Proposition 8, Unicorns, and Lunges...Lots of Lunges

In a landmark decision, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California's Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, is unconstitutional. In his ruling, Judge Walker stated that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”] The entire ruling can be found here.

Opponents of the ruling have already gotten the ball rolling on the appeals process, and it appears inevitable that the issue of gay marriage will soon find itself on the Supreme Court's docket. It's hard for me to understand why the opposition to gay marriage is so vociferous. I'm pretty sure this is how those who support Prop 8 view the daily life of a homosexual man:

3:00am: Continue sleeping with my eyes open while wearing colorful, feather nipple tassels.
5:00am: Wake-up in a cold sweat and immediately jot down the details of my dream where I finally figured out how to convert my neighbor's child to homosexuality.
5:07am: Go back to sleep...creepily.
6:30am: Wake-up, put on "Faith" by George Michael, and cut the legs off my jeans to make some fab Daisy Dukes!
7:00am: Stretching. Lots of erotic stretching.
10:00am: Choose to continue being gay.
10:01am: Lay on a bear skin rug, have a few cocktails, and think about new ways to threaten the "traditional marriage."
12:30pm: Have a good cry.
1:00pm: Grab my boombox, put on a David Bowie cassette, and meet Lance Bass down at FAO Schwarz to dance and recruit locals to homosexuality.
3:00pm: Run through a meadow flailing my limp arms.
3:30pm: Steal a horse from a sexy cowboy, paste a horn on its face (because we LOVE unicorns), and ride it toward the horizon until I find a rainbow.
3:57pm: Reach the rainbow and have a good cry.
4:30pm: Lose all innate abilities to raise children unless supervised by someone of the opposite sex.
4:45pm: See Satan at the grocery store and say "hi."
5:00pm: More erotic stretching.
5:30pm: Flirt with men that I know are straight because I'm gay and I have no social tact or common sense.
6:15pm: Watch "Glee" on Tivo.
6:55pm: Hand wash and hang dry my feather nipple tassels. 
7:30pm: Watch "S.W.A.T." starring LL Cool J and Sam Jackson because I'm pretty sure that's what straight dudes do and, obviously, I wish I were straight.
7:47pm: Turn off "S.W.A.T." because if that's what it takes to be straight, I'd rather suffer the persecution of being gay.
7:53pm: Start rewriting "S.W.A.T." as a musical starring Nathan Lane, Betty White, and Christopher Walken.
7:54pm: Realize writing "S.W.A.T.: To Protect and Sing" will not make me any more straight. Cease production.
8:00pm: Speak with a lisp.
9:00pm: Apply nipple tassels and take an ice bath.
9:35pm:  Fall asleep and dream about how to destroy Christianity.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, the only accurate representation listed above is the penchant for erotic stretching. But staying limber is important regardless of your sexual orientation. What this boils down to is that marriage is a fundamental right, and the ruling by Judge Walker is a huge step toward true equal rights as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will agree.

How Liberal/Conservative Are You? Take the Test and Find Out!

Check out this website that tests your "political compass." From the home page click the link that says "take the test?" or "click here to start." DO NOT read the "Analysis" section first as it may prejudice your answers. I recommend Googling any terms from the questions that you may not understand so that your results are as accurate possible. The results will show where your beliefs fall on an economic scale and social scale. When you have received your score, read the "Analysis" carefully so that you understand what the numbers mean. To see where you rate in comparison to the 2008 U.S. presidential candidates, click the "U.S. Primaries 2008" link at the bottom of the "Analysis" section. As you will see, Democrats and Republicans typically score positive on both scales, however, Republicans tend to score higher in both instances. Republicans tend to be more to the "right" economically and more "authoritarian" socially. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader were the only candidates who rated "negative" economically and socially. Enjoy.

WikiLeaking the Obvious

A diverse collection of nearly 100,000 documents was released to the website WikiLeaks last week regarding the U.S. war in Afghanistan. The source of the leaks is unknown, but the breadth of information contained in the documents is far-reaching and indicates a rather severe breach of information security. Nonetheless, all of the information released thus far is rated 'secret' or below (as opposed to more highly sensitive intelligence rated 'top secret') and none of the information is particularly shocking to those who have closely followed the United States' involvement in the region.

The leaked information paints a picture of the Taliban as a highly capable fighting force, a claim that appears self-evident considering the Afghan campaign represents the longest war in U.S. history. What may appear more surprising is the claim that Pakistan, a key U.S. ally in the conflict, has been providing supply line assistance and sanctuary to Taliban fighters that are killing American troops while denying the U.S. the right to pursue those fighters into Pakistan. Why would Pakistan allocate resources to helping the U.S. effort in Afghanistan while simultaneously undermining that effort by aiding the enemy? The answer is simple if you understand the geopolitical situation facing Pakistan and is described eloquently in this article by George Friedman.

