We Are Less Important Than Oxi Clean

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, generally considered to be the beginning of the modern gay rights movement in the U.S.

None of the three major networks reported on this major event. (And it's not like it would have been hard with Pride parades going on in many major cities.)

Billy Mays also died this weekend. You know, the Oxi Clean guy who shouts at you. His death was mentioned on all three major networks yesterday.

Thanks, mainstream media, for once again proving why you suck so hard and why I get all my news from blogs.

Can Zealously Protecting Copyrights Be Bad For Business?

Lately I've been noticing that a lot of YouTube clips that friends or bloggers post on their webpages have been showing up "Embedding disabled by request," when you click on them. Some people will then proceed to YouTube to watch the clip on their page. Many, like me, will shrug and move on.

This phenomenon is second only to the more annoying problem we've all encountered at some point: videos yanked from YouTube entirely due to copyright infringement. Now, I know some intellectual property law, so, yes, I "get it." The owner wants royalties, advertisers can lose revenue, yadda yadda... But, in the case of fresh talent, keeping the fans from the goods can be a serious hindrance.

We are an impatient generation. If we click on a link once and the video is gone, not a lot of people are going to expend much more effort looking for that video. Think about that: that's one more potential fan lost, one more potential record unsold, one more potential concert attendee shunned. YouTube is saturated, after all. Seconds later that lost potential fan will be searching for snuggly Italian Greyhounds.

Exposure is important for all artists but especially emerging ones. Methinks sometimes the record companies are too busy thinking about royalties when they should be focusing on casting a wider net by actually allowing their artists to be promoted.

You Can Cheat on Your Wife if I Can Have a Husband

It seems like a fair trade, right?

This week, Gov. Sanford of South Carolina (R) admitted to an affair with an Argentinean woman. Last week, U.S. Sen. Ensign of Nevada (R) admitted he had cheated on his wife. Last year, U.S. Sen. Vitter of Louisiana (R) was linked to a prostitution ring. Also last year, U.S. Sen. Larry "Foot Tappin" Craig of Idaho (R) was caught soliciting sex from a man in the Twin Cities airport bathroom. And of course around that time, megachurch pastor Ted Haggard decided to one-up everyone by admitting to an affair with a male prostitute while doing crystal meth. (Merry Crystal Meth-mas!, as one of the best YouTube clips ever says.)

And let's not forget Newt Gingrich going through several wives and leaving his last one while she was dying of cancer. Or Rush Limbaugh's three wives and drug addiction. Yawn... repetition is boring. I'll get to my point.

Some people were quick to point out that democrats cheat too. "Look at Sen. John Edwards, Pres. Bill Clinton, Gov. Elliot Spitzer, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick..." a friend said to me. True, true, true, and true. But the difference between the two groups is simple: the democratic slimeballs didn't build their careers by preaching to others how to live their lives. The democratic slimeballs didn't vow to destroy any legal recognition of gay couples because committed gay couples are an affront to the "sanctity of marriage." We have a simple, English word for people who do precisely that which they condemn in others: hypocrites. In a pinch, "asshat" works too.

There's a reason that when Pres. Clinton admitted to an affair his popularity actually went up in the polls: because democrats largely didn't care. Live and let live. Frankly, I don't care how many hummers the President is getting in the Oval Office... as long as he's effectively running the country.

But while Clinton's popularity went up after the Lewinsky scandal, Craig and Ensign's poll numbers have dropped and soon Sanford's poll numbers will have dropped as well. Why? Well, because people give a damn when you're a hypocritical son of a bitch. And because some of those Republican voters who put them into office actually, like, expected them to be as pure as the driven snow.

Last night Rachel Maddow put it more eloquently than I possibly could: "Moral superiority isn't a prerequisite for public office. But it is a prerequisite for those public servants who claim that they are morally superior." Amen, brother.

