Fagelas? No we're just merry....

Since it seems like everyone is talking about gay marriage these days, I figure I'll join the fray. Recently several states have passed legislation making gay marriage, which brought to reality something that was once not even to be spoken of. My basic assesment of the argument is a relatively simple one.

Gays would like to have equal station and rights as straight, married people in the eyes of the government. They should already be accorded this right under the equal protection clause, but leave it to Scalia and the other "traditional" justices to keep them at bay "using" the right hand of god. Seriously, like 100 years ago it wasn't legal for a black person and white person to get married... and now 2 men or 2 women. What if it was a black man/white man and a black/white woman? What then? I'll tell you what then... Scalia's fat head would implode into his fat neck. The Legislature attempted to bribe them with Civil Unions which offered gay couples a legal status and some if not all rights. The rights varied by country and jurisdiction and inherently resurrected the concept "separate but equal" in the eyes of many homosexual couples. The rights sought/provided for by civil unions vary widely from tax benefits, adoption, healthcare/medical decisions. Gays feel that if they this separate category of domestic partnership/civil unions permanently brands them as inferior to married couples, that there is no valid ,compelling state interest in preventing them from getting married, and that they are justified in demanding that they be treated the same as everyone else.

Many people are vehemently opposed to the idea of gay marriage for several reasons... none of which have to do with logic, which is the only thing I hold sacred. God... er... Darwin bless my graphing calculator, wherever it may be... damn law school. Anyway some of the major arguments presented by the Catholic church and conservatives across the land are the degridation of the sanctity of marriage, morality and reproductio/child rearing. I'll address each in turn.

I truly believe in the idea of marriage, though I have not taken any steps to progress toward that final destination because I naturally sabotage every relationship I have had. And curiously my ex-girlfriends have gotten engaged to the guy they date after me... am I Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck? No, i'd rather tear off all my nails, eyelids and a few other body parts before being Dane Cook. But I digress. The Church and its sheep argue that it is a holy bond joining them for life, which I agree, Divorce is the devil, but straight people get divorced all the time so you can't argue that against the gays because there are gay couples that have stayed together for decades without any realistic expectation of becoming married one day. But I believe that they feel the name is holy as well. I have to say that I think the term marriage should be reserved to the ceremony that takes place in the church. However, I also believe that a long time ago all forms of government were controled by the church and there was too much intermingling going on, which made up common law, which dictated what many modern date statutes would look like. Thus the term marriage which was a completetly religious thing became all tied up with the government and subsequent rights that it bestowed. My proposal is that a new word be created to encompass all couples and bestow rights upon them and that marriage conveigh nothing other than recognition by the church. Let's use __________ to symbolize the new word. Marriage is gone, the church owns it, gay couples can try to petition the church to let them in but I see very little chance for success there. Seriously, everyone just go down to city hall for your __________ certificate and then you are legally bound and will receive all the same rights. The rules of monogamy still apply just so the system won't become entrenched with paper work. If they didn't then equal protection would fail as well a pair is not similarly situated to a trio.

Morality. Seriously? Because they have sex with someone of the same gender they are a bad person. I don't see the Boondock Saints going to kill Willem Dafoe, and they are the Right Hand of God. PS the sequel to Boondock Saints is slated to come out sometime this year... but what the hey it's only been 10 years... it's gotta be perfect by now. Scalia once compared homosexuality to people that rape barnyard animals.

Finally, reproduction/child rearing. Do you really think that just because gay people can't get married to each other that they will fight every natural feeling of theirs and marry a person of the opposite sex and what's more they will have a child. NO more or less children will be created whether or not gays marry. And I like to think, deep down, that if gay couples get married and can adopt, that some of them will adopt, as opposed to finding a surrogate. There are far too many children in "the system" and it screws a lot of them up for life. There is no data to prove that gay people would be any better/worse at raising children than a straight couple. Which is sad on the part of straight people because they have had so much more experience. And don't preach that... if they're raised by gay people they'll be gay garbage. Plenty of people raised by straight people nevertheless many who were later reveal the fact that they are gay and somehow the world hasn't come to an end.

