matthearn.com

The Prop 8 decision (Judge Walker declared that Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in the state of California, is illegal) has been covered rather extensively in the blogosphurr, but here’s a quick round-up of things I’ve seen and liked. From Jason Kuznicki:

I asked myself — couldn’t they have gotten Maggie Gallagher to testify? She comes across as reasonable most of the time. She might have offered one of her frequent catch phrases, that societies that “lose the marriage idea” die out. As a sound bite, it’s frightening and often convincing. But at trial, she’d have been asked the obvious follow-up question — name just one such society — and a moment of hilarity would have ensued, because there aren’t any.

Or she might have said that kids need a mom and a dad. Then she’d have been confronted with the deep dishonesty of many of the studies that are used to disparage gay and lesbian parents. These studies all either extrapolate from single-parent homes to two-parent homes or else fail to control for divorce. Thus they draw conclusions that are pretty obviously doubtful. Comparing two-parent same-sex families with two-parent opposite-sex families and controlling for divorce demonstrates little difference in childrearing outcomes — a point Gallagher commonly avoids at all costs.

A commenter quoted on Andrew Sullivan’s site:

I really, really hate – as in, this is extra special slimy, even for them – the fact that only now, since the Prop 8 proponents have lost, is the whole “he’s gay, should he have recused himself” meme starting to take hold. Folks, if you think your judge should recuse himself, you put on your big boy or girl pants and you file the damn motion. 22 years ago I did a jury trial for a client who was charged with molesting his kid. The judge originally assigned had handled the civil restraining order, and I felt that created bias, so I filed a motion to recuse, which he granted. (By the way, with a different judge, the jury acquitted in 55 minutes.) About a week later, I ran into that judge and started to apologize for the motion. He cut me off before I could finish and he said, “You should never, ever apologize for doing your job. Ever.” The point is this: if you are a good lawyer, and you’ve got grounds, you file that motion. And if you don’t file it, either a) you’re not a good lawyer, or b) you got no grounds in the first place, and you know it.

And the Prop 8 proponents knew it. And didn’t file it. Because there was nothing to file. It’s no more bias to be gay in this case than it would to be African American, Latino, Jewish or female in a discrimination case. This is a smear. And a cowardly smear at that. Nothing less.

I love “put on your big boy or girl pants and you file the damn motion.” I wish I’d gone to law school. Now the right wing has lathered itself up to the point where they believe they can get Judge Walker impeached.

Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only “during good Behaviour,” and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

Judge Walker’s ruling is not “good Behaviour.” He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

I’m not entirely sure how judging the facts of a case and rendering a decision is not “good Behaviour.” Perhaps they think that being an open homosexual is not “good Behaviour?” You stay classy, American “Family” Association.

I really do intend to get this thing alive again. I really do. But, let’s face it, I have two bloody children. It’s frequently 9pm before all the offspring are abed, which gives me roughly 90 minutes for myself before I have to start considering getting my beauty sleep. Last night I spent those 90 minutes installing a new toilet seat upstairs because my obese ass cracked the old one. So you can see where finding time for updates is, well, non-existent. I will try and do better.

I do have plans to discuss the Triathlon I did 2 weeks ago, and in fact started a post on that subject, which I’ve not had time to work on since, well, the day after the Triathlon. So, you know, don’t hold your breath too long. Although, frankly, the fact that a 257-pound human successfully completed a triathlon might be a tidbit that would cause you to expire from surprise anyway.

In lieu of coming up with something hilarious and original, I can offer a particularly foul-mouthed quote or two from a story on the feelings of elite soldiers on DADT by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic:

As one former member of a special missions unit put it to me recently, “It’s really about competence. If you’re competent, it doesn’t matter who you are.” And then, switching instantly from an analytical posture to a machismo mode, he said, “If a guy saves my ass, he sure as hell can look at it.”

