Retail therapy

Dalton McGuinty, much like the Dubya before him, has urged his constituents to hit the malls.

Many people are "feeling the pinch" during the current downturn and are worried about their jobs and savings, he acknowledged.

But if they refrain from buying holiday gifts, for example, they could "unwittingly" add to Ontario's economic troubles, McGuinty said.

"I know we've got to take steps at home and we've got to be prudent and we've got to be careful and that's understandable," he said after visiting a pharmaceutical firm in Pickering, east of Toronto.

"But if you don't buy that car -- even though you can actually afford it -- if you don't buy that fridge, if you don't shop at Christmas time, it can actually put us in a bit of a downward spiral."

Obviously, the opposition has some objections to this recommendation, particularly NDP leader Howard Hampton.

Opposition parties pounced on McGuinty's remarks as further evidence the premier is "out of touch" with ordinary people who fear they'll soon have to join the unemployment line.

The premier's advice is "just as crass and bizarre" as U.S. President George W. Bush telling Americans to "get out there and shop" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said NDP Leader Howard Hampton.

The criticism is hardly unwarranted, but it's also off-base. Under the current economic system, the only way to get out of a recession, or to slow the onset of one, is to spend. We need everyone rowing in the same direction, or growth stalls. The way we've got things wet up, a stall means a downturn. Growth, constant and without limits, is the only measure of economic stability, let alone success.

Hampton's right, in that people facing layoffs or pay cuts and rising interest rates need to keep their eyes on the future. But he's missing the bigger picture. McGuinty's advice, like Bush's after 9/11, is economically sound. What Hampton, and most of the rest of his critics, I'm sure, will miss, is that this recession is another symptom of a system that is fundamentally flawed.

Our current economic system is flawed in several key ways:

• It relies on a prosperity gap that is untenable, and also unpleasant, so we've done our best to send poverty overseas, and have done a helluva job.
• It fails to recognise the natural limits of a finite planet.
• It has been artificially sustained for nearly two centuries, by government support, the distortion of the market by advertising, the ghettoization of two thirds of the planet, and the artificial savings granted by cheap petroleum.

Buying more shit will not fix any of that.

Democracy is bad for the economy.

Canada's elections are messy and expensive (and recently, pointless). They're nowhere near as messy, expensive and pointless as the last three US elections, but they're pretty bad.

For one thing, in the last election, we had twenty-one registered parties. Yeah. Twenty-one. One was a joke, but the argument has been made that they all are (there is some truth to that). In most ridings, the most you'll see is six or seven. But I'll bet there was a place in Canada where the ballot had two sides.

Our parties have also learned the worst possible lessons from elections in the past and in other locations. Treat the voter like mushrooms:

• Our current leading party, the Cons, never once gave a coherent policy plank, intelligible election promise or pointed to a past success (except for a successful cut to the GST, which, while successfully cut, has not apparently had any effect on anything, except the operating capital of the government). At least, not while I was paying attention. The other parties were not much better, but the Cons were the worst. They ran on Stephane Dion's funny accent and carbon tax. They occasionally hinted that they had a plan to deal with the rapidly approaching economic clusterfuck, but they never told us what it was (still haven't).
• The Liberals ran like they didn't really want to be there, and they were only killing time until they could scapegoat one intellectual idealist and replace him with either an intellectual or an idealist.
  
• Jack Layton ran on Harper's pact with Satan. Steve is an evil guy (not like supernatural evil, but callous and vaguely sociopathic), and while I like to bash him, I like to temper my vitriol with an occasional suggestion.
• The Bloc, while it has some interesting policies, also ran on Harper's pact with Satan. Unfortunately, they only run in Quebec, which is an odd thing for a national party to do. They'd probably fair pretty well in places like Newfoundland, where their entry into the Dominion was questionable, and New Brunswick, which also has a large francophone population.
• The Greens ran on the Chicken Little platform spiced up with the Harper-Satan combo. I believe in the platform, and I believe that the sky is really falling, but unfortunately, we're easily dismissed, partially because if things are as bad as I fear, then we're probably fucked anyway, and sustainability is hard. And also probably because we aren't very good at the mudslinging.
  

