Christmas Break

I don't do many "personal" posts--you know, talk about my feelings, life, family--but school is out, and my brain is taking a break from things of a political nature (not really, but somewhat). Anyway, my family and I went to a cabin for a few days in Heber; the cabin was really nice--we split the cost with Stacy's family--and we had a really good time. The cabin was huge--8 bedrooms, 6 bathrooms, hot tub, pool table, ping pong table, foose ball, pin ball, big screen with satellite--and with the massive snow storm, snowmobling was pretty cool. Anyway, it was a nice way to relax after finals, and it was good way to spend some of the Christmas break--minus the fact that BYU got worked and I had to watch it with my father-in-law. 

Political Hybernation

After the election, the political scene has gotten quite boring. Watching Obama assemble a Cabinet is far less exciting than listening to him debate McCain & Palin about whether he is a terrorist. Right now is like the off-season for sports--the space after the NBA Finals ends, football hasn't started, baseball is meaningless--that's where things are at right now. The financial crisis is the issue that is talked about everyday, but its not like anything has really changed. The world was going to collapse without 700 billion from the taxpayers right away, and less than half of it has been spent; does that mean that 1/3 of the world has collapsed? Besides, the government has spent over a trillion dollars in other ways, bailing out companies that were on the verge of collapse, so I'm not sure why the even bothered asking Congress for the 700 billion. I'm close to the edge, tuition is up; I wonder if I played my cards right, could I get some of the bailout money? I'm not looking for a lot--maybe 50 million. That's not much when most of the people trying to get into the piggy bank are asking for billions; I'd be quite cheap, a discount. If anyone wants to form a company with a patriotic name, and a supposedly invaluable purpose so that we can get some bailout money, let me know.

Armageddon Approaches

We're nearly there. 40 hours from the BYU-Utah game that has more at stake than any of the other holy wars that have preceded it. BCS. MWC Champion. Top 10 Ranking. State bragging rights. The rights to all of the future superstar state athletes. The supremacy of the color Blue or Red. My sanity. The sanctity of marriage. The end of global warming. The reawakening of the financial system....wait, I've wandered off the reservation just a bit. There isn't quite as much as I would like on the line. There is, however, more on the table than there has ever been in any previous match up. The sad aspect of this game with enormous implications is that Utah is favored. The odds makers currently have Utah favored by 7. The supposedly wise men at ESPN are predicting a Utah victory. Lots of lame Utah fans are guaranteeing a win (not that they matter now, or ever). I'm worried for various reasons. This game, like every year, goes a long way towards making or breaking BYU's season. Add to it the possible BCS birth and a conference championship for the Utes if they win, and a BYU loss is potentially suicidal.  This isn't like 2005 when Utah had all of the same rewards awaiting them if they beat BYU; BYU was bad, Utah was ridiculous, and minus the death of Alex Smith, nothing was going to stop Utah. This year is different. Take away one horrific half of football at TCU, and BYU is ranked higher and probably favored to beat Utah. Take away one bad half of football at TCU, and BYU is a dark horse to sneak into the National Championship game. Erase 30 minutes of hell and BYU fans are confident of a victory on Saturday. You have fans that drink blue kool-aid, wear blue goggles, smoke blue doobies, and then you have fans like me--we always lean a litte towards the side of pessimism. We always see the worst case scenario as a possibility. So when we lean that way, we can't forget 30 minutes of vomiting on a field in Texas. We can't forget 30 minutes of what-the-hell-is-Max-Hall-a-girl. It puts me in a position of handling my grief after BYU loses, and putting me in a state of dangerously high euphoria if they win, but it creates a dark mood preceding the game. I ultimately think BYU will lose, and I don't know if that's my distorted pessimism, or accurate football perception. I would rather be wrong and have BYU win, than right and have my prediction vindicated. Either way, I'm attempting the most accurate, evenly weighted prediction I can proffer. Utah wins 38-28. The good that comes from this tragedy is the large pot of cash the BCS bowl provides to all MWC teams, and the sight of Utah being demolished by a superior team. The hurt will fade when BYU beats a bad PAC-10 team and Utah loses badly, and in spite of the loss, they give BYU a fat wad of cash. 

Good vs. Evil

Saturday. Good vs. Evil; Jesus vs. Satan; Obama vs. Bush; Mormons vs. Catholics; Me vs. My Pathetic Brothers on the ping pong table. Saturday brings THE showdown of the year for both teams. The game on Saturday will be the biggest, most important game in the history of the BYU-Utah rivalry. This game will determine once and for all if the Church is true. There is no way God will let his chosen University lose to the evil ones up north; meaning a Cougar loss proves the Catholic Church is true. I'm serious. Think about it. The Utes have obviously made a pact with the devil to have an undefeated season (it's the only possible explanation) and it's up to the Strippling Warriors to end this less than savory deal. More to come later, but be prepared for the 2nd War in Heaven...(Lucifer will lose again)

Sports Writer

I don't want to brag...but I've made it to the bigs! I'm gonna be a sportwriter for the Spanish Fork News! What, you're not impressed? With the Spanish Fork News? It's sort of like being the mayor of Wasilla--it may get no respect, but it can be a stepping stone...to things like the presidency...or the Daily Herald. Actually, for someone who has never written anything for the reading public outside of the blogosphere, this is a step in the right direction. I can't host Pardon The Interruption and have my own sports column for some big newspaper without working up the to tum poll. For all of my big fans--mom, wife, 3 year old son, 92 year old grandma--I'll make sure to post links so you can see my scintillating tales about Spanish Fork basketball and...brace yourself...high school wrestling!! Yeah, that's right, wrestling. I may not have let on before, but I'm obsessed with WWF. I had daydreams of marrying Hulk Hulgan, and spending the rest of my life shooting roids' and watching my man bash people with chairs. Alas, I had to forgo that dream for Stacy, but this is an awesome consolation prize. Anyway, stay tuned for mind bending stories about the unsung heros of the high school wrestling community--one legged victors, hermaphrodite champions....you get the point.

The 7 Aphorisms

Pleasant Grove has been in the national news this week due to a case pitting the city vs. a religious group. The group, Summum, asked the city to display a monument with the 7 Aphorisms on it--these were apparently on the 1st tablet Moses received from Jehovah--but the city declined. The issue deals with religious freedom, government speech, and the intermingling of the two. Pleasant Grove's Pioneer Park has a monument with the 10 Commandments on it, and it also has a stone from the original Nauvoo Temple. Pleasant Grove is claiming that because the city accepted the monument and chose to display it, the monument is government speech and therefore Pioneer Park is not a public forum. If this is the case, then the argument is that Pleasant Grove is endorsing one religion over another, violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. If it isn't government speech, then the park is a public forum, meaning the city can't deny Summum's 7 Aphorisms from being displayed. Pleasant Grove claims they chose to deny Summum because they display artifacts that have links to the city's history and heritage--something Summum can't claim. That defense still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the city has violated the Establishment Clause. Some would argue that it is impossible for the 10 Commandments in the park to be considered government speech, because Pleasant Grove obviously didn't make up the 10 Commandments--but this fails to absolve Pleasant Grove because once again, that makes the park a public forum. The current Supreme Court generally splits down the middle with Justice Kennedy acting as the tie-breaker, so it will come down to how he views this. I guarantee that Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito will back Pleasant Grove, and that Breyer, Bader-Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will support Summum. A decision isn't expected for at least a couple of months, but the court's behavior on issues surrounding religion is somewhat predictable--they could prove me very wrong, but this is my prediction. I believe the city should be allowed to determine what to display in the park, but I also believe they shouldn't be allowed to display such overtly religious artifacts if they want to have that right. Certainly Pleasant Grove is primarily Mormon--and Christian--but there are also members of the community that fall outside these groups. By accepting one religious faith's monument, while rejecting another, the city is creating in-groups and out-groups. They are saying that Christianity is more valid and accepted than other faiths--whether they defend it with other excuses like heritage or not--and doing so clearly violates the Establishment Clause. The citizens of Pleasant Grove could also push the city to sale the park to private donors, and those donors could then display whatever religious artifacts they choose. Such a move would likely end up in court, but it would be a possible loop-hole. They could put a referendum on the next ballot, and then have an open bidding process if the citizens approve the sale--they would just have to hope that someone in a minority group didn't outbid everyone else. Anyway, it's an interesting issue that will certainly be referred to in other cases regarding religion and government. 