Damn right. To folks who are afraid of gays in the military, what exactly is the issue? Are you afraid of getting propositioned? I can count the number of times I’ve been hit on, in 32 odd years, on one hand, so I’m afraid you’re not getting any sympathy from me. I’d relish the thought of a gay guy finding me attractive, with the exception of the freaky gentleman that kept cruising me at a gay club in London in 2003, and the problem there was not his homosexuality but the fact that he was at least as old and doughy as my father, and wearing a white T-shirt and black pants that were at least 3 sizes too small.

How, exactly, is being hit on by a gay guy any different than being hit on by a particularly ugly woman? Either way, you just have to say “no thanks,” and usually that puts a stop to it.

The next quote has some particularly naughty language:

One soldier — call him Ben — checks his e-mail. “Fuck,” he says. He opens his cell phone and makes a call. … A beat. … “Heeeey cock breath, how are you?” … “Yeah, that sucks.” “Yeah, why is he doing this to us again?” “No, he told me his partner was in town for the weekend and he really needed to see him.” … “Dude, why can’t he break way for one weekend!”

The conversation continues.

“Yeah, well, you know I’m just going to come over and [perform an obscene act involving testicles — this IS The Atlantic, after all, and I already typed ‘cock breath’].”

He hangs up.

What was that about, I asked?

“Oh, this guy we haven’t seen for a while is in town, a really good buddy, but his partner is also in town and he wants to see him. So we were just complaining that he wanted to see his partner rather than hang with us.”

The soldier reminds me a bit of myself (minus the part where he’s undoubtedly in pristine physical condition and well-trained in the art of combat, and I’m filled with clotted cream and frequently walk into doorframes). For kids of my generation, you grew up insulting your friends by calling them either “gay” (or one of its many derivatives, such as “gaywad” or “gayon”) or “retarded,” sometimes combining the two into particularly biting forms such as “gaytarded.” It’s something I struggle with even now, because my first instinct upon hearing moderately poor news (such as “turns out that John won’t be coming, he’s got to work” or “I don’t like eggplant, it’s gross”) is to think, and possibly say if I’ve been overserved, “That’s gay” or “You’re a retard.” And yet you will be hard pressed to find a greater advocate for the rights of LGBT men and women that isn’t actually LGBT than I.

The fact that the soldiers use words like “cock-breath” and (I’m assuming) “tea-bagging” is not the salient point. The fact that the soldier used those words and clearly has no problem with homosexuality is. I think it’s a perfect reminder that political incorrectness is by no means an indicator of someone’s actual feelings on a subject.

Heehee snark snark snark!

Don’t worry, not dead. I honestly haven’t posted anything because I wanted to keep the previous post, in which I make myself cold and got to be on the evening news in Philadelphia, atop the page for as long as possible and make sure everyone can see it. Anybody not watched it yet? We’re good? Okay. Now I want to show you this:

In case it’s unclear, a woman attempts to get a marriage license for herself and her (female) fiancee, so that they can legally marry after many years of cohabitation, and having multiple children and grandchildren. Her request is denied. So she grabs a young man whose name she does not know, and requests a marriage license, which is duly processed. What a country.

I’ve been reading up on the whole missionaries to Haiti drama. If you’ve missed it, here’s the short version: a group of “well-meaning” missionaries went to to Haiti after the earthquake and collected up a bunch of orphans with the intent of bringing them back to America for a better life. They just didn’t bother with any of the actual paperwork. So the Haitian government accused them of kidnapping and conspiracy, and has jailed them pending trial. Supporters say the missionaries were doing a good thing, rescuing these poor kids from hunger and deprivation.

the leader of New Life Children’s rescue, Laura Silsby, has had serious legal problems in the past, most recently losing the house she bought for the ministry to foreclosure at the end of 2009. The fact that neither of the churches involved with the missions group vetted her thoroughly before leading a missions trip will open them to lawsuits, above and beyond the legal fees and costs incurred from the current incarceration.

Oops.

