Thy Brothers' Keeper

I'd like to honor my fellow Americans, just now emerging from the darkened recesses of legislative oppression, on the eve of our President's signing what will undoubtedly be considered yet another historic piece of legislation. An era of discrimination has finally ended, and now that it has, I think it's important to view the evolution of a potent and divisive debate.

Congress, always on the cutting edge, has finally caught up with the majority of Americans and given equal rights to our nation's fearless fags. In honor of this momentous occasion, let's review the life and death of the military policies and guidelines we all affectionately called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

__________

30,000 BC - First homo gets erectus for a dude. Cave-paintings appear as popular home decor. Local cave values skyrocket.

1924 AD - The Society for Human Rights begins advocating strange new ideas, apparently misconstrued from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

1948 - Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, alerting the public to the growing dangers posed by the personal lifestyle choices of others. Also, people get all weird about how many gays are actually out there. Lurking.

1950 - President Harry Truman signs the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which details proper procedure for punishing homosexual activity among troops. None of the methods you're now imagining were ever implemented -- expulsion chosen instead.

1962 - Illinois legalizes sodomy. Gay people have sex for the first time. Initial reports indicate the fabulous nature of such encounters.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association stops classifying The Gay as a mental disorder.

1982 - President Ronald Reagan signs Defense Directive 1332.14, which states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. History in no way proves this to be the ranting of an increasingly senile former actor.

1993 - President Bill Clinton, trying to fulfill a campaign promise, pushes hard to let gays into the military. Opposition is, ironically enough, very stiff. DADT, a compromise between civil rights and homophobia, is adopted as official US military policy.

1994 - Col. Grethe Cammermeyer becomes the only person allowed to serve her country and be openly gay at the same time. Waits three years, changes her mind.

2000 - Vermont allows gay marriage. The institution of marriage immediately dissolves. Every citizen of Vermont marries their favorite pet or vehicle by mid-2003.

2001 to 2008 - George W. Bush.

2009 - President Barack Obama campaigns on repealing DADT. Doesn't seem weirded out by gay dudes. America approves. Also that year, the Supreme Court disagrees with America. (Again.)

2010 - Republicans grant the conceit that gays are people too, in exchange for tax-cuts.

2011 - DADT officially dead. Nothing bad ever happens again.

(Timeline via Infoplease, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, Google.)

Republicans Celebrate Status-Quo

I'll admit, even I -- a die-hard Obama worshiper -- had my faith shaken when I first heard about the extension of the Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest Americans. It seemed nonsensical -- why would Republicans, who have shifted their entire brand toward closing the budget deficit, fight to keep the single largest non-defense aspect of said terrifyingly large spot of red ink? And, what's more, why the hell would Obama, that supposed fascist commie socialist, let such a thing happen despite it being the driving thrust of his election campaign?

I was bewildered. I grabbed the nearest bottle of alcohol and began what can only be described as a drug-fueled descent into madness. There was property damage, yes, and a few people may or may not have been mortally wounded (one should never, in those circumstances, stick around to hear the prognosis), but when I finally awoke and replenished my fluids, I had an epiphany. This is what I voted for.

Not this, specifically. I voted for the opposite. Screw the wealthy - they can have their tax cuts when my friends and family can exist without government aid. But this process, the idea of political compromise, of both sides getting what they want, that's what I wanted.

RATIONALIZATION

First, it's important to remind my fellow liberals that this is how government is supposed to work. It was a compromise between right and left, and Republicans -- still basking in the glow of victory after decisively retaking the House and reversing many Democratic gains in the Senate - got the better end of the deal. Welcome to Democracy.

And when one picks this tentative framework apart, there are quite a few things there that Democrats wanted that would have, under any other circumstance, resulted in a drawn-out battle with these supposed budget-hawks on the Right. The extension of unemployment benefits being the most ready example - it assured economic stability to families just before the holidays.

Liberals are grousing, nonetheless. In the modern view of legislation as win/lose for Republicans or Democrats, this seems to be chalked up as a win for the Right, not a product of bipartisan negotiation. But criticism so far seems purely reactionary, and a little thought on the political strategery shows this single deal could be the most significant step toward a possible second term for the President.

I know, it sounds hyperbolic, but hear me out.

This bit of legislation will essentially act as another round of stimulus. The bill amounts to more than $870 billion, and though liberals like to complain that tax cuts are an inefficient way to gin the economy, it will help. At least a little. And the economy is a notoriously effective barometer for presidential political success. Recall the fierce debate from the previous rounds of stimulus and the Republican inability to allow Congress to function and multiply it by a few hundred billion, divide that by its own square root, carry the two, then do nothing for a few months. Congratulations, you've just acted out what Congress would have done were Obama to propose such a stimulus under any other circumstance.

THE IRAN STRATEGY

The act of inviting Republican leadership to the White House and essentially brokering a back-room deal is beneficial, too. Obama may have sowed seeds of good will among Republican legislators (unlikely, but possible), and looks at the very least to be attempting bipartisanship. If this is but the first of a series of such efforts, he can take either of two possible beneficial positions. One, he lead the charge in a new, more prosperous era of bipartisan legislation. Or, more likely, Two, he reaps the political goodwill as Republicans reject his overtures yet again and keep their image of Do-Nothing obstructionism.