Rise Against

I had the good privilege of seeing Rise Against last night at Saltair. They are really, really cool. It's the third time I've seen them at Saltair, all with my brother-in-law, Brett. Anyway, this is a video of them playing one of their new songs.

Taxes

Debating about tax policy played a large role in the Presidential election. Taxes have been a major issue in every election since our nation's founding--in fact, even before that. President Obama plans to undo President Bush's tax cut for those making more than $250,000 a year. To many conservatives, this is part of Barack's larger socialist agenda.  A little research shows that since the US instituted income taxes, the wealthy pay less now than they have at any other time in history. The wealthy paid a higher tax under President Clinton, which unsurprisingly, along with a more fiscally responsible approach to governing, led to a budget surplus of a billion dollars when Clinton left office. In the last 8 years, President Bush has doubled our national debt--from 5 trillion to 10 trillion--and taken our yearly deficit from a surplus of 1 billion when he took office to a deficit of around 500 billion this year. This is a combination of war, tax cuts, and other irresponsible spending. How do conservatives expect us to pay for the war--which they support--and to fund the bailout, which a Republican administration pushed for? How do we fund the massive costs of researching and developing alternative fuel sources? How do we improve our public school system? A small portion of wealthy individuals control an enormous portion of the wealth in this country, yet more often than not, they pay a lower tax percentage than than those in the bottom income bracket. How? With all sorts of maneuvers that exploit the tax code. In 2006--the most recent data available--those earning the most (the top 1%) paid an average income tax of 19%, while the lowest wage earners paid an average of 21%. Anyone who assumes that the wealthiest Americans are over-taxed just isn't paying attention. The tax debate comes down to 2 simple points:

1) We have millions upon millions of Americans who work hard, but they can't afford health care. We should care about the welfare of our neighbors. We should care when good, hard working people are forced into bankruptcy because of health problems. We should care when older people spend every cent they have on medications so they can try and have a decent quality of life. Many conservatives are religious. They should ask themselves what their religion teaches about helping those in need. This isn't about providing lazy people with flat-screen televisions, it is about helping them, and even moreso their children, when they need to see a doctor. This isn't a socialist viewpoint. This isn't a call for nationalizing industry, and taxing the rich at a rate of 70%. It is about doing something we are capable of doing. Every other industrialized country in the world--except South Africa--provides some form of guaranteed health care. They treat it as a service, not a business; they choose not to let people go bankrupt so they can get the help they need. We should join them in providing health care for everyone in this country. It is the morally and ethically correct thing to do, and hopefully President Obama can get this done. 

2) Many of our schools are failing. Lots of schools are overcrowded. Teachers are expected to teach too many kids without the tools to do so. Lots of schools have horrible funding and they can't provide books and computers for the students. They can't pay teachers enough to stay around. It is hurting our country and most of all, it hurts those that are already hurting. The poor, impoverished parts of our country are the ones with the worst public schools, yet the kids that attend these schools are in tremendous need of a good education. We don't want a welfare state, but we also haven't provided the tools to help the segment of our society that needs schooling the most, so they can change their lives for the better and eliminate the cycle of poverty in their families. We need to put a lot more money into the school system--especially these poor areas--by providing more money for books and computers, paying teachers much more and recruiting the best educators out there to come to these schools. We need to build more schools and upgrade old, crumbling facilities, and make sure we provide a world class education not just to kids in the beverly hills school district, but also to those in the 9th Ward in New Orleans. 

There are lots of other issues, like are old, crumbling infrastructure, and the need for improving are industrial system so it harms the environment less. We need to develop better fuel sources, ones that are renewable and that harm the environment as little as possible. These kinds of things can't be done if we don't put money in our treasury. It's amazing that we can find conservative support for 700 billion dollars when it comes to banks and Wall Street, but that kind of money could have boosted the economy in other ways. We could have put that kind of money into schools, infrastructure, health care, and alternative fuels, improving our country and creating millions of new jobs in the process. We can't rebuild the middle class, and help those most in need, by taxing the richest among us at the lowest rate in our nations history. We need to make changes to the tax code that eliminate loop holes, and simplify things so that everyone pays the tax rate assigned to them. We shouldn't tax the rich at enormously high rates, but we should tax them in a way that helps America as a whole--a utilitarian approach. Republicans have pushed for lower taxes--especially since Ronald Reagan took office. The idea is that if we let the rich keep more of their money, they will reinvest it and create more jobs, thereby bettering all Americans. Well, this theory has been turned on it's head. Since 1980, the average real income (factoring in inflation) for the bottom 60% of Americans has dropped, while the income for the highest portion of American has risen by more than 300%. We have created an income gap only equaled by Russia--where most of the country rots, while a few billionaires live it up. We have created the kind of income gap last seen in our country in the booming 1920's, right before the depression. We knew then, and we know now, that massive income gaps destroy the middle class and that the rich don't let any trickle down, they keep it amongst themselves. Our tax policies should be created with all of America in mind, doing what is best for everyone, not only the rich. I hope President Obama can help restore our financial security, rebuild the middle class, provide basic, necessary benefits to the poor, and check the extreme excesses of the ultra-wealthy on Wall Street. This isn't a call for egalitarianism, it's a call to tax in a way that allows us to pay our bills as a country. It's a call to tax in a way that allows us to provide health care for everyone, and to improve our schools. That is not socialism. It is good, decent, humanitarianism. It is the approach we should all support. It is very achievable, it just calls for a little less greed, a little more kindness, a little less ignorance, and greater thriftiness by all of us.

Day 1, A.R. = Day 1 after the Republican Party's Demise

When President Bush was reelected in 2004, he and the right-wing media, proclaimed that he had a mandate, political capital, to spend. This was following a loss in the popular vote in 2000, and a 2% win in 04. Today, right-wing pundits are quickly claiming that Obama has no mandate. Interesting. Not only did he win the popular vote by 6%, he doubled up McCain in the Electoral College, and Congress become much more blue. If a dominant victory, coupled with a large majority for Obama's party in Congress isn't a mandate, then what is? With a sitting President who has the lowest approval ratings in the history of such polling, and a clear rejection of the Republican Party across the board, I think that not only Obama, but the entire Democratic Party, has been given a mandate by the American people to change the state of our Nation. Loudly and clearly, we have declared the Republican government of the last eight years a failure, and we have let the Democratic Party know that it is their chance to change things for the better. They will have no excuse if they fail to improve things--a clear majority in Congress, a Democratic President--and if they do fail, a reserves of 2008 probably awaits in 2012. Republicans, Fox News, and other supporters of the right can spin this election anyway they want, but their method of governing has been clearly rejected. It may return, but we are at least 4 years away from that possibility and in the meantime, the Democrats can get to work cleaning up Bush's mess. 

President Barack Hussein Obama

It's official. Barack Obama is our President-Elect. Our 44th President is an African-American, raised primarily by his white grandparents, abandoned by his father when he was young, who realized the American Dream as much as it has ever been realized. He didn't just win, he won by a huge margin, mandating change. A multiracial President with a Muslim name is now going to be our President. I am an Obama fan so I'm more excited than McCain fans, but anyone who is an American should be proud of our country today. We should all be proud of how quickly we've come since the 1960's, when Blacks still weren't treated like human beings. Now, a Black man is going to be in the most powerful position in the world--one that he is fully deserving of, and fully capable of doing a remarkable job. President Obama will has a tremendous set of challenges awaiting him as soon as he takes office, and it will be impossible for him to satisfy everyone with the course of action he charts, but I believe he will lead us in the best possible direction we can go under the current circumstances. He will select a remarkable set of advisers, and unlike our current president, he will listen to all of them, develop consensus, and make smart, analytical, well thought out decisions, not gut decisions. Today really is a remarkable, historic day, for the United States of America. I feel proud to be an American today. I'm proud of the fact that I voted for the first African American President in our Nation's history. I'm proud of the fact that I convinced my wife and my mom to do the same. President Barack Obama will be a good president, and I believe he will help repair our international image, help improve our domestic quality of life, and lead us in a positive direction, away from the last 8 years. Congratulations President Obama.