What we had was a little over a month of insults, name-calling and bullshit, cleverly disguised by neckties (though Harper stayed away from the necktie, perhaps as a double-distraction), indignation, and resignation that politics has sunk so low in Canada. But what are you gonna do? Sex sells, but fear really moves product.

The thing is that spreading all these non-platforms, inciting all this fear and fostering all this paranoia costs money. So the government reimburses our parties for some of their expenses if they reach a certain threshold of votes, and they pay you $1.95/vote/year, so you can keep the machine going in order to fund your next round of vapid soundbites.

Last month we spent nearly $300 million on an election, winding up with a slightly strengthened Con party in charge (I have no fucking idea how, we just did.). We used airtime, nonrenewable resources, horrifying amounts of trees, and millions upon millions of volunteer hours and casual labour, and we are slightly worse off than we were before. The economy continues to flop about like a wounded animal,and we still have no real plan to deal with that. However, it's time to tighten our belts, people.

Let's cut out that stipend to the parties.

It'll save nearly $30 million.

The Cons pissed away the surplus that they were left with three years ago by the Liberals. So we can't increase government spending without going into a deficit, which, as we have seen in countless instances around the world, conservatives just don't do. There are billions of dollars going to Bay Street and billions of dollars in loans going to automakers (maybe). There are billions of dollars in corporate welfare, and lots and lots of tax refunds for oil companies, but the electoral process really needs to tighten up.

You may be losing your job while CEOs eat caviar off of $1000/night call girls. You may be losing your pensions while upper management collects bonuses the size of lottery jackpots. You may be losing your car while cabinet ministers have a limo and driver. You may be losing your house while banks record slightly less than record breaking profits. But don't worry, those asshole politicians are losing their gravy train. That's right, no more fat in the electoral process.

Set aside that this is petty and shitty for a minute. Try to forget that Finance Minister Flaherty is the man who constantly reassured Ontario that he could cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget. Ignore for a minute that on paper this hurts the Cons most because theys stand to lose the most. I don't even want to talk about how anti-democratic this is.

I want you to focus on the fact that this is blatantly political, an obvious cheap shot, and deeply, deeply cynical.

The Cons have no plan for recovery. To those of us paying attention, Flaherty has no credibility as a finance minister. They have no wiggle room, having spent it all. Their ideology has just proven to be corrosive to the economic system they claim to worship. They just lost their best friend next door. They bet they could win an election before we copped to the recession, but we were paying attention (though they did win). Our resource-based economy, which is supposed to be sort of recession-proof, starts to stutter when demand for resources declines. Canadians are a little more choosy with out boogey-men, too, so you can't blame the gays or the atheists for this one. But you know who you can blame? The one group that everyone in Canada distrusts, dislikes and disapproves of? I mean, besides Americans?

Politicians. Those evil, nasty, parasitic politicians.

A recurring theme on this blog is my constant incredulity. I can't believe the gullibility of the electorate. I can't believe the chutzpah of the neocons. I can't believe the hypocrisy of those on the religious right. I can't believe the resistance of the general population to the changes that are necessary.

And here, I can't believe the sheer ballsiness of a politician implying that politicians are to blame for this mess. They are, of course, partly responsible, but it takes a special kind of balls to come right out and say it, even though he isn't really. And I can't believe that he thinks it'll work.

I also can't believe that it probably will.

He's not saying this is flawed economic policy. He's not saying it's a flawed tax system. He's not saying it's a symptom of deeper societal problems. He's not even saying that the idiots who persisted in making shitty products or approving shitty loans or creating money out of nothing are at fault. He's not saying that rebates and incentives enabled those idiots to ignore market realities.

He's implying that it's the electoral system that is at fault, and the elected (and unelected) need to pay for it. And many voters are gonna buy it.

The electoral system is deeply flawed. The party system is deply flawed. The election funding rules are deeply flawed. There are ways to fix this. Maybe. I don't think this is it. This simply cuts off small parties, and will wither many of them away. This will destroy the Liberal Party (probably the real motive). This will hamper the NDP and the Bloc (also nice perks).

This will not stimulate the economy. This will do nothing to prevent the next recession. This will not broaden our economy, to make it more recession-proof. This will not prevent one forclosure, one job loss, one trip to the food bank, or one stress-induced heart attack or stroke, or one fight over the dinner table.