Maybe the bigger point is that political men and religious bigots--like all men--are just manwhores at heart. They're kids in a candy store. Except the candy is pussy and there's generally no charge (unless your Sen. Vitter and then you have to pay the hooker... or you're Sen. Craig and you're not down with the va-jay-jay). Accordingly, they should stop telling us whom we are allowed to love, whom we are allowed to have sex with, and whom we are allowed to marry if they themselves cannot even decide between their wives, their altar boys, their airport bathroom hook-up, their female hooker, their crystal meth-addicted male hooker, or their Argentinean mistress.

Make the Dumb People Go Away

There's a reason teenagers and 20-somethings are snotty, cunty, little worthless sacks of human excrement these days. Well, there's a lot of reasons, but I'm going to focus on one: horrible examples on TV.

I don't watch The Hills. Thus, I didn't know who Heidi and Spencer were until recently. They're doing a media blitz right now after appearing on some retarded show called I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here and have turned up on The Today Show and The View (watch the clips, if you dare).

These two are painfully stupid, ridiculously self-obsessed, unabashed mediawhores. And yet... people watch their shows? Why?! Does their incredibly rude, self-centered behavior resonate with kids? And if so, maybe this should be a time when we realize that art is reflecting poorly on life and maybe responsible people should change the art.

I'm not suggesting we all turn on our transistor radios and listen to some nice Beethoven. But can we at least, as a society, stop paying attention to pathetic, evil creatures like this so that they'll go away (and, as a consequence, stop polluting the minds of kids who think they're hella-cool)? When did fame become an end rather than a means to a meaningful career in film, art, or music?

But, Daddy, I Want An Oompa Loompa NOW!

Oh, sweet justice.

Miss Fake-Titties California, Carrie Prejean, is being fired by The Donald. It seems she wasn't showing up for appearances that she was contractually bound to attend under her Miss California contract. Donald Trump reportedly said, "To me she was the sweetest thing. Everyone else -- she treated like s**t." What? A sweet little Christian girl treating people like excrement? Say it ain't so!

Carrie cannot spell, think, or even understand why she's wrong when she says it's great that we live in America where people can choose regular marriage or "opposite marriage," because guess what, sugartits? People in 44 states cannot choose. She pricelessly had this to say in recent e-mail messages to pageant officials, you know, her bosses:

"You do not cooperate with me, and you pick and chose [sic] the the [sic] things YOU want me to do. That is not happening anymore. Stop speaking for me. I have MY own voice." And, "Also I was asked to fill in for a dj on a local radio show.. I'll be reading from a show biz script Monday. I am doing this."

Oh, dear sweet peroxide bimbo. It's called a contract. You signed it. They don't need your cooperation. They get to "pick and chose [sic]." They say, "Jump!" You ask, "How high?" Sit. Shake. Stay. Good dog!

I'm thrilled that the Christian Right has this wonderful example of a follower of Jesus to speak out against gay marriage. Our blonde prophet has fake tits (the Bible says: the body is a temple), cruel personality (the Bible says: do unto others as you'd have done unto you), and a wretched sense of entitlement (the Bible says: pride goeth before the fall) that would make Baby Jesus weep. Sounds like the perfect poster child for their asinine movement.

You Don't Know Your Bible!

"You don't know your Bible!" That's what my great-uncle hurled at my sister this week. I think some accusations about not being "Christian enough," oh, and "tearing the family apart" were sprinkled in.

You see, my family is a bit like something you'd see on Maury Povich--except that we throw Bibles at each other instead of chairs. Actually, come to think of it, it's a little more like that nutjob on Wife Swap.

What prompted this recent breakdown in "do unto others," you ask? Well, you see, my sister is getting married this month. And like most brides, she wants to invite people to her wedding that aren't, you know, as*holes. My one cousin's wife is, to put it mildly, a liar and a sh*t starter. She's been cruel to my sister, she's been cruel to my mom, she's been cruel to me, and she's spread lies about my dad. In a family of relatively nice people, she stands out like a black lesbian at a Republican convention. So, naturally, my sister didn't invite her to the wedding.

