The Pink Elephant: A Tale of Two Closets

I just had an idea for a book title

2009-06-08T10:56:00.001-05:00

The Mendacity of Hope--an anti-Obama book.

Now to write the book....

Prop 8 Ruling

2009-05-26T13:52:00.007-05:00

This is a longish post taken in large chunks from a conversation with a friend who is understandably quite upset about the news from California.

My friend takes cold comfort in the fact that existing marriages stand. To paraphrase him, why should those 18k couples have valid marriages and the rest of the GLBT community not. He has a point: it is offensive to most sensibilities of justice that some GLBT couples get "marriage' whereas the rest must settle for "separate but equal."

I say the blow to equality was dealt in November, and today's opinion merely reminded us of that problem, but didn't itself strike an additional one unless you put all your hopes onto a slim, almost impossible chance of reversal.

I have not read the full 186 page opinion, so I may still be mistaken, but it seemed that the controversies at issue were about amendment versus revision of the California State Constitution and not directly Equal Protection Jurisprudence, such a ground seemed shaky one at best, but the only one that could really assert that the "constitution is itself unconstitutional."

As for Equal Protection, although California recognizes the GLBT community as a suspect class deserving strict scrutiny (this designation allows courts more easily to overturn discriminatory laws and is why the court was able to overturn the legislative ban on same-sex marriage in the first place), currently the Federal courts do not. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas came out our way despite this (thankfully), but in the case of marriage I fear that the opponents have arguments that can reach the very low bar of "rational basis" (which doesn't even require factually correct basis).

The fact is that Equal Protection Jurisprudence does a good job of mocking itself, and the California Supreme Court, as far as I can tell, didn't have much choice except to uphold the odious amendment. If we want to continue through the courts, the real challenge is to convince the federal courts that the GLBT community deserves "suspect class" designation. By my count, we seem to fit all the criteria: a discrete and insular minority who possess an immutable trait, share a history of discrimination and cannot adequately protect themselves via the political process.*

But, my friend reminds me, good reasoning or bad, the outcome is morally wrong.

And my firend is absolutely correct, but sadly the strength of the reasoning matters a great deal. A good result on flimsy grounds is in many ways worse than a bad result on solid ground.

A poorly reasoned result intensifies the resolve of opponents and creates the kind of legal and political minefield we have seen with regards to abortion jurisprudence. A good result on bad reasoning becomes a talisman for both sides, who perceived it as being forever vulnerable to the whimsy of the court. Therefore both sides devote resources to either upholding it or defeating it, making it difficult for the matter to be settled socially or addressed through sustainably long term means. Also, it may have the consequence of lowering the bar for both sides, meaning it becomes easier for our opponents to win their battles.

On the other hand, a bad result on good reasoning (like this) allows the losing side to accept the defeat and work to either change the circumstances of future battles (remember California still has unbelievably lax constitutional amendment procedures) or find battles within the current circumstances that are more winnable. Once we change the circumstances or the battles, battles won are much more robust than if they rested on flimsy opinions.

In a generation, Prop 8 and amendments like it will be remembered as disappointing and embarrassing hiccups on the road to true equality, if they are remembered at all.

*Update: Someone is moving forward on making the Equal Protection arguments in Federal Court (as well as Due Process arguments). Read the complaint here (PDF). Also note that the attorneys filing are the attorneys who argued each side of Bush v. Gore, and according to Ted Olson (the Republican) "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized." And that the two attorneys from each side side of the political spectrum "wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans."

No kidding, Andrew

2009-05-14T11:04:00.004-05:00

Andrew Sullivan is starting have a little buyer's remorse.

But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike
most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

What did you expect?

Update

2009-04-08T16:03:00.005-05:00

Like many young transactional lawyers, I have found myself back on a very soft legal job market. But frankly this minor challenge is the only thing bad in my life right now, so over all, I am in a good place.