It's obvious, it's cheap and it's transparent.

It'll probably work.

Inconcievable!

There are intelligent conservatives. There must be. I mean, they write books, they own the media, and they're in charge. So they've got to have something upstairs. However, I look at commentary on politics and economics by conservatives and it is very clearly at odds with everything: history, recent history, current economic realities, and even common sense. I try very hard to understand where they're coming from, but I just can't do it.

There are a couple of conclusions that can be drawn from their opinions. One, they are insane: schizophrenic in the sense that they are detached from reality, and live in a fantasy world where corporations act in the best interests of everyone and nothing is provided by the government. Two, they are not as smart as I'm giving them credit for. They are just really, really lucky. Or three, and this is most likely, they are lying. All the time. About everything. They don't believe the things they say they do, they don't read the stuff they say they read, and they don't actually behave in the way they want us to think they do.

I've found evidence for this all over the place. My last two blog posts are about this very phenomenon. I've got a new one, courtesy of our friends over at Christian Worldview Network, written by Shawn Akers. This is a fine specimen, not only at odds with reality, but internally inconsistent as well. Entitled "Donkeys, RINOs and PUMAs, Oh My! Can We Please Be Conservative Again?", it starts with the standard paranoiac bullshit about liberals owning everything: the media (hah!), the schools, the courts, Public Radio (really, they say this like it means something), and the respect and admiration of other nations.

It's a funny thing with conservatives in America. They don't give a shit what you think unless you agree with a liberal, and then you're a commie, a socialist, a totalitarian or European.

It doesn't take long before Akers starts actually dismissing reality, as opposed to simply misrepresenting it:

And then there are the rarest creatures of them all, those elusive phantoms, the genuine Republican elephants, who stare incredulously into the hollow eyes of the great grey beasts that have overtaken their party and ask – “hey, who invited the RINOs, and where did they get those fake trunks?” It seems that only now the true conservative Republicans are beginning to realize that while they slept, they lost their souls. Indeed, they can scarcely call themselves “conservative” anymore, because there is very little left to conserve.

The religious right co-opted the Republican Party (or was rather co-opted by) in the 1980s. Before that, they were more libertarian than conservative, and while they disagreed with the Dems on several things, there were no great rifts in beliefs. So who do you think Akers is talking about when he talks about "genuine Republican elephants"? Oddly enough, elephants are supposed to have long memories. And I've written in the past about "conservative" being a misnomer, because they don't stand for the conservation of anything worth conserving.

In practice, there is very little left of the founding principles. The Founders simply would not recognize the eternally-evolving ethereal cacophony of politically correct juris-imprudence that the left now calls the Constitution. One can imagine the disbelieving reply of a Signer of the Constitution: “A fundamental right to brutally take the life of an unborn child? . . . A fundamental right to have the state steal from one citizen to give to another? . . . The ability to tax a church into oblivion if it dares speak out against a political candidate? . . .The power to force the removal of the Ten Commandments from the public square? . . . What?. . . In the Constitution we wrote?. . . Heaven forbid!”

Again, Akers is not reading from the same play book as the rest of us. The Constitution actually contains instructions for changing it. The founding fathers (who have become as mythical as god himself) knew that the document they were writing would not be relevant for all time. So they made allowances for it to evolve. The questions he imagines the founders asking are ridiculous. And again, I cannot fathom how abortion rights are the most important issue facing the US right now. Your priorities are skewed badly if that's your number one issue.

Whatever is left of the Constitution, there is even less left of traditional morality. Indeed, in a mere forty years, the ideological fires of Haight Ashbury have melted down every communication of objective morality into prima fascia evidence of “hate speech.” Sexual misconduct between people of different genders is glamorized through every medium of entertainment. Sexual misconduct between people of the same gender is not only tolerated but is increasingly celebrated by society and sanctioned by governments. And, if you do not like the gender God assigned you, you can always disagree with Him and decide to be the other gender or some combination of the two; increasingly, the law will accommodate.

The traditional morality thing really chaps my ass, though. Traditional morality required forced conversions, allowed slavery, allowed lynching, forced women to stay home, denied them the vote, and allowed white folks to kill every other colour at will. It's called progress for a reason. There's also the whole issue that morality is concerned only with sex. I still can't understand why conservatives are so interested in other people's genitalia.

