Captain Obvious: There is No Gay Agenda Beyond Equality

I struggled with the title on this one. I knew I wanted it to be Captain Obvious, because this should be obvious. It is inspired by a video I found on Joe.My.God, one of my favorite internet outposts. The video is by Matt Barber, an oddly fixated anti-gay activist. I do not know what drives this man, whether it be a deep-seated sexual identity problem, or maybe he's always mistaken for gay? I don't know, but he thinks about teh gay more than I do, and I'm gay. [Story continues below]


Anyway, this Barber dude's basic premise is that gay people don't merely want marriage equality, and civil rights parity. We want to destroy what marriage means. We want to rend the fabric of society, topple cultural pillars, kick down the picket fences, and dry-hump the Washington Monument. . .or something. But he's wrong. Really, really wrong. The fact that he's (allegedly) straight, and so fixated on gay people ought to be a clue that he might be a little around the bend. But his reasoning is so shaky, so hard to lay out logically that. . .well. . .that Captain Obvious needs to pay him a visit.

Now, if my goal--if all individual gay, married couples (or those aspiring to marriage)--was to tear marriage asunder, tell me something. How did we arrive at this goal? Were there meetings? Is there a leader? Do we pay membership dues, have a secret handshake? 'Cause, I wasn't invited, and yet I'm legally married to my husband, and have been for 4½ years now. So far, we haven't left a trail of destroyed heterosexual marriages in our wake. In fact, if there has been one negative result from the whole affair, it might be that there isn't as much >ahem< action as there used to be. That sounds like marriage to me!

So, Mr. Barber. Get this through your thick, Jesus-drenched, boxing-addled skull: gay people haven't set out to destroy the meaning or institution of marriage. We have no interest in ripping out the foundations of civilization, or any other vague, meaningless symbolic structures. We want equality under the law, and nothing more. Your conspiracy theory is making you look like an idiot. And your obsession is making you look kinda. . .well. . .gay.

Rick Santorum Says Smart People Won't Vote Republican

Image from Plunderbund

I can't tell you how many things I find wrong with the "Values Voters Summit," because there are too many to list. So, I'll just start with the awkwardness of the double plural in the title that seems to want an apostrophe somewhere. And finish by saying that in 1992 when Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson were very prominent, and moralizing without being denounced by George H. W. Bush, I went from a Republican to a Democrat, and voted for Bill Clinton. I can't be the only one swayed by over-the-top religiosity and prudishness.

Rick (don't Google me) Santorum then, is obviously not my kind of candidate. He constantly works himself into a frothy mixture over gay sex (which he equates to "man-on-dog sex"), or abortion or something, but usually goes so far that he alienates more people than he attracts. Occasionally though, Ricky makes news. And he's never been more honest than he was at the badly named summit.

[Excerpt]

Rick Santorum: 'Smart People' Will Never Be On Our Side

Rick Santorum, the former presidential candidate, had a message for attendees of the Values Voter Summit on Saturday. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Captain Obvious: Sorting Out Sandusky

This post shouldn't have to be written. But the truth is, posts like it aren't written often enough. On Friday, Jerry Sandusky, the assistant coach at Penn State, was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges for sexually assaulting many, many boys over the years. His guilty verdict was cheered by many on the scene, and my immediate response to the news was, "good."

So, why a Captain Obvious post? Because though 99.999% of sentient humans take this news as a good thing, a goodly portion of those people equate Jerry Sandusky with ordinary gay people. He's not. Sexual orientation is a continuum of sexual attraction from heterosexual to bisexual to homosexual, with shades of grey in-between (and of course, the rare asexual, outside the scale). Pedophilia and pederasty describe a psychiatric disorder wherein a person is sexually aroused by under aged--and unable to consent--children. There are straight pedophiles and pederasts, and there are gay ones. Oddly enough, many child abusers often pick targets that are the opposite sex from their adult relationships. This is the case with Sandusky. Or perhaps not. Many predators just need prey, and Sandusky had access to boys. Who knows what his other predilections might be.

Good luck, short eyes. Image from LA Times.

So, calling Sandusky "gay," or trying to make him representative of all gay people isn't just wrong, it's hideously, unfairly and maliciously wrong. It is also dangerous, and I don't just mean to the gay people you're slandering. If you're got it in your head that it's the gays you've got to watch out for; if you're keeping your kids away from their favorite gay uncle because you can't separate concepts adequately. . .you may be letting your guard down to the actual predators. Married, family men, respected in the community like Sandusky.

