Ron Paul's New Ad: Convincing?

Ron Paul released his "Conviction" ad today (embedded video at Slate). The basic premise: Compromise is a very bad thing.

I should hope to assume that the false dilemma Paul presents of "Compromise vs. Conviction" extends only to the debt ceiling debate, but someone as passionate at Paul can be expected to make this mantra something of a campaign slogan. I fail to understand how he can outright reject the idea of "compromise" when he's running for a position that is, at least in my view, ideally not bipartisan, but nonpartisan.

Don't get me wrong, heading into the 2008 election's campaign season I dearly loved Ron Paul. But the Tea Party seems to have changed him. Now that he's gaining more credibility and traction in the mainstream media, he seems to be devolving into a grandstanding right-winger -- not the kind of candidate who can survive the general election, therefore not the kind who deserves the nomination.

 The major failing of the GOP so far (and this discussion will undoubtedly be a theme with me) is that they have no foresight. Yeah, sure, Bachmann's popular with the uberconservatives. But what about the rest of America? Heck, what about the rest of the party? Socially conservative policies are clearly not what America wants; the Republicans need to slide a bit to the left and deal with it. Otherwise they continue their trend of hypocrisy.

In order to stop this from being absurdly long, I'll leave a to-do list in case there were some gaps.
Things to elaborate on later:
1. Why we need to stop taking consummate conservatives seriously
2. Why the GOP needs to become essentially libertarian
3.  Pros and cons of "pledges" and campaign promises that leave no room for flip-flopping

Any thoughts on the ad or Paul's campaign?

(Or anything else?)

New Project?

Hey, y'all.

I'm been thinking a lot about my future and such, and today I hit upon an idea I may pursue. I'm going to begin pulling together my various political theories into a book of some sort, a kind of intro to contemporary issues for Americans. As I work on various sections, I'll post excerpts.

Wish me luck!

Michele Bachmann, You're An Idiot. Rick Santorum... You're Santorum.

Today I saw a post about Michele Bachmann's new Family Leader marriage pledge (PDF can be downloaded here -- it's good for a laugh and you want to go through the whole thing). Apparently it's drafted by some conservative organization in Iowa for candidates to sign. Bachmann and Santorum are the first two to put their Paul Reveres* to the page. I'll hit the highlights.

I have to point out that the first sentence cites "classical philosophers." Who were kind of known for loving some pederasty. Which consists of sexual relationships between old dudes and adolescent boys. But okay.


Bigots say: "anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bi...as which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."

I say: What's wrong with this argument? Hmm.

1. If we want to go with empirical proof on genetic determination, results would be... inconclusive. But if we just want to go with empirical, since she loves that word, then yes, actually, many with "non-heterosexual inclinations" certainly didn't ask for them.

2. Still waiting on the logic behind choosing to be gay in a world populated and, unfortunately, often ruled by the likes of Michele Bachmann.

3. "Homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general" -- how the heck does homosexuality automatically qualify as promiscuity? Oh wait, it doesn't. Gay people aren't actually less human than their straight peers, and therefore have that whole monogamy thing sometimes too. EMPIRICALLY, plenty of homosexual couples have long-term monogamous relationships.

4. If we are using this premise that "Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order" -- well, turns out gays can actually fit into that picture after all.

Bigots say: "I do hereby solemnly vow to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow to do so through my:

• Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous..., polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.

• Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy."

I say: First, we fail to qualify how exactly, and empirically of course, polygamy and such is the same as a marriage between two adults who happen to be of the same sex. Then we offers all of these benefits of marriage that gays would inherently be deprived of because they're not allowed to marry in the first place. That's not very nice, is it?

Bigots add to this list: "Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy."

I say:  ...funny, since that means we logically also can't undermine law-abiding American citizens for accepting homosexual monogamy? Otherwise we'd be imposing part of the population's religious beliefs on the entire nation's political freedoms... and that can't be right! After all, the pledge also includes "Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution." Which caused me to raise an eyebrow at "a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States" because, well, why is a religious denomination's definition the end-all, be-all for all of America?

