’s sake, no room for trust.

That said, who does international realism make tomorrow better than today for?

I, Anarchy

Politics among nations is radically different from politics within a democracy like the United States. The difference is almost like night and day due to one reason: anarchy.

In a democracy, we have a social structure designed to keep the peace. When we have disputes, we have a judicial system, and when the individuals of this judicial system make decisions, we have police officers to enforce the decisions. In some cases the police are called on to prevent individuals or groups from harming each other.

In a democracy, we respect the rule-of-law. We have a complex system of government that (more or less) responds to the needs of the people, and the people use this government to lobby for change. Things get done, and things get done peacefully. Our society has an economy based on competition, supply and demand. This economy mostly allows Americans to meet all their material needs and then some, without having to fight one another for these material things.

All these mechanisms in place in a democratic society, designed to promote peace and prosperity, simply do not exist on the international scene because there is no higher authority than national governments.

When nations have disputes there is no definitive international judicial system that can settle the fight. There is no international police force that can prevent states from resorting to violence. There is also no international government that can pass laws and address problems peacefully. Organizations such as the United Nations have no binding power, just look at the United States’ 2003 invasion of Iraq over the UN’s disapproval. “International Law” as we call it, is little more than commonly agreed upon codes-of-conduct that can be broken at any time. In fact, they are broken all the time. In short, the nations of the world are in a state of anarchy.

This is an indisputable fact. Accepting this truth is the beginning of understanding why international activities work as they do.

When In Rome...

Well, it isn’t too often that you hear about Catholic priest scandals involving sex with adults. Ever since the Italian magazine “Panorama” published an expose revealing the numerous homosexual activities within the Priesthood of Rome, the Vatican and its allies have had no choice but to push back hard-yet again. One of them is Bill Donohue, the president of the so-called “Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.” He has been defending the Church during this year’s wave sex scandals and his explanation of the underlying cause is broad indeed: homosexuality. Yet his analysis is as ignorant as it is broad. The underlying problem is homophobia within Catholicism, not homosexuality itself.

He claims that there is a statistically “overwhelming” link between “homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors." He further commented, “As I have said many times, most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay." His conclusion is that the root of the problem with the abuse scandals is caused by homosexuality within the priesthood.

However absurd his claim is, he backs it up with sound evidence. It is true that many studies have found that the overwhelming majority of priestly abuses involved the same sex. However, to blame the gays is an incorrect analysis of the available data. After putting aside the cases that are genuinely pedophiliac (that is a completely different issue) this situation just begs the next logical question: why are homosexuals becoming Catholic priests only to covertly act on their desires?

The answer to me is clearly homophobia, the true cause of this crisis. For a homosexual to join the Roman Catholic Priesthood and then clandestinely have affairs with men belies a deep-rooted conflict within the priest regarding his homosexuality. If a man cannot and will not accept his own sexuality, then it is probable that such actions become logical consequences of his denial. The “Panorama” expose describes the guilt and shame the priests would experience during and immediately after their encounters. Things would be different if the priests didn’t belong to an organization that forces them to consider themselves disordered and their sexual behavior loathsome. The organization and its attitude towards homosexuality is really to blame, the behavior of the gay priests are simply tragic symptoms of the larger problem.

It is not homosexuality that drives these priests to act dishonorably, but rather it is the denial, hatred and fear of their homosexuality that causes them to act in such ways.

The issue is not the status of homosexuality within the Church, but the status of homophobia in the Church. If the church was not so homophobic, perhaps its priests would act better than they do today.

Still, the Vatican did get something right for once when it urged that these people should no longer be priests.

You can read the “Panorama” expose here (If you know Italian).

Reply

Forward

"...And No Religion Too"

Religion should not be opposed, but when the religious take the rights of others, they must be opposed.

Many within the LGBT community have profound issues with religion. They look at most religions with disdain and view adherents with disgust. They voice their opposition to religions that have been traditionally active in public discourse. Not only are they opposed to religion, but they also alienate the believers through insults. They could not be more wrong in handling oppressive religions.

However, the way to do it is not by overtly hurling insults at people of faith or attacking their church head on. While this may be a temporary emotional outlet, it is overall not an effective approach in actually combating religious ignorance. Religion can’t be destroyed, only reduced and controlled.