In conclusion, to each their own. Stop bogarding equality, or I'll send the Somalian Pirates after you. PS how did California shoot down gay marriage? Are San Francisco and Hollywood not two of the gay meccas of the western hemisphere? FALE!

On a personal note... Congratulations to Scottery and his pending nuptials, to a WOMAN. Sorry Freducate, you missed your opportunity by only a few weeks.

A Lighthearted Romp Through Our National Identity and Ethics

Dick "Vader" Cheney has been going on Fox news to talk smack to the Obama administration and basically everything they're doing. As he said himself, this shouldn't really surprise anyone. However, the fun stuff about torture is what we're talking about today. Recently, Obama released a bunch of Bush-era memos that detailed the torture program. Now, we could argue about whether or not this was a good idea ("Transparency to possible crimes against humanity" vs. "Emboldening our enemies"), but I'm interested in the deeper question: Cheney has said that there are specific documents, intelligence reports or whatever, that show a direct connection between their programs and information gained that has helped to deter or protect against terrorist attacks. Based on some quotes below, and the dodginess with which administration officials have been dealing with questions based on it, I'm inclined to believe him that these memos are real.

See, this is what happens when you aren't careful with your arguments. The argument against harsh interrogation has typically been "We shouldn't torture because torture doesn't work, the information is unreliable and probably untrue." But of course, that's the wrong argument. It should have been "We shouldn't torture because torture is fundamentally evil, and in order to maintain moral superiority over terrorists we must refrain from torture." Which immediately begs the question: Under any and all circumstances? Is that really "morally right?"

The moral objection doesn't really fly, especially when you're talking to someone who lost someone to a terrorist attack. The issue here is that a demonstrable hypothesis is set up, and you have to be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you are correct. What if, indeed, there WAS valuable information that was uncovered as a DIRECT RESULT of torture, and NO OTHER MEANS were possible to extract that information? In other words, what if torture DOES work? Does that make it okay to torture people?

That's not a hypothetical anyone wants to consider, which is why the argument became "torture doesn't work." You circumvent the discussion by providing something for pragmatists to grab onto, and for the moral objectivists to tack onto their teary lamentations. In addition to all the psychic, social, and spiritual harm it does to our country, our torture programs don't even work, so let's get rid of them already.

But the flipside is this: let's say "torture is evil, and therefore forbidden" becomes the rule. Well, if "torture works" is a fact, you invite the "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario, which necessitates torturing another human in order to save lives. And let's face it: This is Amurrika, those are terrorists, so beat them with wrenches until they tell us where the bomb is. I would wager that the polls are off, and that most of America is okay with a torture program. Fueled in equal parts vengeance, rage, grief, and holy righteousness, all brought to bear on the inhuman and the foreign and dangerous enemy of the state. Even if you remove racism and xenophobia and nationalism from the equation, it's difficult to have sympathy for people who seek to kill innocents.

Asked another way: Who, in this day and age, would hesitate to waterboard Heinrich Hiemmler? Even if it was just for shits-n'-giggles and there was no strategic advantage? We all would. Of course. So what makes him different from the terrorists today? What is so different about the hypothetical torture of Adolf Hitler and the actual torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

It's a tough question. And consider this, from CNN:

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country," the Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, told colleagues in the two-page memo April 16.

But then:

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means," Blair said in the prepared statement. "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Blair added that he supported the release of the Bush memos, as well as Obama's decision to officially ban the interrogations. "We do not need these techniques to keep American safe," he said.

Trust me, Admiral Blair: Once you say "high value information came from [these] interrogations," nobody is listening. Our countrymen don't deal well with statements like "there is no way of knowing," which to them equates to "we tortured and it worked."