Meanwhile, the idiots at FreeRepublic, the tea baggin', Palin-lovin' outpost of the interwebs, can be depended upon to take this wrong-headed thinking to its zenith (or nadir, depending upon your point of view). They run every pederast/pedophile/kiddie porn/you name it fetish under the badly named "homosexual agenda" portion of their stomach-churning site. When my conservative mother assures me that Republicans aren't homophobic, by-and-large, I think of FreeRepublic, and realize that Mom is hopelessly naive. Here are just a few of their comments. The asterisks mask a few words that they actually feel free to type out.

[Excerpts]

"Isn’t men liking men considered normal now? S/"

Editor: Boys, idiot.

"Jerry, Jerry, you're a fairy, A fan of banana and cherry, Go to jail, For a century! A little trick with Dick."
 
Ed.: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of "conservative humor."


"FNS and CNN anchors, both sex perverts, talking about another sex pervert committing anal rape of boys is too much."

Ed.: See what he did there? Anderson Cooper and Shepard Smith are somehow equivalent to Sandusky. Nice. Now, for a doozy:

"Great. Now if they can just quit promoting in schools the idea that “sodomy is good” to the children, so they are less likely to be victims. Sodomites are twisted and have a sick reality, which knows no sexual morality. They misuse their body parts in debasing ways. There is no logic or morality—so age makes no difference. Pederasty and homosexuality has been intrinsically linked since Ancient Greece and the Samurai. It is a learned behavior. Schools intentionally promote Sodomy in Sex Ed (they teach anal sex) and by having “Day of Silence” and putting the word gay with “Pride”. Sodomy is a Vice and children need to learn Good and Evil by the Standard of the Bible—since our Natural Rights come from God, so they do not fall victim to these people who have no sexual boundaries and will use them. The homosexual reality is that debasing acts are “love”, which is the slippery slope to any debasing act-—even that with children—since “self pleasure” is their only criteria for “good”.

Get perverts out of the schools. -—like Kevin Jennings. Better yet, get your children OUT of public schools. They are promoting evil to children—to normalize the debasing and dysfunctional lifestyles which lead to a socialist state."

Ed.: The stupid. It burns! No, jackass, you're wrong about almost everything you've said. But the key chink in your screed is your "slippery slope" comment. You're not even smart enough to know that it is the name of a logical fallacy. One of the main ones.

"Wait a fews years as this nation sinks further into immorality....this behavior will become legal and protected."

Ed.: No. It won't. Rape and molestation are crimes on people against their will. The only time I've seen any otherwise rational person argue against protections against rape, it was Republicans trying to change it to just "forcible" rape, whatever that means.

"Just more proof that homosexual fa**ots have no business in leadership positions."

Ed.: See? Told you there'd be asterisks! Offensive, wrong and redundant. The FReeper trifecta!


"Or be able to adopt!"

Ed.: Okay, moron, Sandusky was a married heterosexual, as far as we know. How exactly would your knee-jerk reaction have stopped him?

And on that note, we have the lone, sane FReeper, who answered that last bit better than me. Credit where it's due:

"The problem with your statement as it pertains to this case was that there was no evidence that Sanusky ever lived an openly “homosexual” or “fa**ot” lifestyle outside of molesting young boys which was done in secret and not openly. Sandusky was never, as I understand ever interested in having sex with other adult men, only in having sex with children who happened to be male. A male pedophile who prefers having sex with female children is none the less still a pedophile and just as sick, twisted and evil.
Barring openly homosexuals from leadership positions would not have prevented someone like Sandusky from doing what he did as he was not an openly homosexual man who had sex with other adult men. He lived as a straight man, a pillar of his community, someone well respected in his community and someone that even his neighbors and close friends, some who are deeply religious, had no idea of his perversions, yet he was someone who secretly preyed on vulnerable children for years." --by MD Expat in PA

There is much, much more. But for once, I'm going to give a FReeper the last word.  Source.

UPDATE: For Dan, my friend at the conservative LasVegasBadger, I do not think that FreeRepublic represents all or most Republicans. But they are a very vocal, and unfortunately these days, heeded force, the core of the tea party. Dan, you keep me on my toes.

Captain Obvious: Penn State Scandal Has Nothing to do with "The Gays"

When there is a pedophile scandal involving boys, gay people wince, for multiple reasons. Chief among them is the horror imposed on the little boys, against their will. Secondarily--and quite a bit down the concern meter, but still wrenching--is the false equivalence drawn by many (usually, conservatives) between pedophilia and homosexuality.
 
If you have any interest, you can find copious confirmation that some strong conservatives draw a parallel between teh gay and kid diddlers. Just go to FreeRepublic.com, and go to the ridiculously named "Homosexual Agenda" section. You'll find that the hardcore tea bagger crowd draws no distinction.  But there is one.