Palin goes Rogue

(If this post is random and a bit incoherent, it's 2:00 AM) I think the "original" maverick has been out-mavericked. Word has leaked out of the McCain camp that Palin is going off the reservation, doing her own thing, disregarding her "handlers"....this is crazy. Then again, McCain has repeatedly talked about Palin being a maverick and a reformer, so he should have expected this. Apparently, Palin's people feel like she's been mishandled by McCain's people, helping create an unfavorable image with the media and the country. On the other hand, McCain's people are saying McCain made a mistake picking Palin, claiming she is an unqualified diva that is costing McCain the election. While the official response to this news is predictable--it's false--it's hard to imagine that anonymous sources would be making this stuff up. Palin--in the words of Fred Thompson--knows how to field dress a moose; what did McCain expect, that she would be a mindful little girl and do whatever was asked of her? Many political pundits think this is Palin's way of positioning herself for a Presidential run in 2012. She can see the McCain ship has sunk--after burning to a shred--and rather than stay aboard, she's grabbing a life raft and bailing. Who can blame her? I don't think she has the credentials or the skill to fend off potential republican challengers like Romney, Guliani, and Huckabee, but either way, she's bound to make a lot of money with her new found fame, and the far right of the Republican party loves her. Most Republicans--at least I think so--are going to be gun shy about electing a relatively uneducated leader after the Dubbya experience, giving an edge to someone like Bobby Jindal or Romney (Sorry Huck and Palin, knowing the Bible better than the Constitution can only win so many votes) so I don't think Palin's exposure from this campaign will be enough to make her President someday, but she will have a future in politics, possibly even outside of Alaska. If she gets sick of having to protect the country from Russia, she can run for the senate and move to Washington--that would be nice I'm sure, not having to watch Russia and Canada every morning.  Palin has been publicly taking stances that contradict McCain more and more recently, indicating she's done being his puppet. 

It's tough to predict where the Republican party will be in 2012. They are looking at huge deficits in Congress--super majorities for the Democrats not seen since the 1930's--and a new level of skepticism towards their economic philosophy that has enriched the rich and helped create the current financial brew-ha-ha.  In hindsight, a lot of Republican analysts blame the problem on Dubbya and a weak set of candidates for this election.  Other analysts are saying that in hindsight--especially with the financial mess--not choosing Romney was a big mistake. They feel like people should have forgiven his past liberal positions because he fit the mold for a staunch republican President--much like Reagan, who became more conservative over time.  No one had heard of Obama until the Democratic Convention 4 years ago, so there may be someone out there that will electrify the country who is currently unknown, giving republicans their own Obama. If I had to buy commodities now, I'd be going with Romney or Jindal. They both have conservative views--especially Jindal--and they have a lot gaudier resumes than Palin. McCain seems to crave power so much I wouldn't be surprised if he ran again in 2012--although with 4 more notches on the belt, his anger might actually cause him to explode so it's probably not a good idea.  

Back to Palin. This week she's talked about her support for ethanol--McCain opposes this--and she has done some off-the-cuff interviews with reporters (McCain's people cringe when this happens). Word has it that on the last long bus ride aboard the Straight Talk Express, McCain gave Palin the silent treatment. It will be interesting to see how vocal the supporters of both candidates get in their criticisms of each other after they lose. McCain has to try and repair the damage he's caused to his reputation, hoping that his fellow Senators will treat him with a small amount of respect after his lame campaign. Palin has the luxury of going back to the North Pole, where all the Alaskan elves love her and will be proud of the fact that she ran for VP. She'll be more popular than ever and she can blame everything on McCain's people muzzling her. I wonder how rogue she's willing to go these last 6 days. She should endorse Obama. That would be a great way to show her maverickiness.  Anyway, my middle-of-the-night rambling must come to an end. As for Palin and her rogue behavior, I only hope it's not because she's a secret muslim manchurian candidate.

Fat American Hero's

I had this on my old blog and do to popular demand--I'm dead serious--it's back. If you or anyone you know, is fat and ugly, or just fat, send a picture and a story. You know who you are--the person people stop and stare at, the one that makes old people giggle, you are the fat, ugly person that makes the world a better place. You are the person that takes the shame so that other people can make fun of you. You are the one that causes the occasional traffic accident, occasionally making an infant cry, possibly causing an old person to have an aneurysm, but for the most part, you make people happy. You deserve some recognition. You deserve a special award. You truly are a fat American hero. I nominate you for the respect and recognition you deserve. So next time you think you should stop, don't, head back to the buffet and get another load, because if you don't, I might be sad.

Palin Dresses Like "Average Joe"

Remember "Joe Six Pack"?  That's the guy Palin is fighting for.  That's the guy she can relate to.  She has pointed out how elitist democrats are and how it's her, hockey mom Sarah, that is really fighting for the little guy. When is the last time an average american spent 150 grand on clothes?  I know it's not her money, but she's wearing the clothes while that large sum of money is supporting Sak's 5th avenue and other "average joe" stores.  Man, I wish I could be an average american and spend $150,000 on clothes. I would be set for life.  I could buy a range of sizes to cover me so I can still have nice clothes even as I get fatter.  It's so kind of the Republican National Committee to pay for her clothes.  That's really charitable.  

Proposition 8

A good article: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/prelude.shtml

Gay marriage has taken a back seat to the election.  The major news networks aren't saying much about the intense battle taking place in California.  In June, the California State Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows same-sex marriage (equal protection clause).  In response, Proposition 8 is being put on the ballot to amend the Constitution, specifying that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and legal.  The fundraising battle has been waged in Utah as much as it has in California.  Currently, proponents of proposition 8 have raised about 23 million dollars, with around 43% of that coming from Mormons.  Opponents of proposition 8 have raised around 17 million dollars--with 1 million coming from ex-mormon Richard Bastion, a co-founder of Word Perfect.  The Church has engaged in a massive effort to get members in California and Utah to donate time and money in the effort to pass Prop 8.  Why?  The Church argues that they are defending the traditional family, and the belief that marriage is a divinely instituted covenant that carries over into the next life.  By allowing marriage between any two persons, the traditional family will fade away as more and more people choose same-sex partners, causing great harm to society (I know this a very simple summary of their argument, but it's the basic idea).  

 I have a few questions about this argument.  First, the Church only considers marriages performed in a Temple, along with a life-time of faithful commitment to God's commandments, to be marriages that last for eternity.  No one is allowed to marry in the temple that doesn't earn a temple recommend, and the Church has never been, nor will it ever be, forced to allow anyone in the temple it deems unworthy.  Long after civil rights legislation had passed, prohibiting any form of discrimination based on race, the Church was still prohibiting blacks from entering the temple.  They waited 13 plus years to change church policy and allow blacks full temple rights.  They may have been on the negative end of public relations regarding the issue, but they didn't have any legal compulsion to make the change, they made it of their own volition.  Gay marriage may eventually be legal in all 50 states, and the Church still won't have to perform same-sex marriages in the temple.  The number of institutions and people that currently have the legal authority to marry people has had no impact on the Church's marriage policies.  People can drink beer, shoot heroine, and feeling really good about the ugly person next to them, go get married in a Vegas chapel--legally (most Vegas marriages are based on true love and commitment, creating a good foundation to raise a family).  The Church certainly puts no stock in this kind of marriage when it comes to eternity; only if this couple chooses to do what it takes to earn temple recommends, and then keep their covenants, will this marriage be eternal.  Ted Bundy got married while he was on death row--I highly doubt the Church believes this marriage to be eternal.  From a doctrinal standpoint--the only standpoint that really matters for the Church--this marriage and every other marriage not sanctioned in a temple by God, are completely meaningless after this life.  Sure, these marriages give couples legal rights and recognition, and they can create a stable environment to raise a family, but none of that really matters if it ends at death (the primary argument for temple marriage).  Corrupt governments, priests, casinos, Internet pastors, and all sorts of institutions have performed marriage in various forms for a long time.  Same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in quite a few countries around the world, and what do ya know, those countries haven't disappeared into the sea, and the family unit hasn't fallen apart.  According to studies of these countries, it has actually lessened the promiscuity and disenfranchisement of the gay communities, creating better community relations between gays and their heterosexual neighbors.