The REAL bottom line is this: The argument revolving around torture must rise above one of utility. It cannot come down to "Torture works" or "Torture doesn't work," because to be honest, when it's done with the expertise that the American military has, I think it does work. The argument must be this: LOTS of things "work" that we don't do. We don't do saturation bombing. We don't do germ and biological warfare. We don't do napalm. We don't do slash and burn. We don't do death squads. All of these things get the motherfucking job DONE, and with a lot less effort than the house-to-house urban fighting that we've been doing. The reason we don't do them is because they are atrocities, we've learned from Vietnam and we are trying to adhere to the ethic we're setting up.

That ethic is what we, as the supposed defenders of freedom and justice and equity, must keep sacred. Our morality should be what keeps us from torturing, because it's what makes "us" better than "them."

So, that's what I was thinking about this afternoon. Sorry that my posts all have to do with politics or some other serious topic. I promise my next post will be about boobies. Big ones.

A Love Note to New Jersey, Part 1

If living in Massachusetts has taught me anything over the past two years, it's that I love New Jersey*. (*NOTE: I may not love the Southwestern part of the state of New Jersey. Philadelphia can have that part of NJ, if you know what I'm saying.) This may strike some readers as a funny thing to say, for (at least) two reasons. One, it may be sort of strange to love any particular United State, because states are pieces of land with arbitrary, fuzzy borders and any attempt to label states as discrete "things" is stereotypic and stupid. Two, even if it's OK to love a United State, why the fuck would one ever choose to love New Jersey?

Well, I've come to the conclusion that it's perfectly okay to be proud of where you come from. Whether it's your home town, your home state, or your county (which is admittedly sorta weird), everyone needs some place to call "home". And after having moved out, and now that I know I'm moving back "home", I know that home is the place where I feel most comfortable. Home, for me, is New Jersey.

(*ASIDE: For those of you who laugh at the idea of loving New Jersey, please note the following. New Jersey residents have the second-highest per capita income of all the United States, as well as one of the longest life expectancies in the US. New Jersey has over 100 miles of pristine, syringe-free coastline; mountains and lakes for hiking; and the vibrant resorts of Atlantic City. New York City and Philadelphia can both be less than an hour away. Long Beach Island, in particular, may be the most beautiful place I've visited in my life (and I've been some beautiful places). In short, New Jersey is awesome, and if you don't like it, you should go fuck yourself with a red-hot poker and subsequently die of AIDS. Slowly. That is all.)

If you're one of those people who've been paying attention to the progression of what I've been typing over the years, you'll know that I haven't always loved New Jersey. In fact, as recently as 2007, I couldn't wait to get out. I was tired of the crowded places, the terrible drivers, the rude people, and the crappy weather. So naturally I moved to Massachusetts, a place with even more crowded places, even worse drivers, lots of Red Sox fans, and (at least for 10 months out of the year) the most terrible weather I've ever seen.

I was not a good decision maker in my youth, but I am a better decision maker now. For this reason, I will present to you my List of Reasons Why Moving Back to New Jersey Is A Fantastic Idea...

Reason #1. New Jersey is where my girlfriend lives, and I get to live with her, and there's going to be flutes playing and trombones and flowers and garlands of fresh herbs. And we will dance till the sun rises. And then our children will form a family band. And we will tour the countryside and you won't be invited.

Now that that's out of the way... ahem...

Reason #2. It hardly ever snows in New Jersey, and when it does snow, it's melted away in 1-2 days. New Jersey residents never have to navigate six-foot high snow piles in order to make turns on their daily commutes. Additionally, the weather can occasionally be "perfect" on any given day from April through October.