For those concerned about this, take heart: I was prudent enough to save considerably, and I have enough to keep my loans current (my only real obligation) for six months, and perhaps the rest of the year if I find some employment. For places to live I have several options (including the BF), and by a stroke of luck I am employed through the term of my current lease. As far as new jobs go, firms are pretty much not hiring at all, so I am looking elsewhere. I have a few leads, including doing tax work-outs or taking over the small estate planning practice of a lawyer who has grown disillusioned and is going back to school for economics. So we'll see how they pan out. I could even go the non-profit route. I have applied to the Army and Air Force JAG, but I am leaning against going full active duty, largely because in just a a year I have become rather integrated here, and I don't want to chuck that. Reserves may still be an option for extra cash flow if I go out on my own.

In the full half of the glass:

I am still with the same boy, and continue to love him very much. We basically live together in two apartments. He's still a damn, dirty Democrat, but our relationship isn't contingent on our politics. Besides, I can put up with his support of Obama so long as my boyfriend continues to let me wear his designer ties!

I have become heavily involved in my local and county Republican parties as a result of my connections through the Log Cabin Republicans. I am my State House District Secretary for the county party and my State Senate District Chairman for the state party. My county party is an urban county party and has made a concerted effort to reach out to gay Republicans. In addition to soliciting the LCR for folks to take leadership positions (which is how I got two of them), the county party is a paid member of the local gay and lesbian chamber of commerce. Last night the county chairman said, "I may be a stauch social conservative [he is], but ours is a party of the Big Tent, and those wedge issues aren't going to unify or help us here." The local young republicans meet at a restaraunt in the gay district--not necessarliy as a means of outreach, but to show that we young, urban Republicans are more interested in liberty than what some people do in the bedroom. I'd like to say this is my influence, but it isn't, and perhaps that's an even more encouraging sign.

The connections I have been making in the party may well pay off. For instance, I have some inside information on who will be running for what in 2010, including early smart money bets. I have contacted one campaign before it announced to offer my support, and the reaction I got suggests that it could turn into a job once it gets started. I'm brushing up on non-profit taxation, campaign finance, and electioneering law just in case. (P.S. this candidate has a moderate record on gay issues for a Republican. For instance, he opposed the FMA).

I'm out to more people, though none of the important ones. Mostly college friends. One was surprised, the other was just waiting for me to admit it.

More good news

2009-04-08T15:01:00.003-05:00

Yesterday, Vermont did the right and honorable thing and LEGISLATIVELY legalized same-sex marriage by overcoming (just barely, but by still enough to matter) the Governor's veto. This is exciting news. It eviscerates the opponent's misdirection argument against "activist judges." That means if Federalist types who opposed court imposed gay marriage still oppose Vermont's gay marriage, they reveal their real animus is with the policy not the process. Of course, for some that will be no problem. For others, the only opposition to gay marriage was if the court imposed the policy and they welcome the Vermont outcome. And then there are those who much preferred to make the Federalist argument without touching the merits of gay marriage. I don't have a link for that third type because I can't be quite sure who they are just yet (I will note that the bloggers on NRO Corner had a lot more to say about Iowa on Friday than Vermont yesterday, although some of the usual suspects did chime in on both). Nonetheless a little sunlight won't hurt here.

As far as I am concerned this is an even more important victory for marriage equality than Iowa was.

Iowa

2009-04-03T14:23:00.004-05:00

First the good news:

As most gay people in the U.S. are already aware, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously declared Iowa's defense of marriage statute to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

Further a Proposition 8 type backlash in Iowa is unlikely because Iowa has properly stringent procedural requirements to amend the state constitution. There are only two procedures, the first is that the amendment must pass both houses in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then be approved by a majority of voters in a general election. Unless the democratic Iowa legislature passes a Prop 8 type amendment in the current session, the earliest such an amendment would appear before voters would be 2012. The second is via constitutional convention. In 2010, the voters of Iowa can vote to have constitutional convention, and if they so vote, in the following session (beginning in 2011) the legislature determine when to have such a convention.

Either way, there is good amount of time for the citizens to realize that allowing gay marriage does not lead to rampant bestiality, polygamy, child abuse, and whatever else the gay marriage opponents pretend to worry about.

Now the bad news:
It is still likely to galvanize efforts in other states, perhaps making marriage equality across the nation more difficult to achieve. Outrage will be directed towards "activist courts," and states without marriage amendments are likely to see a push for such. States with marriage amendments that allow for the possibility of civil union may see a push to explicitly prohibit civil unions, perhaps even to the Virginia extreme.