Likewise, there is certainly little or nothing left of the limited government and financial stewardship that conservatives have so vocally championed. In recent years, Republicans have spent public funds at a rate to be envied by even the most indulgent Democrats. They seem to have forgotten that the monstrosity of government bureaucracy can swing the socializing hammer of nationalization as effectively through disingenuous bailouts as it can through the direct theft of private property. To the outside observer, it would appear in many ways that we are all Democrats now – fighting merely over whose unstable positive law will rule the day and which special interests will reap the stolen fruits of redistributed property.

Akers begins well enough here, but again can't remember what happened less than 20 years ago. Clinton ran surpluses, Reagan and the Bushes ran deficits. It's clear to most people that democrats are more prudent fiscally than the GOP. Except this guy. And he seems to equate "Democrat" with "Communist", which is no surprise, but is still inexplicable. And I don't understand how giving all the money on the planet to corporations and to an infinitesmally small segment of the population is "Socialist". Again, Akers is ignoring reality. I have no idea how they get away with it.

The appearance is misleading, however, as the core of America remains open to reason.

If this is true, then Akers' days are numbered, but I'm not holding my breath.

Up until the very day they painted the map blue, even Democrats would admit that America is a center-right country. The one thing the American People will not tolerate when choosing leaders, however, is cowardice. Increasingly, leaders are elected when they unapologetically stand for something greater than themselves – even if the electorate does not necessarily agree with their positions. Why else would a nation that overwhelmingly favors protecting traditional marriage between one man and one woman elect a president who impenitently supports the “gay” agenda?

I don't even know what this means. But cowardice can mean a lot of things, like sending thousands of people to get killed, and not having the balls to do it yourself. Cowardice is also the inability to admit you made a mistake. Cowardice is caving to your friends when they're trying to get you to do something stupid. Cowardice is doing what is easy rather than doing what is right. Cowardice is making your children pay for your SUV, your war and your brand new bureacracies. Cowardice, in many ways, well describes Dubya's performance in the White House.

But the best is yet to come:

If it is to remain relevant, much less experience a renaissance, the Republican Party must become the new progressive.

Progressive is the opposite of what Akers wants. He makes me think of Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

It must shelve its clever electoral strategies and muster the courage to be faithful to its principles even if polling data says to lie, or at least equivocate. It must decide what it believes and unapologetically speak the truth with compassion. It must apply its principles impartially, governing itself before attempting to fix the other party. If it is going to lead, it must lead – and lead the nation not to where it has been but to the blessings of liberty found only when government limits itself to its original purpose: securing the unalienable Rights that the Creator has granted to each and every person.

And that finally is what made me annoyed enough to write this. Akers is a lying bigoted motherfucker who wants to take rights away from people, and he claims to be protecting human rights. I am utterly gobsmacked by the inability of some people to see their own duplicity.

If it leads in this way, the people, hungry for the mature substance of truth rather than the superficial sweetness of socialist confections, will follow. If not, it will fail because conservative counterfeits will never be as attractive as utopian lies.

Akers and people like him have no respect for you, your intellect or your rights. They have rewritten history to cast progressives in the role of villains. They hide their prejudices behind a mythological being, and they ignore the consequences of their own actions. They are destructive, dangerous frauds.

The persistence of idiocy.

There is some speculation that Stephen Harper might use the economic downturn to fog over some ideologically driven cuts to government spending. These fears are not baseless: Harper has already axed a National Portrait Gallery, and during the election, he said some nasty and untrue things about artists. It's also no secret that the Tories hate the CBC, because they think it demonizes them. The fact that they're evil is what demonizes them.

So I read in the paper that the Liberals and the NDP fear the worst. Cuts to CBC funding is the most obvious example, but apparently, the Conservatives also want to privatize Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.

However, one paragraph stuck in my mind this morning, even as I read it through a mild pot-Grey Cup hangover:

"I'm hopeful there will be some ideologically-driven, neo-conservative cuts to government," political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former chief of staff to Harper, said in an interview.