If you found out that there was a coach who molested a bunch of little girls, you wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that there was a heterosexual problem. But when it is a coach and boys? Many minds go there. Even when there is no scandal to use as a touchstone, many conservative minds go there. "Gays can't reproduce, so they recruit," they'll say. Uhhhmmmm, no. Not necessary. Plenty of gays to go around. Most gays were molested, they'll say. But, then they'll also claim that lesbians were molested by men. So, which is it?

Most troubling with the uber-conservative equivalence between pedophilia and homosexuality, is the blindness to force vs. consent. If you dare read the commentary at conservative sites, you'd have to believe that gay people do not see that distinction. When in fact, it is more likely for sexual harassment and abuse claims to be leveled at heterosexuals.


Pedophilia, whether performed by ostensibly straights or gays is a vicious, nasty crime, performed against kids against their will. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a sexual pathology. Performing sexual acts against minors (who are unable to legally give consent) or others against their will is always wrong. There is no evidence that pedophilia is any more prevalent amongst heterosexuals or homosexuals. In fact, I think it is--and should be--insulting toward gays or straights to claim that either is more likely to molest a child. I believe that molesters belong in their own category, and I believe they've got what's coming to them.

I'm insulted by the fact that the FreeRepublic site puts all of the Penn State stories under the banner of "Homosexual Agenda." But I'm not surprised. FR is a knee-jerk site, with very little thought, and a whole lot of emotion. From the whole Penn State story, I am of course most upset by the lives that have been damaged. But I'm also really pissed off that a bunch of knuckle-draggers are going to blame this on people like me.

Captain Obvious: Big Oil Subsidies are Spending, Not Taxes

Grover Norquist--the unelected lobbyist--wields all the power in the GOP Congress. For whatever reason, this odd man has managed to get most, if not all of them to sign his "no new taxes" pledge. I guess the poor little feller got his heart broken when George H.W. Bush broke his pledge. So, good for Grover. Why anyone feels bound by this useless document is anyone's guess.

But okay. Let's say that "no new taxes" is a good, sound, logical idea (just go with me). It would mean not creating any taxes that don't exist right now, right? No. According to Norquist, getting rid of loopholes is a "new tax." Getting rid of subsidies is a "new tax." The former is a stretch, the latter is just wrong.


The oil and gas industries are the most profitable companies to exist in human history.* They get multi-billion dollar government subsidies. These are essentially checks. Payments. Say it with me, "Spending." The GOP (and Norquist) say that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. I don't agree, but let's say they're right. Okay, take every subsidy that can't be vigorously defended as essential, and zero it out. Those are spending cuts, not tax cuts. They're exactly what John Boner Boehner and Mitch McConnell are asking for, they just don't know it. Maybe someone should explain it to Grover Norquist.


* And FYI for Grover, "profits" are the dollars that are left over after you pay for everything. I've heard it said that they need this money for the exploration, extraction, refining. . .no. That's accounted for.

Captain Obvious: Voter ID Laws are an Attempt at Voter Suppression

Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean it's true. This is the case with Voter ID laws, and a slew of other efforts being made to change laws to make it more difficult to vote. I was listening to the local Las Vegas right-wing radio station, and Alan Stock had Voter ID as a topic. He was--no surprise--incredulous that anyone would be against requiring a photo ID to vote. And in fact, polls back him up: Voter ID laws are very popular. There's a reason for that.

If you want to stop people from voting, you can't come right out and say: "We're going to pass a bunch of laws that make voting harder, and that will especially impact Democrats." So instead, you come up with some arguments. It's helpful if the arguments are simple and clear and seem undeniable. After all, why would anybody balk at presenting their ID at the voting booth? What do they have to hide? But that isn't the real question. The real question is, what kind of people don't have a photo ID? And it turns out to be students, poor people, minorities. . .all disproportionately Democratic voters. For the same reason, Republicans are trying to make same-day registration more difficult, trying to keep students from voting if they live at their school (but are from out of state), and various other schemes.

All of this is supposedly to fight "voter fraud," which is an almost nonexistent problem in the United States. There's plenty of voter registration fraud, vote tampering, voter suppression (see above), and shenanigans. But actual ineligible people knowingly casting fraudulent votes? Barely happens (though Ann Coulter and apparently Mitt Romney have given it a shot). It is certainly a very small-incidence problem, being met with huge new laws. Which is all sort of curious, when conservatives themselves often seem resistant to new, restrictive laws. "Just enforce the laws we have!" they often say.

Below is an excerpt from an article that argues all of this better than I can, so if I haven't convinced you, please read on:

[Excerpt]

Our view: Republican ID laws smack of vote suppression

To many Republicans, it is an article of faith that minimalist government works best.

Except, that is, when Republicans want to impose tighter rules for their political benefit. A case in point is the flurry of states —six so far this year— rushing to pass laws requiring voters to bring government-issued photo IDs to polling places. All have Republican governors and GOP-controlled legislatures. . .