Silby’s motives are also suspect in part because she seemed to realize what she was doing, stating in an interview on Monday that the group did not intend to offer the children for adoption. “We intended to raise those children and be with them their entire lives, if necessary,” she said.

Eeek…that’s kinda culty.

It also seems that a plan was in place for an orphanage long before the earthquake occurred.

Eeeeeenteresting. My feelings on the subject are remarkably simple: I wonder how Americans would have responded had a gaggle of, say, well-meaning Swedes showed up and “rescued” a few dozen white orphans from New Orleans in September 2005. I suspect phrases like “doing God’s work” and “This is how you thank us for helping you?” wouldn’t be thrown around.

Lots of interesting happenings in gay rights over the last few weeks. The Prop 8 trial concluded testimony in California last week, with closing arguments and judgments to come later. Yesterday, a major hearing was held on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, pressing for a repeal of the policy. Conservatives, of course, are opposed. Bill Kristol had this to say:

There is no basic right to serve in the military. That’s why forms of discrimination we would ban in civilian life are permitted: Women have less opportunity to fight than men. The disabled are discriminated against, as are the short, the near-sighted, and the old.

Advocates of repeal will say sexual orientation is irrelevant to military performance in a way these attributes are not. But this is not clearly true given the peculiar characteristics of military service.

He doesn’t actually spell out what those peculiar characteristics are. He also quotes John McCain, who said:

This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our Armed Forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.

This is the same John McCain who said in 2006:

We have the most qualified, the bravest and most capable military we‘ve ever had in our history, and so I think that the policy is working. And I understand the opposition to it, and I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.

Huh.

Responding to Kristol, Glenn Greenwald had this to say, which is spot on:

In American culture, there has long been a group of men (typified by Kristol and [Michael] O’Hanlon) who equate toughness and masculinity with fighting wars, yet who also know that they lack the courage of their own convictions, and thus confine themselves to cheerleading for wars from afar and sending others off to fight but never fighting those wars themselves. It seems that individuals plagued by that affliction are eager to avoid having it rubbed in their faces that there are large numbers of homosexual warriors who possess the courage (the “testosterone-laden tough-guyness”) which the O’Hanlons and Kristols, deep down, know they lack.

Chris Matthews had a fellow named Peter Sprigg of the “Family Research Council” on his show to discuss DADT, and he said:

As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: “Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?”

“I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided,” said Sprigg. “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

“So we should outlaw gay behavior?” asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

How about that.

I love this:

Hey you. You there in the Glenn Beck T-shirt headed off to the Tea Party Patriot rally.

Stop shouting for a moment, please, I want to explain to you why you’re so very angry. You should be angry. You’re getting screwed…Look, you can go back to yelling at me in a minute, but just read this first.

1. Get out your pay stub…

2. Notice that your net pay is lower than your gross pay. This is because some of your wages are withheld every pay period.

3. Notice that only some of this money that was withheld went to pay taxes. (I know, I know — yeearrrgh! me hates taxes! — but just try to stick with me for just a second here.)

4. Notice that some of the money that was withheld didn’t go to taxes, but to your health insurance company.

5. Now go get a pay stub from last year around this time, from January of 2009.

6. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld for taxes in your current paycheck is less than the amount that was withheld a year ago. That’s because of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan, which included more than $200 billion in tax cuts, including the one you’re holding right there in your hand, the tax cut that’s now staring you in the face. Republicans all voted against that tax cut…But taxes aren’t the really important thing here. The really important thing starts with the next point.

7. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld to pay for your health insurance is more than it was last year.

8. Notice that the amount of your pay withheld to pay for your health insurance is a lot more than it was last year.

I won’t ask you to dig up old paychecks from 2008 and 2007, but this has been going on for a long time. Every year, the amount of your paycheck withheld to pay for your health insurance goes up. A lot…That’s what I meant when I said you really should be angry. That’s what I meant when I said you’re getting screwed.