I know that was a long first question, but now to my 2nd issue.  It is becoming more and more clear that there is a biological element to sexual attraction--Elder Holland has publicly recognized this.  For anyone that knows someone gay, it doesn't take a lot of effort to realize they aren't consciously choosing to like the same sex.  Most people that are attracted to those of the same gender feel that way from the time they start to recognize feelings of attraction, the same way I started to like girls in 1st grade.  For the homosexual, this is natural; it is all they have known or will know.  There is no "cure" despite claims to the contrary.  Denying the biological nature of sexual attraction is becoming more and more futile, and it won't be long before it will be like denying any other scientifically conclusive fact that used to be in dispute.  Recognizing the biological nature of sexual attraction makes this an issue of civil rights.  If sexual attraction is biologically driven, it really isn't different from skin pigmentation--people don't get a choice in the biology they have.  Irrational fear, bigotry, prejudice--these are the things that drive the marriage debate.  Gay couples aren't going away, and giving them the chance to fit in and be treated as equals won't destabilize my marriage.  

Whether it happens sooner or later, gay marriage will become legal in our country, and gays will become a perfectly normal part of our society.  People can either be ahead of the curve like those that fought for civil rights, or they can look hateful and ignorant, fighting the inevitable.  Proposition 8 is misguided, and the Church's support for it is a mistake.  Hopefully, the Church will recognize a little less belatedly than their previous civil rights battle, and avoid the painful accusations that hindsight could prevent.

McCain Experiencing Amnesia

Even in politics, there are certain "unwritten rules" that are very rarely violated.  These rules are difficult to define, but people seem to know when they've been crossed.  In the 2000 Presidential Election, the Bush campaign crossed the line when they engaged in "push" polling--calling voters and asking questions that have no truth, but planting ideas in people's heads, i.e. "did you know that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child and his wife is a drug addict..." Bush's team did this in South Carolina right before the 2000 primary, leading McCain to decry dirty campaign tactics.  In 2004, the attacks on John Kerry's military service were produced by the Bush team from 2000, now infamously known as "swift-boat" tactics.  At the age of 72, maybe McCain is experiencing some age related memory loss, because he has a political team full of the people that opposed him in 2000, and unsurprisingly, they are running the same type of campaign.  Many political veterans believe McCain's team has run the most negative, truth-distorted campaign in modern political history.  With too many examples to cite them all, I will simply list the most recent "swift-boat" move from the McCain camp.  Starting last Friday, the McCain camp has decided that with time running out, poll numbers getting worse by the day, and a relatively successful history throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition, it is time to flat-out lie about Obama.  Sarah Palin said that Obama "...pals around with terrorists"--referring to Bill Ayers.  Ayers was a founding member of a left-wing group, The Weather Underground, that resorted to using bombs in their campaign to end the Vietnam war.  The Weather Underground bombed the Capitol Building, Pentagon, and Post Office; the bombs were homemade, and while causing damage, they weren't aimed at people.  Obama was 8 around this time, and by the time he met Bill Ayers, Ayers was a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.  Ayers has been accepted by many boards, schools, and other institutions that respect his educational knowledge--a Ph.D. in Administrative Education--and Palin isn't calling all of these other people and institutions friends of terrorists.  Obama, and many others, have publicly said they disagree with Ayers former tactics, and that is all they can do.  There are no warrants out for Ayers, he has been forgiven by the law, and now he is doing his best to improve society.  Obama has served with Ayers, and many others, on the boards for 2 charity organizations, and when Obama first ran for office, Ayers held a gathering at his home to collect campaign donations for Obama--that was in 1996.  Ayers supports Obama now, but Obama isn't using Ayers in any way to help his campaign.  Opinions legitimately vary when it comes to Ayers and his past, but he is a man that does good today, he has been exonerated by the law, and using the word terrorist invokes far different images.  Palin and McCain are distorting the situation in a way that crosses ethical boundaries, and in doing so, undermining their case for office.  They may be losing, and desperate to mix things up, but they should do this by criticising Obama's policies.  Obama has responded by talking about McCain's efforts to protect deregulation during the Savings and Loan Scandals of the early 80's--something that is far more pertinent considering it is very similar to the economic crisis today.  At the end of the day, McCain will lose, and Obama will have a difficult situation awaiting him when he takes office, but at least he will get there with his dignity intact.  McCain has become everything he has ridiculed in the past, he crossed all sorts of boundaries and lines he used to respect and recognize, and unless he really has amnesia, he is killing his own, well-deserved, good reputation.

BYU Plays Good Tackle Football

I haven't blogged about BYU Football this season, so after waiting to make sure it would be safe to talk trash, I now feel ready to do so.  After treating Wyoming the way everyone should treat a team from the ugliest state--in fact, the ugliest geographic area in the world--the Cougs racked up their second straight shutout.  Coincidentally, the last time they recorded back-to-back shutouts--1985--Wyoming was included, and the scores were 59-0 & 44-0, just like this year.  The next victim will be Utah State--I'm not sure if they field a team of girls or not--and thye are another potential shutout.  That will put the Cougs at 5-0 and probably somewhere in the top 8 in the polls, setting up potential BCS qualifying games with TCU & Utah, the only two teams left on the schedule that have any chance of beating BYU.  

I am aware of the fact that BYU plays a weak schedule overall, and that they wouldn't have a prayer of going undefeated in the SEC, but the other BCS conferences aren't as deep this year as they usually are, and I think minus the PAC-10--because of USC--BYU could win any non-SEC conference this year.  It's disappointing that the best Cougar team in a long, long time won't have the chance to really prove themselves.  Even if they make a BCS game, they'll probably get the Big East or ACC Champion, neither of whom will be all that great.  The NCAA really needs to do at least an 8 team playoff, so teams like BYU have a chance to prove on the field whether or not they can be the National Champion.  The way this year stacks up, they very well could go undefeated and still not even have a chance to play USC or the SEC champion, leaving their opportunity in the hands of computers and uniformed, biased sports writers.  I'm not stupid, I know that teams like Florida or USC would probably destroy BYU, but it would be nice to have the chance to pull off an upset.  That is what makes March Madness so cool, because it gives anyone the chance to overcome bias and scheduling and prove how good they really are.  Leaving championships up to reporters and computers is unfortunate, and that type of system should stick with gymnastics and diving, not football.  

In spite of BYU's general lack of national respect, Max Hall is being mentioned in the top 5 or 6 as a Heisman Trophy contender.  If BYU goes undefeated, and Hall keeps playing the way he has so far, his stats will probably be much better than Marc Sanchez, but because Sanchez plays for USC, he will place higher, if not win the Heisman.  Normally, I would agree that the team should be taken into account, but considering Hall has torched 2 Pac-10 teams, it's fair to say they will have played similar competition.  Either way, if Hall ends up being a Heisman finalist, that will be pretty cool.  I feel safe in predicting that BYU will not lose, or even have a close game--except TCU--until the Utah game.  Regardless of how well BYU is playing, Utah always plays them tough and Utah is quite good this year.  I don't think the Cougs will lose, but that game will probably be a barn burner like most BYU-Satan...I mean Utah games are.  In spite of my reservation, I'll predict that BYU goes undefeated and that they win their BCS game too.  I'm not going to say that I have a sports almanac from the future...but I'm not going to deny it either.