But that's not how an uber-Christian, puritan, sweep-it-all-under-the-rug-and-smile-for-the-camera kind of family rolls, you know. And so it begins.

Last Sunday, the cousin's wife accosted my mom in the church parking lot, which is kind of funny to begin with since there are about 10 people remaining in the "church" and they're all my family members. (Some might say this fits the definition of a "cult," but I digress.) She asked my mother why she wasn't invited to the wedding. So my mom told her. In detail. And one of the reasons cited was that she had insulted her son (that would be me) by calling him "Aunt Paul" behind his back. Now, personally, I could care less. You don't get out of Small Town America without developing a thick skin. But from the perspective of a mother who has fought long and hard for an understanding of her gay son and his place in the mess that is fundamental Christianity, it's just a shi*ty thing to say.

Then my cousin came up to defend his wife. He claimed she never said it. (She did. There were witnesses.) And then, he said the words. The. Words. "Well, you know, it's pretty clear what the Bible says about homosexuality." Whoa there, biblical scholar. Is it now? You just went from respected medical doctor to a homemade sign-wielding lunatic at a "Yes on Prop 8" rally. It's clear? Clear as mud, perhaps. That, of course, set off my mother. Because, let's face it, what kind of jerk off says that to the deeply religious mother of a gay son?

And then the phone calls began. Like a great wave of faux Christian concern rolling across the plains, the family started calling me. I'm not sure what fake pleasantries they wanted to extend because I haven't been picking up the phone. More importantly, they began calling each other. My sister isn't "Christian enough," "doesn't know her Bible," and is "tearing the family apart." (Funny, I always thought it was the jerks in a family who tore it apart, not the polite bride who just wanted nice people at her wedding. Oh, but we couldn't point out the evil lurking among us. That wouldn't be--wouldn't be--wouldn't be--well, it just wouldn't be Christian, for Pete's sake!)

So I started writing. You see, nobody talks to my mama like that. And since I've never discussed the gay issue with the family, I figured there was no time like the present. I'm now up to about page 20 in my manifesto. Single-spaced. With footnotes. I cover the psychological approaches toward homosexuality, some of the scientific research (genetic/twin research/birth order research/hormonal), I do my best to dissect their religious problems with homosexuality with a ton of help from Dr. Daniel Helminiak's What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, and then I write about some of the effects of treating gay people like Satan spawn: higher suicide rates, lack of the most basic civil rights, children torn from loving families because they're not legal "families"... and then add one of my favorite quotations, "Let us be a little humble; let us think that the truth may not perhaps be entirely with us," from Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.

Out of respect for my sister, I promised not to send the letter until after the wedding. It's probably better that way. I mean, I wouldn't want them to actually have to think and pretend to be nice at the same time.

In the end, I doubt much will change. They'll continue to be distant, disapproving, crocodile-smiling relatives. Objectively, I realize this is better than burning me alive, as would happen in some cultures. But sometimes I crave sheer honesty: if you're going to hate someone, at least do it up all proper-like with rage and fire and public hangings. I suspect they'll want to talk about the letter, but I won't. That's one reason I'm trying to make it so comprehensive. I spent 18 years begin terrified of their God. I won't entertain another minute of their lunacy. They can have 20-some pages of well-crafted arguments, facts, and scholarly research. If they reject it, well, there's always the literal interpretation of the Good Book to fall back upon... right after they tend to their weekly witch burning.

Dr. Tiller the Babykiller

This weekend, Dr. Tiller, a man who performs abortions, including late-term abortions, was murdered while attending church.

The alleged shooter, who is now in custody, had this to say: "To call this a crime [in other words, killing the guy] is too simplistic. There is Christian scripture that would support this." In other words: it's OK to kill him because God said to.