The war in Afghanistan began in response to 9/11 in an effort to root out the Taliban government that was providing refuge to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda now operates autonomous cells in approximately 100 countries, therefore, a strategy aimed at eliminating the Taliban will do little to affect the durability of al Qaeda. The Taliban has never expressed any desire nor will to attack the United States as al Qaeda has, and when the United States withdraws from Afghanistan the Taliban will pose little threat to their national security.

Pakistan, on the other hand, will be drastically affected by the government that rules Afghanistan when the United States leaves. While the Taliban has technically been ousted from the government, they maintain a great degree of power and influence in the country. As Pakistan wishes to exert their influence on post-war Afghanistan, they are inclined to maintain an operating relationship with the Taliban as they will inevitably play some role in the country's future government. Thus, Pakistan has a strong incentive to play a two-pronged strategy: support U.S. and NATO forces in the country, while quietly remaining in the relative good graces of the Taliban. There is no amount of pressure that can be applied on Pakistan to change this incentive structure, and defeating the Taliban will do little to change the threat that remains from al Qaeda. Therefore, continuing the war in Afghanistan is an uphill battle that is being subverted by our own ally, demands incredible resources that we cannot afford, and which has no tangible benefit for U.S. national security. The WikiLeaked documents may have raised some eyebrows, but they did not reveal anything new about the war in Afghanistan.

Important Things are Frequently Boring, "Clue" is not

The New England Journal of Medicine published this very interesting, albeit very dry, article on the costs and benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law on March 23, 2010. In light of my previous post regarding the deficit, it seems appropriate to point out that the article states that "analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) actuary show that the ACA will substantially reduce the deficit, only slightly increase national medical spending (despite an enormous expansion in insurance coverage), begin to reduce the growth rate of medical spending, and introduce various new initiatives that may lead to more fundamental reductions in the long-term rate of health care cost growth."

The Journal also describes the ACA as "the most significant piece of U.S. social policy legislation in almost 50 years," so do yourself a favor and read the article. It's boring and a little confusing, but it's history and the policy will have an effect on every American. It's good to know which side of the fence you are on and why. When you are done you can reward yourself by looking at this picture.

On a note of similar importance, if you haven't seen the movie "Clue," do it. It's arguably the best comedy that you've never seen.

The Deficit vs. The Situation

The second-ranking Republican in the Senate had something interesting to say the other day. When asked how renewing the Bush tax cuts coincides with cutting the deficit, Jon Kyl of Arizona said: "You do need to offset the cost of increased spending. And that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset the cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans [emphasis added].” Or, as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman succinctly put: "So $30 billion in aid to the unemployed is unaffordable, but 20 times that much in tax cuts for the rich doesn't count." Krugman actually discusses the issue in great detail in an op-ed in the New York Times on Thursday. Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan has also announced his support for letting the Bush tax cuts expire citing the danger of our growing deficit.

Just to put this in layman's terms, a deficit occurs when you project to spend more money than you expect to bring in. If I need to pay $1,000 in rent next month and I expect to earn $700 next month, then I have a $300 budget deficit. In order to spend more than you bring in you have to borrow money, that borrowed money is your debt. For the rent example, I would need to take on a debt of $300 to meet my budgetary requirements. As long as you can borrow money and afford to pay the interest that accrues then you can continue to operate with a budget deficit as the United States does. However, this is not a practice that can continue indefinitely. As our debt continues to rise and our projected deficits remain high, lenders begin to question whether they will ever be paid back. Therefore, they increase the interest we are required to pay on our debts and become less willing to lend more money.

So, what do we do? If we really wish to get the deficit under control then the simple answer is to increase revenue and decrease spending. Extending the Bush tax cuts as Senator Kyl and the GOP leadership wish to do would clearly decrease revenue. Someone with the priority of cutting the deficit and not worried about reelection (like Alan Greenspan) would oppose the extension of these tax cuts. Similarly, someone very serious about controlling the deficit would look to cut spending. The recent expansion of healthcare by the Democrats will assuredly increase spending on Medicare and Medicaid which already represent around 20% of the federal budget. The point here is that neither side can legitimately claim that they are really trying to aggressively reduce the deficit. Republicans want lower taxes, but refuse to give an inch on defense spending. Democrats are willing to enact higher taxes, but they also want to expand more services (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.).