Go Miss Wasilla

 
Miss Wasilla has my vote.  I know many a voter find Obama's smile intoxicating, or the lump on the side of McCain's face comforting, but for me, I like small town beauty queens.  I would have enjoyed Mitt's fake tan/botox like smile, but this is even better.  I am pretty sure the voting was rigged when Miss Palin was only given runner up for Miss Alaska--although, she did win Miss Congeniality, so at least some justice was found.  As for running the country, Captain McCain is old enough to think about writing his obituary, so thinking about Miss Wasilla's chances of running the country are legitimate.  She could handle Putin.  I can just imagine her flashing Miss Wasilla credentials and Putin backing down (he's got to be aware that he looks like a ferret).  Uncle Tom (Iran's President) is afraid of women--and aware that chicks don't dig his tan jacket--so he'll be intimidated from the start.  The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, is a -2 on the 10 point scale, so she might try and start an Ugly World Leader Club and exclude Miss Wasilla.  I know Osama will offer Miss Wasilla Wife #5 status, and if she takes it, Al Qaeda will raise the white flag.  And to top it all off, she's not a closet muslim, her middle name isn't Hussein, and she knows how to shoot a gun.  Here's to hoping that McCain taps out early and Miss Wasilla takes her rightful place on the throne.

barack HUSSEIN obama

I recently received an email with a link to a video about B. HUSSEIN obama. It starts off by focusing on Obama's name, its similarity to Osama Bin Laden, and then wonders whether Obama might be a Manchurian Candidate for Islam. It shows various political pundits talking about his name, with many right wingers emphasizing his middle name. It wonders whether it is safe to elect a closet Muslim while the US is fighting the War on Terror. If this video was meant to be funny--like the New Yorker cover--then it would be funny, but it is scary that many Americans will watch this video and make the decision not to vote for Obama because of it.

Whether Obama will be a better President than McCain or not doesn't matter. What matters is that he might be a "Muslim", just waiting to take office and turn the US into an Islamic Theocracy. Seriously. Think about it. He attended a church with a radical preacher--Reverend Wright "claims" he is a Christian. Obama spent time in Indonesia as child. He tried DRUGS in high school--oh no!! He didn't believe in God for a while. He didn't want to wear an American Flag pin on his suit. He thinks the US should actually talk with our enemies before we start wars with them. The list goes on and on. What have I been thinking. I almost got duped into voting for a Muslim. I shouldn't actually decide whether I agree with Obama's political philosophy or not. I shouldn't worry whether I think McCain will pursue policies for our country that I agree with. I should instead, worry about Obama's name, and agree with right wing conspiracy theorists about Obama's hidden agenda. He could even be the Anti-Christ the Bible prophecies about. Who gives a shit. Seriously. Whether his name is I Hate Jesus, Barack Hussein Obama, or Billy Ghraham, it doesn't matter.

The emphasis on religion in this campaign is mind boggling. Depending on one's viewpoint, Christianity is just as crazy as Islam. Basing one's vote on whether or not the Presidential candidate has the same beliefs is pretty dumb. Considering that all of the "Christian" candidates loudly proclaim their love for Jesus while they privately cheat on the wives and abuse their political power should matter. Religious proclamations made during a political campaign are about as trustworthy as a 3 year old claiming he really saw a monster under his bed. Hopefully enough voters choose to evaluate the candidate's political ideas, spend less time worrying about things that don't matter, and elect the better of the two choices.

July Sucks

July is the worst month of the year. Why do I say that? There is no basketball, football, or meaningful baseball. After the NBA Finals and the majority of Wimbledon in June, July comes along with nothing. To top off a pointless July, even golf blows because Tiger is out for the year, making the British Open about as exciting as an Algebra class. Not only does the sports schedule come up empty, the temperatures get to the point of ridiculous. Since skipping July isn't an option, we need the NBA to start a month later so they can end their season towards the end of July and MLB can shorten its season so the playoffs start in the first part of August, ending just around the time football season starts. There, I've solved the scheduling dilemma that leaves fans stuck watching lame inspirational stories on ESPN for a month and a half. Fortunately, since this change won't happen anytime soon, this summer provides earlier relief with the Olympics starting in August, but waiting every 4 years for the pain to stop a month early isn't all that consoling. Instead of locking up terrorist suspects in Guantanamo, we should start the Roman Coliseum sports again, with terrorist gladiators trying to win their freedom. That could be a year around sport. If we ever catch Osama, we could give him a shovel and have him fight Kimbo Slice, and to make sure it doesn't go to waste, we could save this event for July.

Politicians act like little girls

The New Yorker released its newest magazine today and the cover has created quite the controversy. The artist and the magazine say they were just incorporating all of the rumors about Obama and his wife into one piece of satire, but Obama isn't okay with that explanation. McCain immediately condemned the magazine--I'm sure he thought it was hilarious--playing the political game the way he has to. Did the New Yorker cross the line? When it comes to satire and humor, are the restrictions greater when dealing with an African American? I don't think the picture is out of line; the only reason it has provoked outrage is because its depicting a black man and woman in a demeaning light--that and it's related to an election. President Bush gets mocked in ways as bad or worse regularly and neither the White House, the Obama camp, nor anyone else condemns such political satire. Why should this instance be treated any differently? The fact that Obama is venturing where no other black man has in American politics shouldn't spare him from the same type of treatment that any other politician faces, and his response is disappointing. For supposedly running a different type of campaign and practicing a different kind of politics, his response is sadly typical. The freedom to make fun of politicians is part of what makes America different than much of the world, and as a contender to lead our country, Obama should say he respects the 1st amendment and move forward.

Congressional Cowardice

President Bush signed legislation today that grants immunity to phone companies that illegally spied on Americans, and it also expand the President's power to continue spying on Americans. Is this bill Constitutional? Is it necessary? Has Dubbya used the climate of fear since 9/11 to needlessly, an dangerously expand presidential power? It isn't necessary, it isn't constitutional, and it is a dangerous expansion of government power. I believe this bill was passed--unnecessarily--because our lawmakers lack courage, and fearing labels that Bush and Cheney will certainly give those that oppose legislation meant to "protect" us, they cave in and vote in favor of legislation they disagree with. A prime example is the lack of courage displayed by Barack Obama. He repeatedly criticized the President's wiretapping program, and said he would vote against any legislation granting immunity to telecom companies, but today he voted in favor of this legislation. Why? Because he is a sellout that is more concerned with what his advisers are telling him, and less concerned with the civil liberties he purportedly supported a month ago. I'm sure that I'll get wiretapped--I read books and post blogs that are supportive civil liberties, and I support peace and justice programs (peace and justice programs at college campuses across the country and monitored by the FBI for their "extremism). If Obama keeps flip-flopping like John McCain, I may have to vote for Ralph Nader.

Nadal Behead's the King on Center Court

In what may have been the "greatest" tennis match ever played, Rafael Nadal ended Roger Federer's reign at Wimbledon. In five crazy sets, Nadal prevailed 6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7, just as darkness was enveloping Center Court. With the victory, Nadal became the first man in 28 years--Bjorn Borg was the last--to follow up a French Open championship with one at Wimbledon. I know that I had predicted a Federer victory, but if I had to be wrong and Fed had too lose, this was the way to do it. In the first two sets, Roger let 11 break point chances get away, putting himself in the position of having too win three straight sets. If he could have stepped up on any of the big points, he may have had at least one, if not both, sets and been in position to win. He didn't do this, and it end up costing him his chance to stand alone in history with 6 straight Wimbledon titles. Nadal had chances to close out Fed in the 4th set tie break, leading 5-2 before falling 10-8. The fifth set provided the best tennis of the match, with both players ratcheting up the level of their play, with Nadal making more plays to pull out a 9-7 win, completing the longest match in Wimbledon history.

While I may be quite disappointed that Fed didn't win, I really enjoyed the match, and bias aside, Nadal deserved too win. Fed is still a great player, and still ranked #1 in the standings, but it is tough too argue against the idea that Nadal is the new king of tennis. Unless Fed wins a bundle of tournaments to close the season, Nadal will end the year #1, ending Fed's record run, and perhaps the most dominating 4 years a men's tennis player has ever had. I still think Fed will win 3-5 more majors, surpassing Sampras, and making a compelling case to be considered the greatest player ever, but his run of supremacy is no more. Nadal will have to be considered a threat to win any tournament, and with Djokovic in the mix, Fed's appearance in the Finals is no longer a sure thing. He did himself a disservice by making his dominance appear so easy, and now when he doesn't win every major tournament, he faces ridiculous questions. He's only 26, and if he stays healthy, he has tons of opportunities to add to his resume. Sampras won his last major at the age of 31, and prior too that, he struggled for a couple of years. Rafa's aggressive style of play leads me to believe he will face injuries that Sampras and Fed have avoided, and that may be enough to deny him the kind of dominance he could have otherwise. Fed won't win 3 majors in a year anymore, but he can count on winning 1-2 a year for at least a couple more years, and now that he has lost his throne, he can enjoy playing with less pressure than he has the last couple of years. If he focuses on the majors and doesn't have to deal with otherworldly expectations, he should enjoy padding his stats, ending a career that will leave all others--including Sampras--in the dust.