Read more at: USA Today

Captain Obvious: Cut FAT, not BONE and MUSCLE from Budget

One of the most irritating things about politics--if you follow it with any regularity--is the childishness of it all. Politicians long ago realized that the bulk of the public isn't "plugged in" all the time, and so they've only got to give the impression that they're doing what "America wants." Perception is everything. This is where sound bites and Frank Luntz's Words that Work Orwellian NewSpeak comes in.  Relaxing pollution regulations for big business thus becomes a "Clear Skies" initiative, and the casual observer says, "okay, that's fine."

The insidiousness of this is, that politicians now take something they want to accomplish--busting unions, killing Medicare, giving tax bennies to rich guys, making it okay to dump waste into the river--and they dress it up with language and talking points that appeal to their base to get it done. They do this in countless ways. They find one or two good arguments that support what they're doing, and the casual observer (or the blindly partisan) among us not only go along, we actually support the position.  Here are a couple of examples:

Budget Munster, Paul "Eddie" Ryan
from Washington Examiner

- Voter ID laws - Done to decrease Democratic voter turn out, but argued that it is to weed out voter fraud.

- Constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage - Passed to keep a boot on the neck of gay people, but argued to "protect the children" or "protect marriage" (the word or concept).

- Union busting - Done to decrease financial support of Democratic candidates (among other things), but argued that it somehow helps state budgets. Proof of that not needed.

- Privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. - Supposedly to "save" the programs, but really to dismantle them, and shift the burden and expense to the user. Puts the dollars into private hands, further enriching the upper class, while pushing the middle class, working poor and elderly further down.

There is much more along these lines, and the argument that "both sides do it" may have a little legitimacy in this issue, but not a lot. Democrats may employ similar tactics to get things done, but it is rare for a Democratic policy proposal to take from the poor and give to the rich. It is rare that a Democratic proposal is a wolf in sheep's clothing to enrich the already rich. When it comes down to Koch brothers vs. George Soros, at least Soros is actually spending money that leads to policies that are not in his own financial interest.

All this brings me around to (finally) Rep. Paul Ryan and his supposedly courageous and serious and powerful debt reducing plan.  It isn't either of those things. It fails to address revenue at all, and further cuts taxes for the upper tier. It places emphasis not only on the ridiculous "trickle down" theory that has never been shown to work, but on other projected numbers that have nothing to support them but hope and/or magic. When it could propose cutting fat (think: $500 hammers and $1,000 toilet seats in defense contracts), it instead cuts bone and muscle (EPA regulations, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.).

I'm all for cutting waste. There's got to be tons of it. And there's probably waste even in the popular and needed programs. But using over-simplistic language, buzz words and talking points, politicians like Ryan dive in to the budget with a meat fork and carving knife, and just start hacking away. It may already be cliche, but President Obama's "scalpel" analogy is right on the money. And by not addressing the revenue side of things, Ryan and the Republicans ultimately show that they are not serious.

Captain Obvious: Budget Comprimise Pleases NOBODY

This is just a quickie Captain Obvious to note that Friday night's comprimise in Congress to avert a government shutdown--temporarily--pleased no one, and worked mainly as a stalling tactic for all involved. 

Democrats and liberals are not happy about the concessions made to Republicans, nor the apparent bragging by the President at the resolution:

"As for the rest, it was a sucky deal. Billions of dollars axed from programs mostly dedicated to easing the lives of Americans who, even in the best of times, have a rough go of things economically. And these are not the best of times.

". . .Politicians must make compromises. This can be frustrating, infuriating, but necessary. There is, however, no need to put lipstick on a pig. And that's what touting the "biggest annual spending cut in history" as a good thing does. . ."

Read more at: Daily Kos

And conservatives aren't happy either. First, I must point out that every time John Boner Boehner makes a public declaration on the issue, he lets more average Americans know who he is, which could raise him to a Newt Gingrich like target, instead of an orange, drunken, crying man nobody recognizes. But oh, the tea baggers know who he is already!  To wit:

"John Boohoo is done. He’s public enemy number 2 next to any democrat. Well, maybe he’s just “number 2”. Either way...done."

"Just go away, Boehner. Thanks for handing the scum zero and Reid a victory so they can parade about on TV. Grow a pair, you weakling."

"To OHIO FREEPERS: Is anyone up for helping to Primary Boehner? Cheers!"

Read more at: Free Republic

Captain Obvious: What Will Befall America if Gay Marriage is Legal?

Oh. The horror.

Found at: Voenix Rising

FacePalm!: California Nuclear Reactor Has No Plan for Earthquakes

How could it. . .I mean. . .what were they. . .how could they possibly. . .facepalm. . .