This is a battle won, and an encouraging one at that, but the war continues.

W. did something good for gays

2009-01-08T11:29:00.002-05:00

Bush signed a new law requiring employers to roll over retirement benefits to same-sex partners upon the death of the employee partner.

It would be nice to see more coverage.

[courtesy GayPatriot]

It wasn't just the Mormons

2008-12-30T16:31:00.003-05:00

Read this post about problems with the No on Prop 8 campaign along with recommendations for the future. Rather than just throwing tantrums at Mormon Churches or Mormon-affiliated businesses, maybe we should look at how the opposition won and see what strategies we should adopt for the next fight.

Blagojaviaksuwdfgikicz and Obama

2008-12-10T18:54:00.002-05:00

So far I think the corruption of the Illinois Governor is his own, and attempts to spread it to Obama before any facts are in look petty and are likely to be ineffective. Let O make his own mistakes and criticize him for them.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is just as unattractive as Bush Derangement Syndrome or Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which I like to think I am recovering from.

A Democrat I agree with

2008-12-10T18:17:00.003-05:00

Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado (and the first member of the House elected as a freshman after running as an openly gay man) has some refreshing words about the auto bailout in today's Wall Street Journal:

If we as a society place a public premium on "saving" the automobile industry from its default reorganization under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- which has been good enough for the steel and airline industries, among others -- then a better manner in which to express that premium might be to establish special tax consideration for those who are willing to take on the risk. One way of doing that is to provide an exemption from capital-gains taxation on all debt or equity instruments used in the next six months to invest in the troubled auto makers.

By waiving the future capital-gains tax on all investments in the automobile industry, we enhance the projected return models and therefore the likely occurrence of a privately funded "bailout." There are turnaround firms and funds, and they are experts at what needs to be done. Tax exemption for gains would certainly get their attention. It also wouldn't cost taxpayers anything because it only forgoes future government revenues that wouldn't exist absent this incentive.

And a line that I love:

At the very least, my constituents in Colorado won't find themselves as limited partners in a private equity fund run by Congress making speculative investments
in flagging automobile manufacturers and who knows what else with their taxpayer money.

Too bad Jared doesn't start until next year, and likely will be too late to vote on this bailout mess.

Staus Quo We Can Believe In

2008-11-26T10:53:00.003-05:00

Obama is retaining Bush's current secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

On the one hand I think it's a good decision, on the other its fun to rub in the faces of everyone who voted for Obama's new direction on the war.

Obama's Economic Team

2008-11-25T11:43:00.003-05:00

So far, I am not terribly unhappy. Perhaps we were all wrong about this man. Maybe I can live with him so long as he continues this course of not bringing us the radical changes he promised.

While I strongly disapprove of the Keynsian-redux we are seeing as response to an exaggerated economic crisis, the impulse to use fiscal policy to affect the overall economy (a strategy fruitless at best and disastrous at worst) is not limited to those politicians with a D after thier names. In these times of "Change we can believe in (but not really)" I welcome centrist economic advisers because I feared something more radical. This crew could have just as likely served in the administration of a moderate Republican--like McCain. Geithner provides continuity with Paulson (the advantage here is, of course, negligible except that markets like continuity); Summers is an ardent free-trade advocate and consistent free marketeer; and Romer has written extensively about the negative effect of tax increases on investment. At least Paul Krugman isn't in the picture--yet.

Perhaps, like the Dems for the past eitght years I can hope only to grasp at straws, but unlike the Dems for the past eight years I am actually looking for straws to grasp.

Silver Linings

2008-11-05T11:27:00.004-05:00

I can't say I am surprised that the election didn't go my way, but 2 hours in the bathroom sobbing is quite enough. It is now time for me to look for bright spots. Here are a few:

1) Regardless of his policies, it is refreshing that America can final elect a black man to be its president. Is racism out the window? No, but this is still a tremendous step forward.

2) DOMA and DADT will finally have a chance of being thrown to the dustbin of history. If so, I will rejoice that. If not, it will just prove that Democrats don't really care about gays; they just want to take our votes.