I am, I fear, a foolishly optimistic person, because I am constantly surprised by the dishonesty and denial of those on the right. As the grand economic engine belches smoke and grinds to a halt, in no small part because of neo-conservative doctrines of deregulation and small, grotesquely expensive government, there are still men who want to see more of the same. This guy is a political scientist, so apparently he is supposed to be paying attention, and he appears to have missed most of the last eight years (or much, much longer, depending where you live).

Neoconservatism has destroyed much of South America. It shattered the dreams of the emerging South Africa. It consistently strips people of their rights, nations of their resources, and governments of their independence. It is an essentially racist doctrine, saying that Africans, Latinos and Asians must subsidize the North American way of life. Having gained a toehold in the US, it soon brought the financial system down. Getting a moderate endorsement up here in Canada, it resulted in tainted lunchmeat and the deaths of several people.

It is a bust, but men like Flanagan keep hoping to see it work. There are many shortcomings of conservative philosophy, but it's persistence in the face of reality is what is most discouraging.

Bizarro economics

If I ever get my shit together and go back to school, I think I'll study economics. Probably not as my major, but would definitely take a few classes. The problem is that I'd probably fail them. Economic theory seems really fucking stupid to me.

I was reading the local fishwrap today, and came across an article in the back of the business section. I'll link to it, though I don't know how long the link'll stay live. My paper tends to archive stuff after a week, and then makes you pay for access. The story's on AP, so there's a good chance that it'll lurk around somewhere on the net.

The story itself is about how tough economic times are causing people to tighten their belts. I'll say it for you: "Duh!" Interesting reading nonetheless.

Frugality is making a comeback.

Fearful that economic conditions could get worse and stay that way, Americans are showing an enthusiasm for thriftiness not seen in decades.

This behavioural shift isn't simply about spending less. The New Frugality emphasizes stretching every dollar. It means bypassing the fashion mall for the discount chain store, buying second-hand clothes and furniture or trading down to store brands.

No surprises. This makes perfect sense. And in fact, it's probably better for people as a whole, in addition to the planet. Rampant consumerism is not just wasteful, it's actually immoral, and it's really about fucking time we stopped basing our economy around the consumption of stuff.

Not long ago, yoga teacher Gisele Sanders shopped at the Nordstrom's in Portland, Ore., and didn't think twice about dropping US$30 for a bottle of Chianti to go with dinner. That was before her husband, a real estate agent, began to feel the brunt of slowing home sales.

Now Sanders, 53, picks up grocery-store wine at $10 or less per bottle, shops for used clothes and plans to take her mother's advice about turning down the thermostat during winter.

"It's been a long time coming," she said. "We were so off the charts before."

The whole yoga teacher thing is fascinating. Yoga, as you know, is ancient Hindu meditation, coupled with physical exercise. The idea, as far as I understand it, is to centre your mind i nyour body, and achieve inner harmony. Contrast this with the idea of consumer culture, where you ignore your mind and simply work toward gratification. Obviously this woman missed a class somewhere. But what's more astonishing to me is that she recognizes the shallow and wasteful aspects of her previous existence, and didn't shoose to do anything about it until the bottom fell out of the yoga market.

The causes of this recession are myriad and complicated, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that part of the problem is that we have reached the carrying capacity of the planet. The economy must grow, you see, in order to be healthy. The problem is that there's no way for traditional econmic thinking to recognize the limits of expansion. Quite simply, if we continue to use the traditional paradigm, we're quite fucked. The next paragraph is an excellent example:

That kind of scrimping may be good for stressed family budgets, but it's bad for the overall economy in the United States -- and that has the potential to reinforce the miserly mood. Yet with home prices, retirement accounts and job stability suffering, such frugality is likely to be more than a fad.

Get that? Reasonable and rational behaviour is bad for the economy. The problem is that as people have less, they spend less. That means the economy shrink even further, and more people have even less. It's a positive feedback loop, though there's nothing positive about it.