We can't abandon all spending and we can't solve the deficit problem with taxation alone. What we can do is allow the Bush tax cuts to expire recognizing that an increase in revenue will help to alleviate our deficit. We can also reduce spending in certain areas, while still providing services that keep the quality of life at a level to be expected in the richest country in the world. We need to continue to increase the age at which people become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, recognizing that the average lifespan has increased dramatically since the inception of these programs. We need to dramatically reduce our military spending. Our country faces a much greater threat from fiscal crises than from military crises, and our status as global hegemon will assuredly be jeopardized by the former before the latter. We must resist embroiling ourselves in long-term military commitments unless they are fundamental to the security of the United States. Invading Iran, North Korea, Yemen, or Somalia should not be on anyone's calendar. Spending billions on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a ballistic missile defense program that may or may not ever become operationally effective is exactly the type of defense spending that can afford to be cut without sacrificing our military supremacy.

Then again, an inverse of this strategy may work just as well. Run the deficit as high as you want, and when China and Japan threaten to increase interest rates or cut-off lending we can just send over F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to bomb them and activate our high-tech ballistic missile defenses in case they try to retaliate militarily. I'm sure as long as "Jersey Shore" and "Grey's Anatomy" are on, most Americans won't care either way. Nonetheless, that's The Situation.

This is a Free Country, You Can't Wear That!

The lower house of the French parliament has voted to ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public. The vote was not close, 335 to 1, with 221 abstentions, and the bill will now move to the Senate for ratification in September. Proponents claim the vote is a victory for the "values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals," and that "democracy thrives when it is open-faced." Critics say that those who wear the full veil are not the stereotypical oppressed women that they are made out to be, and that the potential ban merely represents xenophobia.

Should the ban pass the Senate it will still face review by France's Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights, both of which have the potential to overturn the law. Nonetheless, claiming that a ban on the veil serves democracy in any way is hard to wrap one's head around. Let me get this straight...by telling people that they can't wear something, Parliament is allowing them to be free because they assume that the people are only wearing it because they are being forced to as a form of medieval Islamic oppression. This reminds me of the Adam Sandler sketch (audio, text) where he and his buddy decide to join a cult. In the end, Adam Sandler apologizes to his friend because the cult forces him to kill his father. The friend's response: "You know, it's like they said. It was the only way to save him." I'm not sure if that relates, but it's funny so click the link.

Either way, forcing someone not to do something so that others can't force them to do it is an ironic solution to a sensitive problem. Will eliminating traditional veils like the burka and niqab in public make oppressive men treat women more equitably as proponents of the ban insinuate? Will the righteousness of Western values strike them like lightning leading them to favor a "I ♥ NY" t-shirt for their wife rather than the pious Snuggie that they've laid out every morning prior? Or will such men still be sober, sexist wife-beaters even if the law passes? 

And this is all assuming that the women who wear the veils are not choosing to do so. What if some are? What if a law was proposed stating that women can't wear Christian crosses around their necks because some Christian men view women as inferior and treat them like crap? I think a lot of Christian women would ask what their husband, father, or brother has to do with their personal methods of practicing their faith.

It's estimated that only 2,000 women wear the veil in France and yet many of the country's five million Muslims oppose the ban. Is this because Muslims in France hate equality or is it because they understand the religious meaning of the veil a bit better than Parliament? Promoting equality and providing religiously-conscious social services to battered and oppressed women seems like a more democratic solution than assuming that every woman walking down the street in a burka is being forced to by an evil Muslim man. 

If government is going to outlaw anything it should be couples wearing matching outfits. It is clear evidence of the non-surgical castration performed by many Western women on their male partners and it can lead to long nights of watching "The Piano Sisterhood of the Ya-Ya Traveling Pants Luck Club in the City." I've not seen it, but I read a review in a nightmare I had and it was the worst experience of my life.

What's Caused Half of All Human Deaths Since the Stone Age?

No, it's not the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. It's malaria, and this article by Sonia Shah, author of "The Fever: How Malaria Has Ruled Humankind for 500,000 Years," provides an incredible account of our battle with the disease dating back to the Roman Empire. The scourge of malaria led the regal, Roman physician Serenus Sammonicus to prescribe the wearing of an amulet inscribed with the word "Abracadabra" as one of the first attempts at a cure. That didn't quite work, and since, that word has crept into one of my most hated corners of our lexicon: magicians' phrases. Now we have to watch Criss Angel say it as he gets paid to pretend to walk on water while dressed like a kid who hates his parents and all the popular kids at school because he's the loser who decided to do magic tricks instead of play sports. I hate you, Criss Angel. The only "Mindfreak" that's going on here is that you somehow misspelled "Chris," and that a large enough portion of America thinks you can float for you to get a show. You started this, Serenus Sammonicus, and if you were alive I'd punch you in the ear.

Anyway, malaria continues to kill nearly 1 million people every year and the only thing anyone seems to care about is when the next LFO album comes out. I know "Summer Girls" is intoxicating, but for the sake of mankind, quit thinking about girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch long enough to start hating Criss Angel...and malaria.