3) The Republicans got a beating they needed to whip them back to principles. They have spit on the principles of the party in the naked pursuit of power. It's time to find those principles again, AND someone who can communicate them. Being merely "Not Democrat" is not a promising strategy.

4) Hillary Clinton looks to be out of the White House game. In 2012 she would be running against an incumbent from her own party and in 2016 she'll be 69 years old. Sure she'll stay relevent, but it looks like she's lost her chance for the Oval Office.

5) When things go wrong (and they would no matter last night's results), the Democrats won't have a Republican to blame. They'll try of course, but it will sound as hollow as when Republicans try to blame Clinton for problems that arose after 2001.

6) We'll get to see just what the Democrats believe. Now that they have a Supermajority there will be no need to feign moderation anymore. If they truly are moderate, then wonderful. If they are as far left as I worry, I have confidence that the American public will not embrace them for long. This was a rejection of the kind of Republicans we have seen lately, not an acceptance of the kind of Democrats we are about to see.

7) In eight years (maybe even four) the Democrats will likely have squandered their power either from infighting or corruption much the way the GOP did. If so, it may benefit a young moderate (gay) Republican running for his first state office.

There. Oh, I just remembered that I need refill my Xanax prescription.

Personal Life Update

2008-10-15T10:47:00.004-05:00

I am having the most marvelous experience amidst these troubling waters simply because I have found someone to weather the times with.

Back in the closet, I thought I was doomed to a loveless but conventional heterosexual marriage, where I became a worka/alcoholic and my wife became ever more bitter and depressed (and perhaps addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol in her own right). Perhaps if I could marry someone I consider a very close friend, it would mitigate the problem, but after 10-20 years of limited physical intimacy and personal repression, who knows what kind of powder keg I'd be.

Then when I came out, admittedly harboring the stereotype that gay relationships are built almost entirely on sex and little else, I was not encouraged. I still wanted picket fences, two children, and a dog.

Then I had a pseudo-boyfriend in my last year school. I was still nervous about being gay and never really opened emotionally, something that has always been difficult for me. Plus the automatic expiration date on our relationship made wonder what the point was.

Then I graduated law school, moved to a new city, and started studying for the bar. I reconnected with someone from last summer. For a while, it was a relationship based on sex, but then it was obvious that he had fallen in love with me well before I had with him (I don't know why but people seem to love me easily, even though I can be cranky, obnoxious and smug. I must be very good in bed.) I was nervous about his feelings, until one night I had realized that inexplicably and without warning my heart opened up and I was in love with him.

If we want to over-analyze, perhaps since I knew that he was already in love with me, I didn't have to risk rejection by opening up emotionally--whatever the reason, I did, and I am so very happy I did.

This boy is always in my mind during the day when we are at work (he has a career, not just a job, of his own--luckily it is well outside of my field so no petty professional jealousies are at risk). He's significantly older than I am, but apparently I have a personal maturity that seems to bridge that gap.

He knows I am a Republican, and respects that; he is a Democrat and I respect that.

I don't mind saying that we are an attractive couple (I rate about an 8.5 and he a 9.5 on a scale of 10) who are poised to become a local gay power couple (he is at the top of his field, and I am starting in a rather lucrative and high profile one).

He practically lives with me. Nothing official, but we spend every night together, and we have to stay at my house because I am the one with the dog. Whenever I am in his arms I feel warmth and comfort throughout my body. Being in love was always such a mysterious abstract thought, now I feel my love for this boy all over. I easily envision our long future together.

Most traumatizing perhaps is, a short time ago, I realized that being with him was the most important thing in the world to me--beyond my goals of wealth building or dreams of public office. I finally, and to my amazement, found someone I care more about than I do myself.

This is a brave new world for The Pink Elephant, and no financial crisis or Obama Presidency is going to be enough to ruin it for me. For the first time ever, I think I would describe myself as truly and deeply happy.

Now don't ask if I have introduced him to anyone in my family....

Prop 8

2008-10-14T20:44:00.002-05:00

I'm not in California, but I'm still against it. Help support it's defeat and donate here. I did. So did my boyfriend.

Thanks Matt

so that's that

2008-08-19T18:25:00.002-05:00

The bar exam is over. I can now purge useless legal concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities and the elements to Common Law burglary from my memory forever.