Looking at it another way is even more depressing, but here it is. A man who's third marriage is failing, who drinks too much and takes way too much medication, who drinks and drives, who smokes, and who indulges every whim of his mistress and his children is just awesome for the economy:

• His divorce requires lawyers.
• His alcoholism provides funds for distillers and brewers, servers and retail outlets.
• When he drinks and drives, he gets into accidents, which helps out body shops and mechanics, and provides work for medical personnel.
• If he really smashes up his car, he gets a new one, which is good for auto manufacturers and retailers.
• His insurance premuiums go up, which is great for the insurance company.
• The accidents emply more lawyers.
• His high blood pressure and depression provide income for pharmacists and drug companies.
• The video games he buys for his son keep programmers and retailers humming.
• And the imported food is great for oil companies, trasportation firms and more retailers.

Someone who shops at a thirft store, bikes to work, has a stable, happy family life, and shops locally for his food is a real drag on the economy.

See? It's fucked. We're all right fucked. Doing the right thing is bad for everyone. That's why, after 9/11, Americans were told to go out and shop. They were also fed a bunch of horseshit about duct tape, plastic film and bottled water. Terrorism is bad for the economy. When morale gets low, so does the GNP. Fear, however, is good for the economy. People drink more and take more drugs. They watch more movies. They consume more news. They indulge a little. Fear moves dollars.

In some ways, I'm hoping for a complete economic collapse. The current model is unjust: it collects wealth, despite what neocons would have you believe. It's unsustainable: it requires the consumption of non-renewable resources. It's idiotic: saving costs more in the long run. And it's immoral: it causes wars for resources, sweat shop labour, and other human rights abuses.

I'd definitely flunk out.

The nipple heard 'round the world

Everybody knows about Janet Jackson's nipple. It was huge. Not the nipple, but the incident. I knew as soon as I saw it I knew that the nipple would be the most important part of the game. In fact, I have a hard time remembering who was even playing. But I remember that breast.

In case you don't, here's the clip. I'll embed it, because I want Janet Jackson's breast on my blog. The money shot comes at 1:19, so if you don't want to listen to Justin, you can just get to the point.



I bring this up because I noticed something tonight. I was watching a retro dance video show, and I saw a pretty cool video that I had all but forgotten, and I remembered that the Superbowl was actually the second time Janet's right nipple had caused a stir. Here's the offending video, which, seen from the distance of a decade, is still pretty cool and I dig the choreography.



The song is "Together Again". At about 3:20, the video shows Janet singing in front of a tree while another woman embraces her. That woman's hand is on Janet's right breast. Then there's a cut away, and at 3:35, the video cuts back to the two women, and Janet's breast is exposed. When I first saw it, I saw the nipple, and noted it for two reasons. One, the other woman's hand had moved, and two, Janet's hot.

The version you see now is airbrushed, as it was shortly after the initial airing. The FCC seems to be very very preoccupied with Janet's nipple.

Consequently, so am I.

A house divided...

In a strange way, I'm finding the aftermath of the US election almost as interesting as the election itself. Moreso, in some ways, because I can't predict how this is going to turn out.

Alongside the euphoria and delirium that comes with electing a black man to the nation's highest office, comes the hate, fear and ugliness that has spread across the nation, and can be summed up quite simply:

In North Carolina, four students at the state university admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." (via Alternet)

But the cavalcade of nasty doesn't stop there, kittens. Alongside the groundbreaking dismissal of racism was the ringing endorsement of homophobia. It was a sight to see, and the backlash has managed to more deeply entrench the culture wars.

There's a lot out there, but I think I'll show some balls and call out Chuck Norris. His article at Town Hall lists a long series of stupid, short-sighted, foolish, wrong and unacceptable attacks on people of faith who supported Prop. 8. Many have been independently corroborated, and so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Gay rights supporters are being shitheads. Your shitheadedness is not helping, and it's also wrong. Get your shit together and fight this fight with words, kindness and ideas.

Having said that, Chuckie goes off the rails:

There were many of us who passionately opposed Obama, but you don't see us protesting in the streets or crying "unfair." Rather, we are submitting to a democratic process and now asking how we can support "our" president. Just because we don't like the election outcome doesn't give us the right to bully those who oppose us. In other words, if democracy doesn't tip our direction, we don't swing to anarchy. That would be like the Wild West, the resurrection of which seems to be happening in these postelection protests.

Bullshit, dude. See the previous link, you hypocritical asshole.

I agree with Prison Fellowship's founder, Chuck Colson, who wrote: "This is an outrage. What hypocrisy from those who spend all of their time preaching tolerance to the rest of us! How dare they threaten and attack political opponents? We live in a democratic country, not a banana republic ruled by thugs."

