Friday, October 22, 2010

NOM Propoganda

I  recently was on the site of the National Organization For Marriage's  website and on this site they have place an  ad that i am assuming they are running in the state of Minnesota, in this ad they are vilify same sex marriage and the officials working for it by claiming that they are ripping it out of the peoples hands by not having the people vote on the issue. In this ad they invoke images of Martin Luther King Jr, and have his unmistakable booming voice claiming  "give us the ballot."  I find this very amusing myself, the idea of using a famed civil rights leader words to justify a policy of ongoing discrimination drips of an almost  Alanis  Morissette level of irony that is almost choking.

The words of King in this case are taken completely  out of context for what they were really meant to mean.  these words were words that were spoken from the soul of a group of people facing over two hundred years of oppression where society and the government had left them on the bottom of society and took massive steps to make sure that they stayed there. the process that made it well known to these people that there are two types of people in the nation and if you were not in the right group you didn't get to have the gold membership.  These where not the words of a group of people that had enjoyed the power and privilege of dictating the state as they saw fit.  These people where asking for the ballot to have some power of a system that in every way exploitative of them and their families. they where asking for the ballot for away to in someway be on equal footing in some way to people that had been untouchable in any another way.

This Organization should think more about the words of King, his message was not about voting, voting was a symbol for something greater.  To King having a ballot in the hand of everyone was a sign that they had a stake in the system, and his hope was that everyone would get beyond the distentions that separate us.  I am very unclear on how they could have missed this, I mean this not something that has been buried in the footnotes of history,  he stated his beliefs on this matter quite clearly on the steps of the Lincoln memorial in front of millions of people, 
"In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
                Free at last! Free at last!
                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!3

 So my advise for the National Organization For Marriage if you are going to invoke the names of a national hero to get your message across, do your home work and have a God Damn sense of history.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Dont Ask Dont Tell.

In the next few days there will be a vote in the senate regarding the policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." In order to figure out where one should stand on this issue is just a matter of asking what is the use of such a policy in the modern military.  One reason that i have found during my reading of reasons to keep the policy is that it will have profound ripple effects in the Organic Community of the armed forces.  It would be asinine to claim that the repeal of this policy would not have some effect on the forces as a whole, but the problem with this statement is that it implies that any change is bad for the military. Change in this way is almost always good thing, if all policies  were held up due to the fact that it is going to be a "period of adjustment" for the military then we should not have integrated the army.
Another objection to having openly gay men and women in the military is that openly gay soldiers will make the other members of the unit uncomfortable. One of the greatest things about the American military is that it is the people of this nation coming together and serving their country. As much as people would like to deny it, the military is pluralistic by the fact that it is made up of a pluralistic society.  If we are to not allow some one to be open about their sexuality for fear that it would make someone uncomfortable then it would stand to reason that the armed forces would have to ban any thing that would make other members uncomfortable, so then it would stand to reason that the armed forces would have to ban all public displays of worship.  this idea also answers the objection about the fact that army is about conformity and someone being gay will some how disrupt  that order is that has been created.
With this in mind there is no reason that being openly gay in the military would be a problem. If it is a matter of safety  for those individuals who are openly gay then steps must be taken to make it known that any harassment or violence towards other will not be tolerated.  A persons sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to serve as a solider. and of they feel that they must serve then they should be allowed to do so with out having to hide.

Saturday, September 18, 2010


"She seems to think that masturbation is really a huge problem, and I don’t think... it’s as huge a problem for Americans given all the other problems they’re facing, like unemployment, foreclosures, etc… When you have 10% unemployment, people have a lot of free time… Self-love is deficit-neutral."
– Arianna Huffington on Christine O’Donnell, the GOP nominee for Senate in Delaware (via youngleft)

This is a quote is rises some very troubling thoughts about the recent tea party candidate. Now I do understand that every campaign needs to run on both a mixture of social and political issues in order to win any election. But rising the issue of  wither or not masturbation is a big problem is like asking if someone washed the dishes in a burning house. The second part of this quote is right we do have greater economic and political problems that must be solved.  But what is coming to the surface here is that the Tea Party is moving away from the libertarian roots that it once touted so highly.  this has been a long time move away from these ideals starting with  Sarah Palin  becoming their golden goose and  Glen Beck Calling them Heroes.
Christine O'Donnell has appeared frequently on Bill Maher's Television show as a conservative talking head.  During her appearances she has spoken out frequently  against things like abortion, homosexuality and pre-marital sex.  This combined with Palin's heavily quoted comments on these issues are further evidence of the move away from the greatly valued lie and slogan of "Don't Tread on Me"
What is happening is that this movement that was at one time a movement of people who wanted to real in government spending has been taken over by the social agenda of the extreme right. But at the same time they have tried to keep the economic ideas that appealed to most of the moderates in the first place. So what has come about for the tea party is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want to keep their money. stating  the government has no right to interfere with the private realm of business. But the government is allowed to say that two people can not be gay, let states have comprehensive sexual education programs,  or keep a doctor and women to have the right to privacy. So the question is how much treading is this new Maverick party going to allow.