Much has happened over the summer. For instance I now have a definite individual right to own a firearm. Clinton is not running for president anymore. All sorts of good stuff, but sadly I had to spend much of the summer among fellow bar students. The Obamania was almost oppressive. The common attitude seemed to be, with apologies to John Von Neumann, “You say you will campaign for Obama tomorrow, but I say why not today. You say you will begin campaigning today at five o’clock; I say why not one o’clock.”* Nonetheless, I tended to be fairly respectful and quickly found my single confederate. (On a personal note, I am now seeing someone rather seriously, but my parents still think that its a girl).

But rather than talk about particulars (which shall come), after such a long hiatus, I’d like to get back to foundational principles. Why on EARTH am I still a Republican?

I have a stock answer (i.e. my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my views on national security, tax policy, abortions or the environment; the party will only change with pressure from the inside). But that answers only why I am a gay Republican, not why I am a Republican in the first place.

I could go on about the same old stuff—tax & spend, national security, gun rights, abortion—but I won’t. We can talk about those things later. Rather, I am still a Republican because the Party needs me. I’ll go further, YOU need me to be a Republican. You need Mary Cheney to be a Republican. You need Bobby Jindal to be a Republican, and Hector Barreto, and anyone else who is even a little diverse.

Right now there are a few (well more than a few, actually) of us willing to take the bitter with the sweet. But by showing our fellow Republicans that diverse is not bad, and that we don’t have to agree on everything to still share the same broad values, we can slowly but effectively change the face of the party. I find Republicans (especially younger ones) more willing to accept me as gay once they know I still share most of their values (whereas few gays accepts me as Republican). That’s how we change people, by reaching out, not abandoning. I truly believe that in a decade, definitely within two decades, the GOP will embrace this diversity. When that does happen, be thankful that in hard times, some of us didn’t leave the party to the kooks, bigots, and ignorant.

So what about the meantime? Does that mean I give my votes and cash and time to support the totally unsavory to curry favor so I can have a chance to change tomorrow? Not exactly. It does mean I retain credibility within the party by emphasizing what I do agree with and picking my battles. Understand, I have no intention of voting for or otherwise supporting the likes of Sally Kern (which is easy since I don’t live in her district). Yet, if I replace Republicans like her with Democrats, I win on gay issues, but lose on many others just as important to me. No, I want to replace them with better Republicans. Since I don’t have a giant political machine at my disposal I have to support the best of the lot and try to make the next lot even better. So I am content, for now, with Republicans who get maybe a C-/D+ on gay issues instead of a D-/F. I support These are steps, albeit a very small one, in the right direction.

*John von Neumann, one of the 20^th Century’s greatest mathematicians, a principal member of the Manhattan Project, and part inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, was, however, talking about preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and not anything as frivolous as a political campaign.

One more week

2008-07-24T09:30:00.002-05:00

This is awful. One more week, then I can relax.

Just letting you know I am still alive

Hiatus

2008-05-23T13:46:00.002-05:00

Because this summer is dedicated to the exciting task of studying for and taking the bar exam, I will not be able to take myself away from the fun long enough post here. Since I don't post terribly regularly anyway, this likely won't be a significant difference.

See you in August.

Women

2008-05-16T08:23:00.003-05:00

It's strange, I think that I have come to terms with my homosexuality personally. I may not be ready to tell some people, but I have accepted that I like men. Nonetheless, every so often I catch myself thinking about being married to a woman. Part of me rather misses the idea of having the picture perfect suburban life.

I know I can still find a partner, move to an upper middle class suburb, adopt a couple kids and have an enjoyable and satisfying life. Perhaps it's an internalized prejudice, but secretly it feels like a consolation prize. Maybe that's why I am not gung ho about my current relationship (I'm going to break it off, though I may pin the blame on graduation and "going in different directions" blah blah blah).

Occasionally I'll see a woman I think would make a "good wife." She's lovely (but not model beautiful), Southern (not redneck) in dress and manners, with an upbeat personality and a wry, sometimes sarcastic sense of humor. Indeed, I had just the girl picked out in undergrad. She was all those things plus my best friend. Add a cock and she'd have been perfect.