Regardless of one's opinion of Proposition 8, it is flat-out wrong and un-American to intimidate and harass individuals, churches and businesses that are guilty of nothing more than participating in the democratic process. Political protests are one thing, but when old-fashioned bullying techniques are used that restrict voting liberties and even prompt fear of safety, activists have crossed a line. There is a difference between respectfully advocating one's civil rights and demanding public endorsement of what many still consider to be unnatural sexual behavior through cruel coercion and repression tactics.

Funny thing, here, and I didn't even notice it on the first readthrough. Chuck recognizes that the activists seek civil rights, and he still doesn't think they should have them. I think he needs a better toupee. This one is cutting off the oxygen to his brain

How fucked up and hateful do you have to be to recognize that these people have the right to marry, and you get to deny it because buttsex is icky? There's also the delightful inability to see the inconsistency that while being mean to Christians is wrong, being mean to fags is Kool & The Gang. I also like that Christians are crying foul at the use of boycotts to draw attention to those who supported this ugly piece of business. "It's just not fair! People could lose their jobs!" To which I say, suck it up, Princess, pun absofuckinlutely intended.

I posted this on facebook, and a friend of mine lit into me. He's from Canada, I remind you.

GIVE ME A BREAK. They have human rights!!! Marriage is a religious union which most (Not all) of these protesters reject. They have a right to civil unions and all the rights of any other couples in that state, adoption, sharing of medical benefits. Their are hate laws in place to punish those who harm or hurt someone due to their sexual orientation. Just because someone does not agree with Homosexuality does not mean that they hate them and you calling anyone who disagrees with Homosexuality a Homophobe is no different or less bigoted than someone who disagrees with Homosexuality calling a gay person a fag! There are extremists in both camps but everyone should have the right to their opinion without being called names! Their struggle for what they believe to be their rights?!?! is no where near the struggle of Black Americans and likening the two is ludicrous and shallow. Gay activist should apologize to the Black community for diminishing their struggle.

This is how I responded. I don't know if he's read it, and I had to spread it over three posts, because I got all wordy:

Chris, there is are two fundamental issues I have with your argument, and they can be dealt with pretty quickly.

First, marriage is NOT necessarily a religious union. Though I did get married in a church, it wasn't legal until the Province said it was. That piece of paper, not some words said by some guy who has never been married and is not allowed to marry, said in the name of some guy who supposedly never married, is what makes me married. The state decides who gets married, not the church, the synagogue, mosque, temple or whatever.

Secondly, there are VERY clear parallels between gay marriage bans and interracial marriage bans. There is a direct link between racism and homophobia. Quite simply, blacks don't choose to be black, and gays don't choose to be gay. Do you remember when you decided to be straight? Honestly, who would choose to be a second class citizen, denied the right to live in security with the person you love, to be threatened, hated, feared, insulted and attacked? What is particularly bad is that in California, gays had a right STRIPPED from them. They were able to marry, and then they weren't. And I think any marriages performed in California were annulled.

Homophobia, like racism, need not be overt to exist. Simply saying that they're different, not like us, and do not have the same rights as us is discriminatory. You can call what they do a sin all you want. You can say that god thinks they're an abomination. That's your right. I have the right to say that you're hiding your prejudice behind your god. Free speech swings both ways. And my calling those who would withhold the rights of others bigots is not the same as someone calling someone a fag. You can change your opinions, but not your sexual orientation. I insult your ideas, not you.

And they do have human rights. Rights which have been stripped in California, and are not recognized in most of the rest of the Union. Rights that have been withheld for religious reasons.

Religion was used to justify slavery. It was used to justify religious wars. It was used to deny women the right to vote. It was used to justify miscegenation laws. And it is used to justify the denial of the right to marry the person you love.

Quite simply, my brother would be a second class citizen in the US, because of something he can't change. It is not exactly like the Jim Crow laws, but only because homosexuals weren't forcibly relocated to be farm animals. Civil unions are "separate but equal".

Sorry, dude. It is bigotry. I'm glad we don't have it here in Canada.

Congratulations on your black president, US. Good luck with the rest of your prejudices.