Does the Death Penalty Make Sense?

The Supreme Court ruled this week that regardless of how young the victim is, rape crimes can not command the death penalty. The ruling--like most controversial issues--was 5-4, and it has sparked a lot of heated debate. The issue came before the Supreme Court because two men in Louisiana are on death row for raping and 8 year old and a 5 year old. Many people--including McCain and Obama--disagree with the decision to completely rule out the option of death for what many consider to be a more egregious crime than murder. Is their outrage justified? Should the government kill criminals for crimes that didn't take the life of another? Ironically, the Justices in favor of life in prison over death apparently have no problem with the death penalty for treason. Is treason really worse than raping a child? And if the reason for prohibiting the death penalty in the case of child rape is that crimes outside of murder can't command the death penalty, then how do they justify the death penalty for treason? Certainly treason in numerous ways has the potential to lead to many deaths, but in and of itself, it isn't murder. The same can be said of rape--rape of children and adults--that it also can lead to death through suicide and violence committed by the victim, but it also lacks the direct result of the loss of life, unlike murder. The issue of the death penalty also receives questioning--should any crime, even murder, justify an eye for an eye approach by the government? If the government has the right to inflict death for certain crimes, then why can't a victim kill the perpetrator? If someone rapes my child, I am going to take care of things on my own, and if I do, should I face murder charges? Viewing the issue of justice from a philosophical point of view, does an entity like government have more of a right for retribution than the individual--or the individuals family members--against whom a horrific crime is committed?

I personally disagree with the death penalty for any crime--rape, murder, treason--because I don't believe the government has the moral authority to enact such a punishment. Life in prison should suffice, and if more punishment is to come, leave that to God. For cases where guilt is indisputable, make the life imprisonment very uncomfortable--humane--but uncomfortable, and I believe that is more punishment than the death penalty. Death for certain crimes seems like the easy way out, and having to endure daily punishment--with potentially much more to come in the afterlife--is much worse. Prison is not a vacation--even in the most lax prisons--and if a new approach is taken for crimes that deserve the worst punishment possible, prison could get much more uncomfortable--We could make prisoners watch re-runs of the same Barney and Tele-Tubbies episodes every day--for the worst criminals. It is highly hypocritical to respond to violence with violence, and it ultimately takes away the moral high ground an entity may have in enacting punishment. As hard as it is to view things from the perpetrators point of view, it is necessary to consider the wide range of mental illnesses that may not put someone in a mental institution, but that are bad enough to severely effect ones ability to reason correctly. People that commit horrible crimes have malfunctioning brains, one way or another, they don't work correctly, they don't respond the way a normal brain does. Does that justify criminal behavior? No. But it also doesn't deserve to be completely discounted, so at the least, we as a society can take the moral high ground and stick to punishments that don't undermine the entire justice system. Rage at child rape is justified, but murder in response to that rage isn't. The Supreme Court made the right decision, and now, they need to extend their ruling to the death penalty as a whole, eliminating it's stain from our legal system.

Joke-ovic Choke-ovic

Wimbledon kicked off on Monday, and most pundits picked Roger Federer to lose to Novak Djokovic or Rafael Nadal. Actually, it wasn't just the pundits that picked the Fed express to lose, Djokovic himself declared Federer vulnerable, and suggested that he--Djokovic--could very well be the one to knock him off. Well, Fed won his 2nd straight match in straight sets and Djokovic got worked in straight sets. Interesting, Fed loses in the Final of a major to the best clay court player ever, and all of the sudden he's a has-been, never mind the fact that he's played in 16 straight semi-finals in major tournaments--the record by far--and he's been in 14 of the last 16 finals, winning 12. Djokovic on the other hand, wins 1 major and considers himself the man. Good job Djokovic, way to get your A kicked by the 75th ranked player in the world after talking smack about the greatest tennis player ever. Fed will win his 6th straight Wimbledon--an all-time record--and if Nadal is lucky enought to make the final, he won't make it 5 sets like last year. Federer has won 62 straight matches in a row on grass--a streak going for over 5 years--for a reason and chumps like Djokovic should cork it until they actually dent Fed's armor when it counts.

McCain needs a 6 month stint at Guantanamo

The Supreme Court just ruled that detainees being held in Guantanamo prison camps have a right to challenge their imprisonment in Federal Courts (it was a 5-4 ruling). This is the right decision and it was long overdue, but not everyone agrees with it. I think the most obvious display of political pandering in the Presidential election is the following statement by John McCain: “The United States Supreme Court rendered a decision yesterday that I think is one of the worst decisions in history". This is coming from a former POW, one who got the crap kicked out him for 5 years, one who until recently, strongly disagreed with the Bush administration's policies at Guantanamo. McCain even advocated shutting down Guantanamo--that is, he did until he decided to sell out his convictions in a lame attempt to pacify that far right radicals. Any thorough examination of the prisoners being held at Guantanamo shows that most of them aren't "high risk", rather, they were scooped up on a battle field and thrown in prison, preferably forever if Bush had his way. They were fighting invading forces, defending their way of life, their families, often times coerced to fight or they would be killed by the Taliban or Al Qaeda. If the US government knocked on my door and said they would kill my family unless I went to fight an invading army, I would fight. Not only that, but for fighting their families get taken care of, so it is difficult to understand how locking these detainees up indefinitely, beating them, and refusing to tell them what the are being charged with is somehow going to keep America safe.

The fact that 4 out of 9 Justices voted in favor of Bush's detainment policy is disturbing, but it is more disturbing to see McCain support indefinite detention. His flip-flopping isn't good for the straight talk express--he's in need of some moral viagra--and the fact that this flip-flopping actually convinces anyone is sad. Imprisonment policies that allow indefinite detention, without ever bringing charges, and without ever showing evidence may seem less threatening when they concern detainees in Cuba, but allowing the government to do things like this might someday apply to detention policies of American citizens. Bush, Cheney, and McCain deserve to spend 6 months in Guantanamo, actually, they should be put there indefinitely and see how that feels.

Vice President Predictions

I am ready to make my VP picks, even though the secrecy behind these choices is air-tight, I think I've read enough to make a good guess. I think Romney will be McCain's choice for Veep--with the economy becoming more of an issue than anything other than Iraq, Romney shores up McCain's weakness with the economy, and Romney was rallying the conservative base right before he dropped out, making him the most satisfying choice for most hard-core conservatives. Until recently, I didn't think Romney had a chance due to the animosity he had with McCain, but ultimately, issues like Mormonism and campaign insults take a back seat to issues like the economy. Not only that, but because Romney helped pass health care legislation in Massachusetts, he has a greater chance of drawing independent voters that make health care a top concern, cutting into a democratic stronghold. Romney has shown an ability to connect with liberals--he was elected in the bluest state in the country, and he has the ability to change his mind often, and for the most part, be fairly convincing about it.

If Obama doesn't choose Clinton--and I don't think he will--I think he will choose Jim Webb. He is a senator from Virginia, a former Republican, and he was Secretary of the Navy for Ronald Reagan. He also happens to be a very outspoken critic of the war, and he has the credentials to do so, considering he was one of the 5 highest ranking military officials in the country. He has the ability to deliver some key states that normally vote Republican--like Virginia--and he has the ability to counter McCain on security issues. Webb has strong appeal with Independent voters, and he also has strong, favorable appeal with older voters.

I could be way off with these picks--it's like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey drunk--so if I'm wrong, oh well, and if I'm right I'm a genius.