I wonder if these hang-ups come from being closeted to my family. Perhaps when I'm out to them, I'll be more comfortable. Even so, life would be a lot easier if I were straight.

On a personal note

2008-05-06T06:46:00.011-05:00

I think I am going to take a break from slaughtering manatees, shooting homeless people, and other traditional Republican recreations and talk a little bit about my personal life.

I am only a short way from graduation, and at school I have gone from being deeply in the closet to being out at school. Indeed, straight people now ask me questions as though I some kind of ambassador from the gays (I know, I wouldn't have chosen me to be the gay ambassador either!). Somehow when people find out you are gay, you become everyone's shopping consultant--though honestly I am hard pressed to think of anything less consequential to my life than women's fashion. Nonetheless I do my best to help my friends. Don't worry, boys, I am not sharing any real secrets with breeders; that thing we do with rabbit fur and coke bottles will stay within the community.

I am still not out to anyone in my family. My mom has very obviously given me opportunities to come out, but I am not going to come out to her out of exasperation over the phone. Further, graduation doesn't seem like an appropriate time, basically because the whole family will be here and I see no reason to come out to my grandparents at all. So for the near future, that is probably not going to change.

I am still dating someone, although I feel like I am merely going through the motions (enjoyable as those motions may be). I'm not terribly emotionally invested. Whether it's because I am still uncomfortable with being gay and dating a boy, or I actually am just not that in to him, I leave to only God to know for sure.

Within a month I will be moving to a brand new city--an actual city!!!--to study for the bar and eventually begin my career. It's strange, I still feel too young for this. People's dads are lawyers, not people my age. Naturally I'm nervous, but I'm also excited.

I've been drinking less. I found that I was a bored drinker, and that just seems dangerous. I'm not going completely abstinent, but I am just being careful to be a more moderate consumer of alcohol.

So that's just a little of going on with me that doesn't involve words like "entitlement" or "energy policy" or people I don't know personally but still have strong opinions about.

Good news

2008-04-29T13:18:00.001-05:00

My sister is pregnant! I'm gonna be a "funny" uncle :)

Tax day

2008-04-14T21:17:00.004-05:00

As I'm sure you can guess, I hate tax day. If I expect a refund, I file right away; if I expect to have to pay, I procrastinate to the last possible day. It's my way of depriving the government of as much interest from my money as possible. Even so I hate writing that check.

This year, I had a federal refund, but state liability (a result of living and working in different states). After I finished my state forms, I found an article on CNN that described how tax day has particular ramifications for same-sex couples.

Some Highlights:

Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.
Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples. . . [Someone who gets health insurance through the employee benefits of a same-sex partner] is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

And

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples
. . .
In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.
That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

Even so, there are more problems:

[C]ouples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

I've said it before: Gay marriage is not my issue, but I strenuously support the recognition of same-sex partners as "spouses" by the Department of the Treasury (and frankly any other executive department, but the Treasury and the SSA are by far the biggies). Give us that, and you can call it an Icky-Sex-Pervert Union for all I care.

(Yes, I know--the GOP isn't going to do that for me any time soon, so no need to remind me. Don't forget that the Democratic controlled Congress hasn't attempted to amend the tax code in our favor either.)

Condi's out

2008-04-08T19:06:00.004-05:00

No, not our kind of out.

For someone who had fairly little enthusiasm about the primaries, I am unusually titillated about the Republican VP spot. Anyway, despite reports that Condi Rice was angling for the number 2 position, McCain has said that he was oblivious to any such angling, and Condi said she has no interest in elected office whatsoever. She wants to return to Stanford.

I’m glad.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Condi. Even if you hate her politically, there is much to admire about her. Growing up in the Jim Crow South, she graduated from high school at 16 and went to the University of Denver (not Harvard, but don’t be a hater). She graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19. She then worked at the State Department during the Carter Administration. After getting her PhD in international studies, she became a prominent academic and the Provost of Stanford University. Outside of the ivory tower, she is an accomplished pianist and is a huge NFL fan. She is usually considered the most intelligent and poised (if gap toothed) member of the Administration. Plus she can crush your head.

Still I don’t want to see her on a ticket.