[Excerpt]

Why, there are never earthquakes in California!
Right? Image from source, Huffington Post

At California Nuclear Plant, Emergency Response Plans Don't Include Earthquakes



As the world's attention remains focused on the nuclear calamity unfolding in Japan, American nuclear regulators and industry lobbyists have been offering assurances that plants in the United States are designed to withstand major earthquakes. . .
 
Read more at: Huffington Post

Captain Obvious: Government Shutdown? Aren't We at War?

After President George W. Bush's post-9/11 popularity wore off, conservatives had to adjust to the rapid, constantly increasing unpopularity he started to gather. One of their favorite tactics was to counter any criticism of The Commander-in-Chief™ by saying he was a War President™, and that it was unpatriotic to criticize The Decider™ while we were at war. Support our troops! Wait, the Dixie Chicks said something mildy insulting about Dubya? While we're at war? Burn their records!

We are still at war. This has not prevented the right from flinging every possible insult in their repertoire at President Barack Obama. No matter how head-scratchingly stupid the insult, they'll continue to use it, and ramp it up in intensity. There's nothing he can do, nothing he can say that won't result in incensed, frothing, venomous reprisal from the right. The attitude spread from the President to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (two people many Americans would barely have known about otherwise) and to all other Democrats/liberals/progressives. Oddly, the right's patriotism isn't maligned for their doing this. When they simultaneously tout American exceptionalism, and then proceed to gloom-and-doom us with how we are in the "end times" of America. . . .are "the troops" even remembered?

Back in the aftermath of 9/11, "the troops," policemen, firemen and other emergency "first responders" were put on a pedestal as near deities. The military is still fetishised in some quarters (and for once, I don't mean that in a sexy way!), but the rest of 'em? Not so much. They're government employees, and that's suddenly a bad thing. They should have their unions busted, their pensions pulled, their benefits cut! Hell, let's just shut down the government! As John Boehner says, "so be it!"

But again, we're at war. As incoherent as our reasons for being there are, we are there. Don't ya think while we have soldiers in battle, there probably ought to be a functioning government back home to support them? How about the benefits of veterans, the health care of the troops' families back home? For once, the claim of "we're at war" really does have something to do with the political argument of the moment.

Captain Obvious: The Liberal Media is a Myth

With the firing/retiring/whatevering of Keith Olbermann at MSNBC, there are fans who are feeling sad, and FOX fans who are dancing a Snoopy dance. He had the channel's highest rated show--in fact the highest rated news commentary show not on FOX "News." The most recently known ratings for these shows has Glenn Beck (frequently but wrongly called Olbermann's flip side) at 1.780 million viewers to Olbermann's 1.106 million. Hardly a chasm of difference there, yet "nobody watched" Olbermann's show or his channel, according to detractors.

There's a lot of talk from both sides about Comcast's role in this, if any. There are people worried (or hoping) that this will lead to similar departures by Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell. Most people couldn't name all of those people. But that right there is pretty much the list of the top liberals in the media.  On talk radio, where the percentage of conservative-to-liberal shows is in the high 90s in the conservatives favor, there are a few other names: Randi Rhodes, Tom Malloy, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller.  None of them has the name recognition of a second or maybe even third tier conservative host.

Nobody watches Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Nobody's heard of Randi Rhodes. Air America Radio is dead, and almost nobody can tune in to liberal talk radio on their car radio, even if they want to. Newspaper sales are down. Newsweek practically went out of business. CNN gets anemic ratings, only rarely stepping up into MSNBC's "nobody" zone. FOX "News" is the king of cable "news"--and yes those quotes are required. Comcast's takeover of NBC (and thus MSNBC) puts ownership of media in the United States into even fewer hands. All of those owners are enormous corporate entities with conservative leanings.

So somebody tell me please. Where is this "lamestream media" Sarah Palin keeps whining about? Or the "drive-bys" that Rush Limbaugh sputters about? Let's just face it. The right-wing talkers who used to be the far right fringe are now squarely mainstream. The most moderate, most middle-of-the-road, objective reporter now looks like a leftist by comparison. And the actual left are now called "far left." So they can stop complaining about the liberal media. They can stop squinting their eyes and finger wagging about the mainstream media. The conservatives have it. They are the mainstream media. But they're still not news.

Captain Obvious: Yet Another Gay Primer

I've spent some time--perhaps too much time--reading some of the right-wing reaction to the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.  As is usual, there is a lot of homophobic name calling, and sub Jr. High School-level attempts at "humor." But mostly, there is a level of obsession over the sex aspect of homosexual, that even most gay people themselves don't indulge in. To live in right-wing world is apparently to know no gay people, and to believe only the most damning, negative things about them.