The Catholic Church, for example, survived the Romans, the early heresies, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, and communism. Modern-day progressives won’t change this historical trend.

Yet it is without question that the Catholic Church has recently lost a significant amount of influence in the Western World. People simply stopped caring as much, yet they were actively prodded to care less.

From advertisers using sex to sell products, to the diminished position of the Lord’s Day in society, traditional religious thought was challenged indirectly. The result was a mass decline of ordinary Americans’ commitment to traditional religion. Advertisers and corporate bosses achieved what warlords and revolutionaries before them had not: the destruction or severe regulation of Christianity to the private sphere of life. Of course concepts built into our society, such as secularism, laid the groundwork for change.

Ordinary gays and lesbians themselves did much more to erode religiously-fueled hatred by simply becoming familiar with religious Americans than all the overtly anti-religious ever did. After all, it is much harder to use your religion as a weapon if you know the target of your prejudice personally.

That is the key to reducing religion: bleed it dry by attempting to form relationships with its mild/moderate adherents and treating them like human beings. The die-hards within each religious group must be approached in this way because they will not change, but without receptive ears they will lose relevance. The key is to win over people, not crush them. To make tomorrow better than today, acts of hate cannot be matched by acts hate. This probably doesn’t hold true for every situation, but for this one it does.

United States of Austerity?

I recently came across this article as I was making my internet news rounds this morning. I believe it is essential to get your news from a wide range of sources and media, even if the people putting out the story/editorial run counter to your beliefs. At the risk of being preachy I’m only going to add that it is a great failure when an individual believes that his or her perspective is the only right one.

Anyway, I believe this article is ghastly. Aside from the fact that is it is tragically confusing the Catholic faith with economic conservatism, the article raises the specter that is haunting Europe, the US and the rest of the Western world at the moment(no, not communism): austerity measures.

On the surface, excessive austerity is deceptively logical. It makes for a government to cut programs and other public funding it is in too much debt. After all, what do each of us do individually when our expenses exceed our earnings? We cut back. But it is not that simple when the whole picture is taken into account on a national level.

The greatest government expenditures like healthcare programs, relief to the poor and education are too essential to our society to just cut away. Too many people are riding on the success of these programs. Since our society has become so used to their benefits, we cannot cut into them too much and still expect an acceptable economic recovery. Austerity hurts the very people government is supposed to protect, unless of course it is not, in fact, in place to help the common people.

History has taught us-namely the Great Depression-that hands off policies not only can cause problems, but they can also make things so much worse. And, I know, the Great Depression arose out of different circumstances than the current crisis we are in, but the need for the Keynesian way of thinking is self-evident. When the economy is really threatened, the government must become more involved and, yes even spend more. If people need a more current example, I point to Greece as proof of what happens to ordinary citizens when the government embarks on severe austerity.

Extreme austerity may look good on a balance sheet-but only after you remove the human element completely. What is government here for, human beings or raw economics?

Will austerity really make tomorrow better than today?

First Post!!

For my first post I am going to make that same, tired argument. It's been said that politics is just about who gets what, when. That is a spot-on description but I would add "...to make tomorrow better than today." At least that's what it should be. It's really what we all want (for those of us with our feet planted here on Earth). To start, everyone needs to figure out where they stand on political and social issues. If people don't become more aware of political and social events then the pool of people who do care will be much smaller than it should. These people's voices would then take on a disproportionate amount of influence. What if those people are too narrow-minded in their opinions? Is this presently the case?

The most important thing to for a person who is invested in a political or social agenda is to simply make his or her opinion heard. This is even more important than voting in the US presidential election. Mathematically, the average voting citizen does not have a realistic effect on the outcome of this election. However, raising your opinion by doing something like calling your legislators is far better.

I won't make any other argument about the importance of participation. To me it's as simple as this: If you do not involve yourself, someone stupider than you will. The more we allow stupid people (perhaps "ignorant" is kinder) to make our decisions for us, well let me just say that the net intelligence of our nation does down. Now how can that make tomorrow better than today?

So figure things out for yourself, I hope your opinions aren't wrong. Here are some starting points:

• http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz -this is small and quick
  

• http://www.electoralcompass.com -cool presentation, kinda long
  

• http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm -very good, comprehensive
  

• http://www.politicalcompass.org/ -not sure about this one, but does match you with political and historical people.