Call it the Iran Strategy. Just like our policy toward Iran, alluded to in the most recent Wikileaks dump of diplomatic cables, this could be a play-nice-then-stab play. If Obama at least appears to exhaust all other options, he can make a show of throwing up his hands just before declaring all-out war.

The President's also tacking toward the center in light of a Right-leaning election. This is an important and difficult task, but one that nonetheless has to be taken by anyone seeking national election. He seems to be using the spirit of bipartisanship to ease into the hearts of moderates. He may be angering his base a bit, but there are minimal risks to that (it's not like they'll vote Republican anyhow), and any of a handful of legislative actions could offset any ill-will. And, let's not forget, this is the sort of thing he said he would do if he were elected President.

Before you join in the chorus of criticism, remember compromise, not idealism, is the key to negotiation. And, when voting for a candidate, one must be careful what one wishes for.

Popeadope

THIS IS WHAT HE REALLY LOOKS LIKE

So the Pope -- perhaps the most evil looking person on earth (see photo) -- recently announced that he believes condoms are a good way to "reduce the risk of infections" from STDs such as AIDS. Every person I know with motor-sensory perception immediately remarked, upon hearing such wizened words, "Yup." You'd think that would be the end of the conversation, no?

No. Apparently, conservative Catholics don't take too kindly to their faith acquiescing to reality, and they've spent every waking moment since Benedict's admission (that latex can beat up God) trying to explain it away. Some called for a more official announcement. Some, ignoring the irony of such a position, blamed faulty translation. And still others plugged their ears with their fingers and hummed their favorite hymn.

A knee-jerk reaction from some Catholics was to say that the Pope's use of a male prostitute in his hypothetical wasn't a change in Vatican policy. It just applies to dudes, the logic seemed to run. But soon after, the Pope's official spokesperson reported that he had asked Benny if the specific words used in his original statement (specifically, regarding the sex of the condom user) were important. The Pope replied, "No." You'd think that would stop the denials and finger-pointing, but no. It's still going on at all levels within the church.

Surprisingly, I was surprised. Mr. XVI seemed to finally own-up to one of the most damnable positions any group has ever taken on any issue, had finally said that condom use was at least a step in the right direction, had finally taken that arrow from the non-believer's quiver, and the response of much (but not all) of the Catholic leadership was to simply deny it had ever happened. Truly miraculous.

Old People Use Subtitles, Young People Exploit

A brilliant new semi-Orwellian ad was released, playing on the American fear of squinty-eyed orientals (a tradition more than a century old) about the stimulus that saved us from another depression, the health-care overhaul the American people have been begging for during the past, ahdunno, couple generations, and the government "takeover" of GM that saved countless jobs around the globe (especially in light of Toyota, the company Republicans wanted to fill the void when GM collapsed, changing it's business model from "autos" to "careening death machines").

The gist is, China will own us, and we'll collapse entirely while somehow surviving to become employees of their government. Or those students watching the lecture - I don't know, there's no logic to the script. But it's well made, I have to give them that. Great lighting, and the special effects were just cheesy enough to excite my inner nerd.

The spot has a strange thesis, considering China made even more sweeping and dramatic moves than we did to keep its economy upright, and now they're doing their best to tamp down their economic success to fight inflation and avoid revaluing their currency. One could make the case that, in light of China's overwhelming success, the watered-down reform (a misguided attempt at bipartisanship) didn't go far enough. But that's not the case made by the conservative group that ran the following ad.

The ad begs for parody, and luckily enough the good folks at Campus Progress Action pounced, pointing out a bit of absurdity, and even throwing in a Christine O'Donnell jab at the end.

Ah, the youth.

(via HuffPost)

New Season, New Joys

I love politics. And, just like every other great American sport, there's a season when things get exciting - with politics, of course, it hovers around September through November. And goddamn is this year a good one.

Christine O'Donnell, for example. The Republican from Delaware was a surprise winner during the Republican Primary - prompting even Karl Rove to throw in the proverbial towel on the General. And, as the race has gone on, it's become disturbingly obvious O'Donnell is just what she claimed to be; average. Like most Americans, she has no idea what the hell is in that fancy "Constitution" thingy. It appears that during her week-long "graduate fellowship with the Claremont Institute in constitutional government" they didn't quite make it to the amendments. Which says, basically, that she must've skipped her first civics exam when (if?) she went to college.

The Rove prediction isn't entirely shocking - he seems skeptical of the entire Tea Party movement. The long-time beneficiary of the Republican establishment obviously has a dog in this race, but when he's got his analyst cap on, and especially when he's criticizing conservatives, there are few people who can speak with greater authority. His equating Teabaggers to members of the Civil Rights movement is retarded, at best, (Beck-esque, really,) but one should expect hyperbole from a professional spin doctor.