By far, the biggest theme on right-wing sites about the lifting of DADT is that the military will now be "homosexualized." In their feverish dreams, they envision soldiers holding hands, wearing pink uniforms, smooching in the commissary, a-doin'-it in the barracks, fondling in the showers, and horrors imposing themselves upon the uber-macho straight soldiers against their wills.  There is also a lot of cognitive dissonance at work. For instance, they'll insist that gays make up less than 1% of the population (ha!), but that they're all-powerful, and "taking over" the military. They'll portray us as mincing queens, flitting about, while simultaneously portraying us as predatory animals, overpowering the defenseless straights. It's all a little crazy. Okay, a lot crazy.  So here, is one more attempt to set the record straight. . .uh. . .so to speak.

1. There have always been gay people in the military - The only difference now is that gay soldiers won't have to hide that fact.  Until now, they've been forced to lie, by deed or omission. That can create a very stressful situation, with all sorts of attendant problems.

2. Gays in the showers and bunks is thus nothing new - But now, if you're a service member who has a real aversion to teh gay, you'll know who to avoid! This is a win for you guys, though it's pretty dumb. The military isn't the only place where same sex groups of people bunk or shower together. Do you belong to a gym? Then you've showered with gay guys, trust me.

3. Sex in the military is still against the rules - This is the big one. Many right-wingers seem to think that "serving openly" means "behaving as though life is a gay bar." The same rules that apply to straight soldiers will apply to gay ones. So, no sexy times on base. Sorry, you'll just have to look for it on the internet, just like everyone else.

4. There is no sex act practiced by gays that isn't practiced by straights - The ultimate in obvious, yes, but important to point out. For all of their supposed revulsion, FReepers in particular are unusually fixated upon gay sex acts, the more extreme the better. But if a gay person has done it, you can rest assured that a straight person has done it as well. What's more, at upwards of 90% of the population, there are probably more straight people doing it. Oh, and the gerbil thing? Nobody does that, unless they're trying to recreate an urban legend.

5. Gay couples won't be living on base together - Unless the military begins allowing unmarried straights to cohabitate on base, it won't happen with gays either. Since the US Government does not recognize any same-sex marriages, they won't be recognized by the military either.  If same-sex marriage should become legal federally, that could change, and it should.

That's if for now, but surely not the last time I'll write a post like this. The disinformation and willful ignorance of the right is sure to inspire yet another sequel, and Captain Obvious will once again have to point out what should already be. . .obvious.

Captain Obvious: Rich People Don't Need Tax Cuts

This really should go without saying. I remain completely unconvinced that tax cuts for the wealthy are necessary, or can be justified. The "Bush Tax Cuts" of 2001 and 2003 were originally implemented because of the budget surplus we had at the time. They were passed under reconciliation rules, with an intentional 10-year sunset, because they weren't paid for. They've been in effect for 10 years, and have not proven to "create jobs" at all--quite the contrary--even though that seems to be the sole defense for extending them.

Letting them expire, even if we let all of them expire, does not amount to a "tax hike," let alone an "Obama tax hike." It simply would revert the tax rates to what they were in the 1990s, a time when rich people were getting along just fine, thank you very much. 

Today, the Senate is supposed to vote on 1) an extension of the middle-class (below $250,000 per year) tax cut, and 2) an extension on monies made above a quarter million dollars per year.  Republicans are expected to filibuster both of them. I'm curious how they will spin voting against tax break extensions for the entire country. No doubt, it will still be the ridiculous spin we've been hearing on the issue on the Sunday talk shows for months now.  There is no legitimate reason for them to block these votes. They could simply vote on both--attempt to extend both--and have zero political fallout. But they probably won't. So they'll have to rely on their--admittedly effective--considerable spinning skills to save their bacon.

I for one don't really care if any of the tax breaks are extended. For someone in my tax bracket, the savings from the Bush tax cuts is negligible anyway.  And if we're being honest, and are really concerned about the deficit/national debt (I really could use a little help knowing the difference, as could most politicians and pundits) all of the tax cuts should probably expire. That would save a helluva lot of money, and would make an extension of unemployment benefits a non-issue.

Captain Obvious: Being Gay is Not a Choice

Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck, said Sunday morning on Meet the Press that being gay is a choice.  He put this belief into the context of comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. He believes that people may be predisposed to being gay, and likens acting upon those desires to taking a drink.  Mmmkay.

Look, we may never know 100% what causes attraction to the same gender.  It shouldn't matter in a free country. But why take the word of anti-gay straight people on a subject they have no way of knowing anything about?  The overwhelming response of gay people when asked is that they had no choice, and were likely born gay.  But conservatives often take the life experience of actual gay people as some sort of group lie.  Why?