I’d add more, but I’ve nothing to add. Go read the whole thing.

Someday, I’d like someone to explain to me why it is that Americans think they have a right to never be scared by anything. Over the last few weeks, Gilbert Arenas has been waving guns around, and a guy tried to blow up an airplane with his crotch, and suddenly everyone’s losing their minds.

Arenas will probably do serious jail time, and may never play in the NBA again, despite the fact that nobody actually got shot. A couple of schmucks waved guns around, and because they’re black, the white establishment thinks “Boyz n the Hood” and drops the guillotine. To put things in perspective: Gilbert Arenas may end up in jail longer, for a victimless crime, than Michael Vick was for murdering dogs. (My feelings on Vick’s rehabilitation can be found here.) He may get an suspension from the NBA that’s longer than Ron Artest got for charging into the stands and beating up the wrong fan. I’m not saying that Agent Zero shouldn’t get disciplined; at the very least, he’s demonstrated that he can’t be trusted with firearms. So take them away, suspend him for a while, fine him, whatever. But let’s not take away his freedom and livelihood for merely frightening David Stern.

Along the same lines, in response to one idiot lighting his dick on fire, the TSA is enacting restrictions that make flying about as enjoyable as prison rape, and don’t do a damn thing about making flying any safer, and just makes folks drive long distances instead of flying them. Don’t get me wrong, I like a good road trip, but you’re more likely to die by driving from Chicago to New York than by flying. (Folks like to throw statistics around that say that, in 2006 for example, only 655 people died in airplane accidents and 45,316 died in car crashes, but that ignores the fact that the average American drives, what, a hundred times as many hours as he flies? So for each hour, I’d say the odds of dying in a plane crash are about the same as in a car crash. It’s certainly not the 2 orders of magnitude difference that flying enthusiasts say. The problem is that driving a given distance takes roughly 10 times as long as flying it, so for a given trip, it is an order of magnitude difference.) The problem is that news reports about brown bearded men trying to blow up planes scares people, and driving around in a 3 ton SUV makes them feel in control. So thanks, TSA, for killing Americans. You’re doing a bang-up job.

Dear America: you need to make a decision about whether you want to feel safe, or be safe. Locking someone up for a victimless crime (be it drug use, or “being stupid with a gun”) does not make you safer; every time you put someone in jail, he becomes far more likely to be a violent criminal than he was when he went in. So congratulations: you turned someone from “moron” to “mugger.” Just take his guns away, put him on probation, help him stop being an idiot. TSA: the odds of me blowing up the plane with my iPhone are remarkably low. How about we just agree that I can use it anytime I want, and I’ll promise to not pack C4 into my scrotum? Awesome. Citizens: sometimes scary stuff happens. How about you stop being such wusses?

Happy belated New Year! Did you make a resolution? Jonah Lehrer bets it falls apart!

Willpower, like a bicep, can only exert itself so long before it gives out; it’s an extremely limited mental resource.

Given its limitations, New Year’s resolutions are exactly the wrong way to change our behavior. It makes no sense to try to quit smoking and lose weight at the same time, or to clean the apartment and give up wine in the same month. Instead, we should respect the feebleness of self-control, and spread our resolutions out over the entire year.

My own resolutions are unsurprising: I need to lose a whole bunch of weight, and I want to have a complete early draft of a first novel. I’m scared that the first resolution will be easier, given that I still don’t know what I want to write about.

I’m a little leery of setting an actual “weight” goal, because I intend to facilitate slenderization via dieting, a little cardio, and a whole lot of muscle-building. It would be foolish to say “I want to weigh 200 pounds” if I get myself crazy ripped and still weigh 235. I think what I’m going to do is set a goal of having a waist measurement the same as my inseam (34), which is a good long way off. I’m around 40 inches around now, so frankly if I get down to 36 I’ll be pleased as punch.

What are your resolutions? To be more awesome?