It's not all bad for the Tea Party - Democrat Jack Conway pulled the ultimate dirty campaign tactic (questioning his opponent's religious beliefs) in his battle against Rand Paul. Translation: Conway's desperate. And he isn't the only one - shockingly, a few Tea Party candidates seem like they're on the road to D.C. The bad news is that people would vote for unqualified candidates out of spite for established politicians. The good news, though, is that Republicans seem to be painting themselves into a corner.

During the Bush years, the Democratic Party was fractured, and the Independent party was made up of avowed liberals, progressives and even socialists. This led to easy exploitation - a house divided and all that, after all - by the right-wing, and created situations where, even in the face of majority opposition (ideologically speaking), the President went largely unchallenged on his legislative initiatives. The Tea Party, already sparring with the establishment, seems prepared to put Republicans in the same position. This isn't the Reagan Revolution, this is a dip into anarchy.

In fact, should the movement survive until 2012, it's easy to imagine a conservative third-party candidate siphoning votes away from Republicans. One can dream...

What a year to see, though, eh? It seems like both parties are taking it from all directions, with the American people seemingly, desperately, shooting themselves in the feet with every vote. God, I can't wait to see how this all works out.

(I'm hoping for Armageddon.)

I Like Ecchh!

Every so often, even on the smallest of scales, history repeats itself. I can still remember the heart-rending decision I had to make way back in 2004, choosing whether to support Kerry or Bush. On the one hand, Bush was the worst president of all time. We all remember that video surfacing that apparently showed him killing an infant and imbibing its blood for power.

On the other hand, John Kerry looked dorky even when he was doing cool stuff. My grandma could hop on a wakeboard and still look kind of rad, but seeing Kerry out on the waves made me think of the time I put my cat on a foam floaty and set her adrift in a wading pool. They both seemed to have the same look of confusion and desperation, the same awkward body language.

I'm at the same crossroads today, but on a smaller level. Voters are never satisfied with their choices, I suppose, but it's getting downright ridiculous. I'm talking, of course, about Scott Eckersly.

THE REAL ISSUES

Let's get to the important stuff first, the real issues. Like, the dude has a horrible last name. Eckersly is proud of his misfortune, it seems, making a slogan of “Give 'Em Eck!” I should say I usually have a pretty firm rule about voting for people who use the word “heck,” and I'm less inclined to like someone who makes a pun of it. But – and maybe this is just because I read Mad Magazine as a kid – all I can picture is Alfred E. Neuman campaigning to “Give 'Em Ecchh!” or something.

It's the most unfortunate advertising since MSU's ill-advised “I Heart New York” rip-off, where they plastered campus with a slogan that seemed translate to “I Bear MSU.” How true, MSU.

This Dem In Name Only flipped parties a few years ago, because ideology apprently means little to him. And this supposed fiscal conservative once essentially sued our state, costing taxpayers nearly $2 million, counting legal costs and the settlement.

He was doing the right thing, suing Roy Blunt's Chief of Staff over some Sunshine law email kerfuffle. But suing the government is sort of like (and by that I mean literally the same as) suing your neighbors. I see it the same way as I see protesting – sure, it'll make you feel better, but that's only if you ignore the facts that you're accomplishing nothing and generally annoying everyone around you.

So that's the Democrat. An anti-choice fiscal conservative who cost the state millions, whose plan to save the local economy is having a “hard look at the Federal deficit,” according to the Springfield Business Journal. He wants to gut healthcare, can't decide if individual freedom outweighs the threat of terrorism (uh, in Missouri?), and thinks “taxes are too high.” (Uh, in Missouri?)

BILLY LONG

But then there's Billy Long, Eckersly's opponent. I don't vote for anyone who wears a cowboy hat, first off. It's just bad policy – I'm a firm believer in the Separation of Hick and State.

The first thing you'll learn about Billy Long, should you decide to do a little research, is that his webmaster has never heard the word “Favicon.” Things seem to go downhill from there – he wants to dictate tax law through the Constitution. He figures, were he in charge, he could would scrap healthcare plans and save you up to ten percent by outlawing medical malpractice suits, or something.

(Don't worry about losing the house because of the surgery, Granny, just remember we saved up to ten percent! So, really, those blankets were free. If you think about it, the sicker you get, the more you save!)

The guy is so against a woman's right to choose he wants to block foreign aid to nations that allow the practice. He thinks the current tax code, which allows the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us to grow daily, “penalizes success.” And, most damning of all, the goddamn cowboy hat. He's wearing it in every picture! And it's one of those nice ones, too – the kind you can't even work in. I grew up in a honky-tonk, and I'll tell you that kind of cowboy hat would cause many a real cowboy to strap on what they affectionately call their “shit-kicking boots.”

Scott Eckersly is an imperfect candidate. He's right-wing and smiles like a goober. He spends too much time trashing the colleagues he's campaigning to work with. But Billy Long is a moron. And when choosing between a flip-flopper and an idiot, I think Kerry/Bush taught us all that we should ignore the shivers in our spines and pick the flip-flopping, dorky lesser of two evils.

(Originally published in The Standard)


UPDATE: I just found out, via an internet-obsessed friend, that an anti-Billy Long blog picked up on this post and reposted it in its entirety. I'd sue, except the author stroked my ego just the right way. Check it out: Long Is Wrong