Most gay people when asked will tell you they always felt "different."  They usually couldn't put a name to it until puberty or some time after, but it's easy to connect the dots in retrospect.  Here is where the "first drink" analogy falls apart. Most gay people had a dawning realization of their sexuality long before they actually had sex.  They knew (or now recognize) that they were gay before ever having sex.  What's more, a person can easily self-identify as gay while still a virgin, or in the spans between actually having a partner.  If a person stops having (or has never had) sex, their sexuality does not go away.  It gets complicated when a young gay person tries to "make a choice" to be straight.  If a gay person has a successful heterosexual encounter, he can convince himself for a time that he is straight.

That's where people get convinced that homosexuality is a choice, because they see someone who was married for 20 years and then "comes out."  The real choice is to stop living a lie, and live life truthfully. All gay people go through a process--much like the stages of grief--coming to terms with their sexuality. Since even today there is a taboo to overcome, it takes many forms, and can take a varying amount of time to get through.  From the inside--as a gay man--this is all very obvious, and easy to forensically put together.  People like Buck, however, start with their own prejudices, and assemble a theory that fits them.    What is missing is, what would motivate an ostensibly straight person choose to be gay? It implies that all people have this choice.  An obvious follow-up to anyone presenting this theory is, "When did YOU make the choice to be straight?"

Captain Obvious: Faux Outrage is Actually a Delight for GOP

Think back over the last two years to the big, controversial stories in the news. Excepting "Balloon Boy" (which is only related by also being a hoax), almost all of them have been ginned up by the usual right-wing sources, be it the right-wing blogs, talk radio, FOX "News" or a combination of those.  There may be a nugget of truth at the center of the story, but more likely not.  Even if there is, there are so many layers of supposition, exaggeration and invention, it's like an outrage lasagna.  These stories burst out of the blogosphere, out of the right-wing media, and are birthed into mainstream America, as big mutant hideous beasts.

Soon, even people you thought were rational will be seriously advocating excising rights from the Constitution.  It starts heated arguments, so it must be real outrage, not faux outrage, right?  Wrong.  It's called faux outrage because the outrage is based on a stack of half-truths and lies.  Or sometimes just a profound misunderstanding about the facts.  Such is the case with this so-called "Ground Zero mosque."  As I've already posted, it isn't a mosque, it isn't at Ground Zero, it has every right to be there, and there is already an actual mosque in the neighborhood that predates 9/11 and the World Trade Center.  There is also a mosque in the Pentagon.  But oooh, people are angry!  They're just sure them un-'Merrkan Mulsins are up to no good, spitting in our faces. . .forget the fact that many of the people who'd go to this community center are Americans, and that many Americans are Muslim. 

Trying to knock down these built-up brouhahas is almost impossible. People believe what they want to believe, and convincing people they are wrong is a bitch.  But here is something I can declare that I think most people agree with.  The people whose interests are served by most of these stories--the Republican Party at election time--are not outraged. They're delighted that the latest flames have been fanned into a brush fire.  And each time one of these all-consuming, nationwide poutrages is made out of what should be a local issue of minor contention, they're thrilled.

Captain Obvious: The Constitution Trumps "The Will of the Voters"

Now that California's Proposition 8 has been ruled un-Constitutional, we're already hearing a lot of belly-aching from the right.  Why they're so invested in this fight is anyone's guess, but on one thing they are very consistent:  all of their arguments are wrong. Don't believe me? Read Justice Vaughn Walker's response to the best Prop 8's proponents could do, you'll see.

By far, one of the loudest shrieks from the right is "the will of the voters" has been overturned, and this represents a failure of democracy.  Bull pucky.  Civil rights should never be put to a vote in the first place.  When they are, you get what we've gotten: 31 states have put same-sex marriage to a vote, and 31 times, gay people lost.  Imagine if voters had gotten a chance to vote on slavery. Or integration. Or women's suffrage. Does anyone really believe that the batting average would have been different in those scenarios?

Prop 8 was found un-Constitutional, and as such, the Constitution trumps public sentiment. Period.  You can't get more American than that.

Captain Obvious: It Does Not Matter When FOX "News" Played Tape

I'm catching up on the Sunday morning political shows on the DVR, and am presently in the middle of FOX "News" Sunday, the lowest-rated (for a network that constantly touts ratings, this is noteworthy) and lowest quality of the group.  Newt Gingrich, with his Kermit the Frog voice (seriously, look away and listen) was up first, with Howard Dean. Jesse Jackson was next, and then the famous--and ridiculously named--"Power Panel."  By far, the biggest issue was the Shirley Sherrod/Andrew Breitbart faux racism story.