Operation Rescue had this to say: "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that. He was an evil man -- his hands were covered with blood." In their minds, abortion is always wrong; therefore, this man deserved to die.

I don't know the answer to the question of when life begins. And it frightens me that people who probably aren't too terribly bright think it's OK to take the law into their own hands because they do unequivocally know. So maybe it's time to pose a few theories.

Some people think that life begins at conception: when sperm meets egg. Seems awfully early to call that a baby--especially since it couldn't possibly exist outside the womb, but it's not an invalid conclusion on its face.

Before modern technology, Catholics and old legal scholars used to think a fetus became a child when quickening occurred. Quickening is when the mother first feels the baby stir. With the advent of ultrasound and such, Catholics apparently moved up their idea of when life begins.

My mom takes a unique biblical take on the topic. She points to Genesis where God breathes "the breath of life into Adam." Under her take, abortion isn't murder because the baby hasn't exited the birth canal and breathed yet. Pretty interesting logic, if you ask me!

Then there is the Ramsey Theory. The Ramsey Theory of Death holds that you are not dead until your heart stop functioning, your lungs stop functioning, and your brain stops functioning. Thus, if the absence of these three characteristics signifies death, the presence of one of them could mean life. When does the embryo's heart start to beat? As early as two weeks. Under this theory, birth control and "the morning after pill" are always morally OK. But terminating the pregnancy after two weeks could be murdering a child.

Finally, there's what the U.S. courts currently say. The basic holding of Roe v. Wade is that a mother has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in terminating a pregnancy up until the point of viability. 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973). Viability is defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Id. at 160. Roe was decided in 1973. Since then, the point of viability will now come more quickly due to better technology. Why chose viability at the cut off point? Well, according to the Court, at that point the mother's right to choose becomes outweighed by the fetus's potential right to life. Id. at 164-65. Some legal thinkers have extrapolated the "point of viability" argument to conclude that arguments for abortion could also frighteningly be used for infanticide. After all, a baby isn't really viable until s/he is several years old. Before then, the baby depends on the care of an adult or s/he will die.

Needless to say, when life begins is not clear.

Even if you settle on a definition, once you get beyond the legal and moral questions, you may want to look at the social questions. Many women who seek abortions are young. They cannot afford a child. They cannot properly raise a child and give him or her even the most basic things a child needs and deserves.

It may seem crass to weigh what very well may be a potential human life in such economic terms, but... is it completely wrong to think that maybe some lives aren't worth living? Maybe terminating the pregnancy is better for all involved: impoverished mother and almost-certainly-doomed-to-failure child? Indeed, famed economist Steven Levitt argues in Freakonomics quite persuasively that the drop in crime in the 90s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. The very children who would have grown up impoverished, without fathers, without proper guidance, who likely would have turned to drugs and violence were the ones who were often aborted instead.

It's dangerous to start weighing potential human lives in terms of social results. After all, it's not much different than the man who murdered Dr. Tiller: to him, the ends justified the means. But it's instructive, at least, to see how legal and moral policy can produce profound social results.

Finally there is the whole issue of "don't tell me what to do with my body." The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court shows a march toward greater freedom to do what one wants with one's body. First, the Court struck down a law which had prohibited married people from using contraceptives. Then, unmarried people. Over time, these decisions would be used to invalidate laws that prohibited consenting gay adults from having sex in the privacy of their own home under penalty of imprisonment (in 2003, no less)! At some point, do you not have to balance not only a woman's right to choose with the fetus's potential right to life but also a woman's right to do what she wants with her body without government interference with the government's vague right to protect the life of a fetus that may--or may not--be a person?

The point is simply this: No one can definitively say when life begins. Definitions have shifted over the centuries and even today we have answers that range from the precise moment of conception to the precise moment the baby takes his or her first breath of oxygen after birth.

Because we do not--and cannot--know, we should be respectful of others' opinions. Oh, and we shouldn't kill abortion doctors.