Reason #3. There are Wegman's grocery stores in New Jersey. In our apartment search, my girlfriend and I have been thinking about the "must-haves" -- you know, the things we absolutely need in our apartment. For instance, we definitely need a large kitchen, because we like to cook and to entertain. We also need a washer/dryer in our apartment, because we're not going to live like college kids at this stage of our lives. A third factor that is almost a must-have is proximity to a Wegman's grocery store. It's a grocery, a pharmacy, a full-service restaurant, a bakery, a coffee bar, and a neighborhood butcher shop, all rolled into one! Plus the lines are quick and everyone smiles. Wegman's is a god-damned happy-narium, and I will shed a single tear if I don't live close to one when I move back home.

Reason #4. I can wear my Yankees cap anywhere in New Jersey without the realistic fear of getting mugged by some pasty dude named Sully or Murph.

Reason #5. The beaches in New Jersey are underrated. If you can tolerate that the water almost never gets warm enough to allow swimming in the ocean (except maybe for a few weeks in early August), the beaches in New Jersey are otherwise almost perfect. Also, when the sun shines in the summertime, it's possible to get a real sun tan.

Last June, we had a heat wave in Massachusetts -- it was perhaps 95 degrees out, and my apartment (like almost every house up here) doesn't have central A/C. I spent one Saturday afternoon on my outside balcony, mostly to cool off but also expecting to get a tan because it was 95 degrees out. Except, it never happened. The sun was not strong enough to burn me. Now I must admit that I have studly, almost Mediterranean skin. But still, it's ridiculous that I couldn't get a suntan. Maybe that's why Murph and Sully get along so nicely up here...

Reason #6. I am aware of enough low-to-medium stakes poker games in New Jersey to allow poker to be an actual, part-time hobby again. You have no idea how much I'm looking forward to getting my non-Psychology-related hobbies back, now that I am leaving graduate school.

Reason #7. New Jersey drivers are terrible drivers, just like Massachusetts drivers are terrible drivers. The difference is, drivers in Massachusetts go about 10 mph faster, on average, than drivers in New Jersey. Also, the terrible drivers in New Jersey are actually from New York, which explains their erratic behavior.

Reason #8. The food in New Jersey is fantastic. The extreme ethnic diversity in New Jersey has its faults (see Reason #7, above). However, it also has its benefits, one of them being that no matter what kind of food you're craving on a particular night, you can get above-average food, that night, without having to drive someplace far. The major complaint that people from NJ who watch "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle" have is not that it's a terrible movie (although it is a terrible movie), but that it's implausible -- no one from New Jersey would have to travel that far and endure that much to get the food they're craving. Harold and Kumar should have just driven to South Plainfield. They would have gotten their sliders, no problem.

Reason #9. You may say that you hate Guido douchebags, and you probably do hate Guido douchebags. But think about a world where all the Guido douchebags went away. What else would there be left to make fun of? Let's face it. You need Guido douchebags, and New Jersey, with its shoreline and close proximity to Staten Island, NY, is more than happy to provide them!

Reason #10. Just by getting back into the "New Jersey" mode, it's so much fun making fun of New York. I miss making fun of New York, but I feel like I'm getting back into a rhythm now...

Reason #11. I'm a little bit of a Momma's boy. There, I said it. I am looking forward to being closer to home, because I like having my close friends and even (some of) my family around. Now pardon me while I cry into a used tissue.

Reason #12. Jughandles fundamentally make sense and improve traffic flow. They keep stupid people from making rash decisions, which should be the ultimate goal of any police state.

Reason #13. New Jersey, compared to Massachusetts, has (a) more cops who are (b) less corrupt. At this stage of my life, it's comforting to live in a police state (Yes, NJ, comparatively speaking, is a police state) where people actually get pulled over for doing retarded things while driving. it makes me feel like the world is just.

***************************************

There's a Baker's Dozen of reasons for you. I probably have two or three dozen more ideas on deck, but I'm tired from writing 25 pages of a Stats assignment today. Just four more weeks and I don't have to be a student any more, woo hoo! Anyway, stay classy, and keep an eye out for Part 2 of my Love Note to New Jersey.