Notably, the host, Chris Wallace, was very prickly about exactly when FOX "News" actually aired the notoriously out-of-context video from the NAACP.  Wallace claims that FOX never aired the clip before Sherrod resigned.  This is only partially true, and a very disingenuous point.  Bill O'Reilly, who tapes his program, The O'Reilly Factor rather than airing it live, was on the air saying that Sherrod "must resign" before the announcement was made, by bare minutes. But this means he had recorded it hours earlier. Also, FOXNews.com had already reported on the issue, with absolutely wrong information, such as stating that Sherrod was a government employee at the time of her story (which was really 24 years ago).  FOX Nation (the extremely far right blog site) was also discussing the story in an unfavorable light.  I have no doubt that Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's radio shows (which air earlier than their FOX shows) were already on this issue as well.  So Wallace's "FOX never aired" the clip is a slice-and-dice of the facts, at best.

All of this points to the fact that FOX was running with this story. If Sherrod's resignation had come six hours later--or not at all--there can be no doubt that this would have been the 24/7 number one story on FOX. . .which it became anyway.  What the White House was trying to prevent--in a regrettable, stupid fashion, I'm not afraid to note--is exactly what did happen.  They wanted to squash a bad news cycle in the midst of a pretty good policy week, and they failed. Exactly when FOX aired the clip,  is a bit of false framing, as though their journalistic integrity was the reason for holding back. BULL PUCKY. Clearly, this thing was a go, and all of Wallace's protestations can't make that go away.

Captain Obvious: Nobody Understands the Stock Market

I began dabbling in the stock market last year. Just small stuff, getting my feet wet, trying to figure it all out.  In all last year--since I never sold a stock that was down, and only sold four total--I managed to make $600+ profit.  This year, I've lost, lost, lost.  I haven't sold anything yet, so nothing's really gone per se, but just like our house, I'm sorta under water.

Through it all, I'd watch the Dow Jones Industrial Average go by on my on-screen ticker. On days where the market was up, I was down. On days when it went down, so did I. It usually goes like that. But some days, the market fluctuates wildly.  Up 158 points! Down 60! Up 50! Down 226!  The market can be up, up, up all day, and crash at the end, or vice-versa.  If you want to check on why this is all happening, you can go to CNBC.com, and there will be a handy headline: "Stocks wobbly on fears of Chinese imports." This while the market is climbing like a rocket. Then, when it suddenly tumbles three digits, you go back to CNBC, and the headline: "Stocks soar on consumer optimism!"  At the closing bell, the DJI manages to claw back to positive, and CNBC says: "Market plunges at close, investors panic!"  It's like that a lot.

After a while, I started to wonder, "don't those headlines seem an awful lot like guessing?"  Yes, yes they do.  After a little over a year of this, I've come to believe that investment analysts are no better than carnival soothsayers.  They never have to be right, and yet they get to keep their jobs. Nice work if you can get it.

Image from RawStory

[Excerpt]

MSNBC’s Ratigan: Stock market an ‘obviously corrupt’ fraud


On his afternoon show Tuesday, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan explained why he believes the usual explanations given in the media for why the stock market went up or down on a given day are nonsense.


"Seventy percent of the volume [of trades on the stock market] is computers that are run by the banks playing ping pong with stocks for 10 seconds at at time," Ratigan said.


"The stock market at this point, which used to be a reflection of the future value of actual businesses in this country, has been turned by our government and our banks into little more than a paper shredding facility [about which] we can make up reasons why it goes up and down," Ratigan said. "But when the computers ... at the banks are controlling the action, most everything else is kind of silly. . ."

Read more at: Raw Story

Captain Obvious: Oh, Just a A Lot Of Stuff

During the waning years of the Bush Era, I started blogging out of frustration.  Once we entered the Obama Era, I breathed a slight breath of relief, but that exhalation is leaving me gasping for air. Yes, there are things about Obama's reign that leave me wanting more. Yes, there are things that haven't come to pass.

I want the over-reaches of the Bush Administration (Guantanamo, rendition, etc.) to be stopped. I'd love for the evils of Dick Cheney (and many others) rectified. I'd like for gay rights issues to be treated with more urgency (and for the Obama Administration to not fight against us). 

Right now, it is conventional wisdom that the Republicans will make major inroads this November.  The pendulum nearly always swings to the party not held by the presidency during mid-term elections. But my big sticking point is this: Republicans broke this country.  The fact that the Democrats couldn't fix it all in 1-1/2 years should not mean that it is time for the other team to take a crack at bat.

Especially when the other team's players seem like some demented political cartoon. Michele Bachmann. Sarah Palin. John Boehner. Mitch McConnell. Lindsey Graham. Eric Cantor. Bobby Jindal. Do these people seem like upright, straight-ahead, "answers for America" people to you?  Seriously?

I'm afraid that Democratic disillusionment with their own candidates, and the bizarre, wingnut fringe of the Republican Party (teabaggers) will usher in the craziest, nuttiest, most embarrassing era in American politics. So, please, progressives. I know you're not jazzed right now. But don't let this bunch take over!  Please????