Nadal isn't nice

Nadal is a bully; he didn't have to abuse Roger the way he did, he could have given Roger a few games and still blown him out. It's amazing what a difference the surface can make--Rafa can't be beat on clay, he's good on grass, and he hasn't made a major final on hard court, but when it comes to clay, he could beat anyone even if he gave them a 2 set lead to start the match. In the entire tournament, Rafa didn't lose a set and only had 1 set even go to a tie-break, and to top it all off, he gave Fed the biggest beat down of his career. Fed can safely make the claim that he's the 2nd best clay court player in the world, but as long as Nadal is around, he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the French Open. Maybe the military could have a "training excercise" go wrong and accidentally nuke Miorca (Nadal's island). Nadal probably uses horse steroids, beaver tranquillizer, and who knows what else; that's the only explanation for his dominance. It is impossible to hit a winner on clay against him, he can chase down anything. It's scary to think that he's only 22 and that he'll have at least 4 more good years. Anyway, Nadal is just plain mean and Kimbo Slice needs to take him out behind an alley and take care of things.

French Open Watch

The French Open is under way, and Roger Federer is trying to complete the career grand slam--winning all 4 majors, something that has only been done by 5 men. He has come close the last 3 years, losing to Rafael Nadal in the Semi's, Finals, and Finals, and most likely will play him in the Finals this year if Fed makes it that far. Fed has been mortal this year, already losing as more than in the previous 3 years and the season is only about half way over, but he is still a freak. He made the Australian Open Final even though he had mono; I've had mono, and that is just crazy. I could barely walk up the stairs when I had mono, I missed 4 weeks of school, and I lost about 30 pounds, so Fed still winning tennis matches boggles the mind. Hopefully Nadal gets injured so Fed has a chance, so if anyone in France happens to read this, throw something at Nadal (only injure him bad enough for him to miss the rest of the French Open).

McClellan drops the Hammer

I am going to read the new book about the Bush adminstration by Scott McClellan, Bush's former Press Secretary. Whether one believes McClellan is telling the truth or not, it certainly raises questions about our government. Whether or not McClellan exaggerates at all shouldn't really matter, because he is exposing the corrupt culture in Washington. Anyone that is willing to take the blinders off will realize quickly that the government runs its own show, doing what it wants to regardless of how the public feels, and doing whatever is best for the elite and powerful. It didn't take this book to reveal that truth, but the fact that McClellan and Bush have been close for so long makes this book more interesting, and it also gives the book lots of publicity--it creates lots of discussion about Bush's dishonesty and about Washington's dishonesty. I place blame on the media and Congress as well because they didn't raise enough of ruckus before we went to war and if they had, we might not have invaded Iraq. Bush--and every other modern President--relies on the media to sell his agenda, so if the media had done its job before the war, not after, it would have been extremely difficult to convince the public that Iraq should be invaded. I believe that McClellans book is probably pretty accurate and that it serves as another--of many--indictment of Bush's horrible presidency.

Polygamy Debate

This was posted on a blog by Martha Nussbaum, a professor at the University of Chicago.

Debating Polygamy
What is wrong with polygamy?
Nineteenth-century Americans coupled it with slavery, calling both "the twin relics of barbarism." Today, it is used as a scare image to deter people from approving same-sex marriage, lest it lead down a slippery slope to that horror of horrors.
But what, exactly, is bad about it? Looking at the Texas sect at the Yearning for Zion ranch, so much in the news, will not tell us, because that sect allegedly forced underage girls into marriage. The case then becomes one of child sexual abuse, a crime hardly unknown in the monogamous family, although it gets less splashy publicity when it occurs there. Disturbing things are fun to contemplate when they can be pinned on distant "deviants," but threatening when they occur in families like one's own.
Mormon polygamy of the 19th century was not child abuse. Adult women married by consent, and typically lived in separate dwellings, each visited by the husband in turn. In addition to their theological rationale, Mormons defended the practice with social arguments - in particular that polygamous men would abandon wives or visit prostitutes less frequently. Instead of answering these arguments, however, Americans hastened to vilify Mormon society, publishing semi-pornographic novels that depicted polygamy as a hotbed of incest and child abuse.
Self-righteous Americans hastened to stigmatize Mormon marriage as "patriarchal," while participating contentedly and uncritically in an institution (monogamy) so patriarchal that, for many years, women lost all property rights upon marriage and could not even get a divorce on grounds of cruelty. In one respect, Mormon women were miles ahead of their sisters living in monogamy: They got the vote in the territory of Utah in 1871, 49 years before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment gave the vote to women all over the nation.
The hypocrisy of the monogamist majority reached its height in the denial (often heard in Congress) that there could be a serious religious argument for polygamy: hypocrisy, because the monogamists were denying their own heritage. Joseph Smith did not pull polygamy out of the air. He found it in the Old Testament, where many patriarchs are represented as polygamous. The very wording of the Ten Commandments, a chief pillar of American public morality then as now, presupposes polygamy. In Deuteronomy, the commandment not to "covet" is divided into two parts. The command not to covet the neighbor's spouse is addressed only to men, and the command not to covet the neighbor's house, field, etc., is addressed to all of the people of Israel. A standard Torah commentary used in my temple puts it this way: "Because men could have more than one wife, an unmarried woman could covet another's husband and even end up married to him."
Yet in 1878, the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold an anti-polygamy statute with these words, extraordinary from justices who were supposedly Bible readers: "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people." (The Jews were in fact an Asiatic people, but mainstream Christians usually forgot that, thinking of Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed child. So the justices did not see themselves as repudiating their biblical heritage, although this is precisely what they were doing.)
All this shows us a deplorable, if ubiquitous, human tendency: People who feel threatened by a new group demonize the group by imputing to it allegedly nefarious practices in the areas of gender and sexuality. Think of anti-Semitism in European history, Islamophobia, and - perhaps above all - fear and loathing of gays and lesbians.
But what should we say about polygamy itself, in our own time? What, if anything, is really wrong with it?
First, as traditionally practiced, polygamy is one-sided. Men have rights that women do not. Sex equality could, then, give the state a strong interest in disallowing religious claims to practice polygamy, as long as the one-sidedness is maintained.
What about, though, a practice of plural contractual marriages, by mutual consent, among adult, informed parties, all of whom have equal legal rights to contract such plural marriages? What interest might the state have that would justify refusing recognition of such marriages?
Well, children would have to be protected, so the law would have to make sure that issues such as maternity/paternity and child support were well articulated. Beyond this, a regime of polygamous unions would, no doubt, be difficult to administer - but not impossible, with good will and effort. It is already difficult to deal with sequential marriages and the responsibilities they entail.
The history of Mormon polygamy shows us that the state and public opinion are very bad judges of what adult men and women may reasonably do. When people are insecure, they cling to the "normal" and vilify those who choose to live differently. Someday down the road, we may recognize that adults are entitled, as John Stuart Mill saw long ago, to conduct such "experiments in living" as suit their own plans and projects, as long as they inflict no harm on nonconsenting parties. The state must protect vulnerable dependents: children and the elderly. It must also protect adult men and women against fraud and force. Beyond that, it should leave the field of intimate sexual choice to a regime of private contractual arrangement. If polygamy turns out to be a bad idea, it won't survive the test of free choice over time.
(This post also appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, and the issues raised are discussed further in chapter 5 of my new book, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality.)
Posted by Martha Nussbaum at 11:48 AM in Nussbaum, Martha Permalink

Bush can ride down an oil-slide to Hell

President Bush has "successfully" negotiated an increase in oil production from the Saudi's. Wow, as if the amount of available oil actually had anything to do with the prices right now. If we removed all forms of investment from the oil industry, and left the supply and demand to actual oil consumption, prices wouldn't be nearly as high, nor would they fluctuate as often. Since the start of the Iraq War in 2003, the cost of oil has risen from around $20 a barrel to near $130. Has the demand and use of oil risen by more than 6 times in the last 5 years? Not even close. But because investors control the prices through financial markets, they can use any event they want to justify price changes, making money out of thin air for themselves, while most people get screwed at the pump. To top it off, many of the American companies that benefit most from the price increases are closely connected to the Bush administration, and will be more than willing to provide huge stock option plans when Bush and Cheney "kindly" offer their advice as directors. Gee, it sure is a shame that those stocks will be worth so much because of foreign policy conduct over the last 8 years that has given the market an excuse to manipulate prices. I can see Bush and Cheney donating all of the profit from their stocks to enviromental projects, or using their wealth to open up non-profit health care clinics in inner-city ghetto's where health conditions can resemble the third world. Next time there is an incident of violence somewhere in the world, look for the Wall Street Journal to report that scared investors have changed their trading strategies with crude oil, leading to another price increase. Did a bomb that killed 20 people in a market actually do anything to affect oil production or use? No, and the fact that violent chaotic things happen everyday in oil producing nations has always been, and always will be the case. Hopefully our next President can be more concerned about bettering our country and the world, as less concerned with satisfying investors.