This pledge speaks to the consuming, overwhelming hypocrisy of conservatives in America. When it's convenient, they stomp and swear about their individual rights; when you want to take their guns or their prayers. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting responsible individuals buy their own guns and commit to their own religions. But I don't conveniently cut these rights off past the point where I personally need them. I don't currently own a gun, but I have no issue with others buying them. I don't currently have a desire to marry my (non-existent) same-sex lover; but millions of people do. So let them.

As much as these conservatives will say, "Marriage is for one-man, one-woman, monogamously. Infidelity is as unacceptable as all this other stuff," they're not walking the walk. If they were, they'd be trying to outlaw divorce just as fiercely as gay marriage.

You may think that's ridiculous. But that's the point. And fanaticism generally is pretty incredible. But see, these conservatives, the Bachmanns and the Santorums, make noise about how awful adultery is, but at the end of the day they're supporting the rights of straight people to get married and do whatever the heck they want in that marriage, whereas two people in a truly committed, loving relationship can be barred from that sort of legally recognized monogamous relationship because, what, they're gay? They can say God doesn't like gays, but he also doesn't care much for liars or hypocrites.

Americans need to stand up to the far right and their "marriage protection" and their condescension toward the rest of us and tell them: Empirically, this is not okay.

*Yes, I know, it's John Hancock. But in honor of Michelle Bachmann I figured I should be historically inaccurate.

UPDATE: Governor Gary Johnson, my current personal favorite GOP candidate, posted this response to the pledge: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gary-johnson-calls-family-leader-pledge-offensive-and-unrepublican.
He's one of the few to comment on how awful the whole thing is.

Insomnia + Libertarianism + The Future

Hey, y'all.

I really don't know why I'm awake right now seeing as I did not go to sleep at all last night, but whatever. I'm a lil' bit of an insomniac.

I'm thinking I'll do some talking about presidential candidates pretty soon, including my personal fave, GOP "classical liberal"/libertarian (his term/everyone else's) Gary Johnson. He was a successful two term president of New Mexico and he's awesome. This article from The Atlantic features the video he put together after CNN, in an epic bout of c***-blocking (WHOA I CENSORED MYSELF), barred him from their debate in mid-June. I personally tried real hard to watch the debate, but I was in a sports bar in Dallas at the time and the one TV that was on CNN was muted. So essentially we read the questions and debated whether Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is hotter (an entirely relative debate, keep in mind).

I might go into offering info on other candidates here as a sort of... public service?

I'll also probably ramble about my college and life plans. It'll be excited. And as I start working on reviews for entertainment-y stuff, those will pop up.

See y'all around.

Album review: Maybe you've been brainwashed too., by the New Radicals

(This album is my life right now. I've listened to it like eight times in the past day and a half? Anyway, I bought it recently and for some reason yesterday the love turned into full blown obsession and I went ahead and wrote up a review.)

New Radicals frontman Gregg Alexander declares, "You're a heart attack, just the kind I like," in "Mother we just can't get enough," the opening track to the band's first and only album, "Maybe you've been brainwashed too." As indicated by the distinctive stylization of the titles of the album and songs (none of which feature the capitalization generally used in titles), this band is something different. And that line sums up the album pretty well. "Brainwashed" is, in turns, loud, sad, lovely, and outright strange. Its messages are both universal and very specifically social and political.

For the rest, go to:
http://www.helium.com/items/2172410-maybe-youve-been-brainwashed-too-review


And seriously, buy the freaking album. I suggest the CD so you can have the physical booklet. It's amazing.

Thoughts About the Future

Howdy.

It's weird. I was thinking about this blog and my first failed blog and how I might start writing about politics and such again. Then I thought, "Well, I can't possibly do that on a blog called 'Death of a Loved One.' That's just absurd!". But is it absurd? Or is it... brilliant?

Is the late loved one, in fact, the American spirit? The future that all of us young folks are supposed to represent? Wouldn't I be writing to try to resurrect that loved one?

Yes. Yes, I would.

We'll see where this goes.

But don't worry... I'll totally still talk about Lauren Conrad.