Thursday, September 02, 2004


Let's see if any one of the sentences below is coherent.

Okay...I have to commemorate this moment...I believe this is the first time a stranger has linked to my blog in a post. I must now post a link to her post regarding my post. Of course her link in her post was to a link in my post to one of her posts...I'm wondering how long I can keep doing this before someone decides that I'm just retarded? Sorry, I meant mentally challenged...or differently abled, or whatever the term is now.

Okay, now that I have done that, it is time for another bit of commentary that everyone will disregard. Jason was kind enough to send me a link to this article in which two gay and lesbian groups agree with my position that outing people who oppose your positions and even attempt to infringe upon your rights is wrong. One of the groups is the Log Cabin Republicans. I have been familiar with this group for some time and had a few friends in college who were members. What I have never understood is why they don't just join the Libertarian party. I have gotten responses to this question, but none of them impressed me much. One of my friends was steadfast in the belief that life begins at conception and he was very adamant that abortion is an atrocity. I happen to disagree, but then again, the Libertarian party is fairly divided on this issue so I don't think it is one that should keep someone from joining the Libertarians. The same goes for foreign policy. Traditionally Libertarians are against foreign intervention, but especially since September 11, 2001, there isn't a shortage of Libertarians willing to argue that such an isolationist view of foreign conflict is naive. I have the suspicion, which has been confirmed mainly by silence from my friends, that the reason they don't join the Libertarian party is mainly because they simply want to belong to one of the main parties. It reminds me of a scene on the West Wing when a gay republican talks to Josh and Josh asks him how he can be a member of the party. He gives a very rational response about how he agrees with them on an assortment of issues, many more issues on the whole than the democrats and basically argues that you join the party that closer mirrors your views and then try and change the party in that one aspect. He doesn't quite say it like that...if I remember correctly, his line goes something like "I've never understood why all you anti-gun democrats don't join the NRA and take a vote to disband." Anyway, I think the fallacy is obvious...there are more than two choices...yes this is me being an idealist and realistically speaking at this point in time, there are only two viable candidates, but with that kind of thinking there will always only be two viable candidates. (At some point I will have to post some notes on the discussion Jason and I had about voting methods that would remove the advantage enjoyed by the two main parties.)

And another thing, was anybody else pissed off that Aaron Sorkin, who was such a good writer, decided to make his ficticious president a Nobel Prize winning PhD in economics? Every time the President tried to say something economics sounding I would cringe (not that it was always wrong, but just that it was always incomplete...yes I realize it was just tv).

Oh yeah...I haven't decided for sure yet, but I'm thinking of heading down to Ohio to see Rocky Horror Picture Show on Saturday. I went for the first time in years when I was in Boston in May and it got my appetite I'm hoping that since it's a college town there will be some hot babes. (I am ready to be disappointed as is so often the case. If only Emily had married me I wouldn't have this problem. Ughh.) In any case...I know Meg is anxiously awaiting her 18th so she can go see a live show, so this way I have something to gloat about for a few more months. The long and short of it is that I probably won't be posting much until Sunday. At some point I'll get back to news stories and crap like that so strangers don't have to listen to me ramble incoherently about crap they don't care about...but that point just isn't today.


I also forwarded the email on to you to point out that "outing" is effective, if less than kind. There is one less politician fighting against gay and lesbian rights in Congress. A small victory, but I see it as a victory nonetheless. It’s very realpolitick.

I fundamentally disagree. There is not one less politician in congress fighting against gay and lesbian rights. If the voters put someone like that in before, they will put someone like that in again. The only way to get one less politician fighting against gay and lesbian rights is to attack the arguments and change peoples minds so they don't want to vote for people who share his views.
Like I said earlier - I won't disagree with either point. But even if the victory is temporary, it's still a victory!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?