Specter's an Idiot

Arlen Specter, a long time Senator from Pennsylvania, wants a special investigation into the Patriots taping scandal. The NFL has viewed all of the tapes related to the scandal, they took away a first-round draft pick from the Patriots, they fined the team and the coach, and they are now moving forward. Specter is making a mockery of his government position, wasting time and tax payer money for attention. With all of the problems and needs our country has, why should the government waste any time and money on a very minor problem that the NFL has already taken care of? Specter is noted for being a die-hard Pittsburgh Steelers fan, making this somewhat personal, but more than that, he is just grand-standing and looking for attention. Whether it is Congressional investigations of steroids in baseball, or taping signals in football, the Senate has no business involving itself.

Considering that Congress has an approval rating of around 20%, and considering the plethora of problems they have failed to solve, it is mind boggling that any of Specter's colleagues would support his ridiculous treasure hunt. The country is facing a recession, the mortgage crisis is nowhere near being resolved, the war in Iraq still has no end in sight, health care is becoming more expensive and less accessible every day, America's image abroad is at an all-time low, questions about torture and the behavior exhibited at Guantanamo--these are issues Congress should investigate and attempt to fix. Worrying about the NFL and the taping of defensive hand signals? Are you kidding me!? Specter is ridiculous, and his behavior is more worthy of impeachment than anything President Clinton did. The citizens of Pennsylvania should elect a replacement and put serious pressure on Specter to stop wasting their money, and if they continue to support him, it is an indictment of them and our political system that places an enormous advantage in the hands of incumbents. The media should help as well by ignoring Specter; give him no publicity, don't publish anything he says, don't have him as a guest on any news network, just completely black ball him. Specter gets my vote as the dumbest politician in Washington.

NBA Playoff update

Last night the Jazz lost to the Lakers, giving the Lakers a 3-2 lead in the series. The Jazz actually played quite well, they just couldn't make the big plays down the stretch, most notably giving up and offensive rebound in the final minute that gave the Lakers a 5 point lead. Losing on the road to the Lakers isn't so bad, but considering Kobe was hampered by a bad back, and considering that if a game 7 is played, it will be in L.A. with a healthier Kobe, this loss really hurts. The Jazz had a tie game with a few minutes to go, and not closing it out will ultimately cost them the series and end their season. They made the Western Conference Finals last year--with a much easier path--so this season will all the more disappointing, regressing from a year ago even though they are a better team this year. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Lakers win game 6 in Utah--Kobe has a killer instinct like Jordan did--and if they do lose, I don't see them losing game 7 at home unless Kobe can't even suit up for the game.

Turning to the Celtics/Cavs series, Boston continued to play chameleon, winning at home to take a 3-2 series lead and improve to 7-0 at home this postseason. With game 6 in Cleveland, the Celtics need to turn their 0-5 road record into a 1-5 record, not because they wouldn't win a game 7 at home, but because they can't go into a series against the Pistons without a road playoff win. With the biggest turnaround in one season in NBA history, the Celtics aren't looking for moral victories like just making the Eastern Conference Finals, they are looking to win the Championship. Prior to the playoffs, I thought they would win it all, or worst case scenario, make the Finals and lose to the West--now, I don't see them beating the Pistons even if they finish off Cleveland on the road. Boston's deficiencies have shown up in the playoffs--a lack of athleticism, and little depth. With three superstars, it is surprising that they can't score at will, but none of the big 3 is overly athletic--Garnett is in a big man sense--making it imperative that they shoot well from the field, something that is hard to do with the intensified postseason defense they face.

As for the Hornets/Spurs series, I still don't see the Spurs losing the series. They have won 4 championships in the last 9 years, they are the defending champs, and they seem to catch the breaks and make the plays when they absolutely have to. I would love to see the Hornets win because I hate the Spurs--the ideal match up would be the Jazz vs. the Hornets, with Paul going against Williams, and New Orleans new team facing its old team--but I don't see that match up happening. Even if the Hornets knock off the Spurs, I don't see the Lakers losing, but a Hornets/Lakers match up would be pretty cool, with the MVP, Kobe, going against the runner up, Chris Paul.

Liberty of Conscience

I'm think I might be in the blogging "zone". This will be my second post in the last 24 hours, a feat that deserves special recognition. I am currently reading a book titled Liberty of Conscience, by Martha Nussbaum. It is a book about America's religious tradition and the need to protect that tradition. I haven't finished the book yet so I may add or edit this blog as I move through the book, but her basic argument is that those who are overly hostile to religion and those that are over zealous about religion are hurting America and its tradition of religious equality. Issues of State and Church are part of our daily news, and they are hotly debated by those on differing sides of the issue. Should prayer be allowed in school? Should the ten commandments be allowed to display in public buildings like a court house? Should we have In God We Trust on our coins and One Nation Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance? Obviously, any answer to these questions is subjective in nature--even though I think my opinion on the matter is correct--but in spite of said subjectivity, we need clearly defined objectives for any rule or law around such questions.

Nussbaum--who happens to be very religious--argues that any form of religion, from symbols to statements, should not be part of the public sphere. She says that when the ten commandments are posted in a courthouse, it is an unspoken statement of support for Christianity, creating an in-group and an out-group, alienating non-Christians. When the government added the words one nation under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's, it was move directed at amplifying the differences between Christian America and the Atheist Soviet Union. Many mistakenly believe that those words have been part of the Pledge from the very beginning, but they were added for political reasons, not religious ones. The Constitution doesn't mention God or Creator anywhere, and this is for a reason. The creators of the Constitution had come from Europe, where State support of religion had led to corruption and oppression, something our nations founders felt necessary to avoid. Philosophers like Locke, Kant, John Rawls, and Nussbaum make compelling arguments for a complete WALL between State and religion.

Nussbaum frequently cites the example of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He was a very religious person, but he believed every single human being deserves the liberty of conscience--that is, the sacred right of trying to find the meaning of this life. He happened to be far ahead of his time, as he accepted all kinds of people in Rhode Island, even making laws that prohibited the acquisition of Indian land. Williams became a good friend to the the Indians of Rhode Island, treating them as equals, even though he considered their beliefs to be erroneous, he respect their liberty of conscience. Nussbaum argues that we need to regain the respect for this liberty of conscience, avoiding a silent caste system created by religion. As more and more people migrate to the United States from Asian countries--where many religions aren't monotheistic--even the mention of the protection of a single God can be alienating. Atheists are viewed in a more negative light than any other group of Americans--which is baffling, considering many atheists are extremely active in the promotion of human rights and equality for all--but due to the fact that their liberty of conscience has led them to believe differently, they are viewed in a very negative way.

Nussbaum holds positions in the University of Chicago's Law School, Divinity School, and Philosophy department, with Masters and Doctoral degrees from Harvard. It is refreshing to see a brilliant, religious person argue for the equal treatment of those with different beliefs. I completely agree with her argument that allowing the liberty of conscience in individuals is necessary, and prohibiting any form of State sponsorship is imperative for liberty of conscience to be truly protected. The role of government is to protect our basic rights, not to institute moral laws and not to subtly establish religious preference. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in political philosophy and I believe that anyone--from the most hard-core Mormon to the most hard-core atheist--would find this book convincing.