She would add little and subtract much. She adds little because she’s a foreign policy/national security specialist. Mac considers that his strong suit. Choosing a foreign policy oriented running mate would send the signal that the McCain administration would care little about the domestic issues that seem to be very important to voters this election. Not a winning strategy. Similarly, she’s not especially conservative socially, another weakness (this time in the eyes of his own party rather than the general electorate) of McCain himself. Finally, some might think a black woman on the ticket would diffuse or even overtake the diversity vote that either Democrat can expect. An attempt to usurp the diversity vote is likely to backfire for Republicans who criticize affirmative actions by claiming to put forth candidates on the basis of qualifications rather than minority status.

What does she subtract? Mostly one thing, but it’s a big one thing: she is VERY closely identified with the Bush Administration. Support for the war notwithstanding, Mac has (wisely) made attempts to distance himself from the current Republican Administration.

So whom should Mac choose? Well, I’m only 25, so it'll probably have to be someone else :) He or she (whom am I kidding? He) should have domestic issue gravitas, most importantly economic expertise, as that is McCain’s admitted weak point. Another asset in a race between a bunch of senators is executive experience—so I’d choose a governor. Finally, I’d choose someone who will placate the right wing screamers who only begrudgingly support McCain. This last criterion is a dangerous one, though. McCain has to find someone closer to the wingnuts than he is, but not so close as to lose the moderates and independents that McCain can draw better than any other Republican.

Sounds like Mitt. At least it doesn’t sound like the Huckster. Barely.

deleted post.

2008-03-31T17:03:00.005-05:00

I know it's against blogging law, but I deleted a post. If memory serves, I have only deleted one other post, and that was for someone else's privacy. I know it probably showed up in some readers, and that's fine, but I thought I should give something of an explanation.

It was supposed to be a "I'm not bitter, I'm empowered because I have an independent personality" kind of thing, but the more I looked it over the more I thought it didn't quite work. It may have implied things inconsistent with some of what I have said before. I think I was really writing about my dissatisfaction with my current relationship, and it was a way of venting. I wrote it, posted it, and then I was all vented. At that point, no need to keep it up.

Anyway, deal with it.

Some good(ish) news and a book

2008-03-21T07:24:00.003-05:00

I got a little too worked up a little too early. The latest Reuters-Zogby Poll put Clinton ahead of Obama, and McCain beating both of them. Gallup has similar results, though McCain's lead there is statistically significant over Obama but not Clinton.

Does this mean the tide is turning? Not really. It just reminds me that it is still far too early to call the race. I need to think positively--I've been reading too much of the morose Andrew Sullivan

New book: I bought Grover Norquist's Book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives. He describes gay Republicans thusly:

Gay Americans who simply want to be left alone recognize that the modern center-right movement has no agenda to outlaw homosexuality or use the power of the state to tax or attack gays. Gay Americans who are also homeowners, businessmen, shareholders, gun owners or men and women of faith will find the modern left ready, willing and able to tax, regulate and attack them--not as gays--but as income earners, property owners, gun owners, etc.

That nicely complements my view: why does being gay have to change my views on unrelated issues like guns, taxes, national security, or abortion. Why does gay marriage, to which I am personally indifferent, (or even civil unions, which I support but much of the gay othrodoxy decries as insufficent) have to become my top priority litmus test issue?

Why I'm becoming an Alcoholic

2008-03-12T08:38:00.006-05:00

If I thought Republicans could regain at least one chamber of congress, I'd be able to just roll my eyes and go along for the ride.

Back in 2002 when Republicans regained the senate and suddenly controlled both chambers as well as the White House a Republican Professor (There about about as many of those as there are Republican gays--eleven) said to me "I voted for all Republicans, but I am a little worried that they actually won everything. I don't want to live in a one party state--I don't want to be in Argentina." He was exaggerating for sure, and at the time I laughed him off. I have since decided, however, that one of the reasons Republicans lost their way on limited government is that they had no opposition. Human nature is to exercise power once you have it, and without any checks Republicans become the same big government wastrels we accuse Democrats of being.

But with both the legislature and the executive branches controlled by the party that doesn't even pay lip service to limited government, I'm bracing for disaster. I'm getting ready for mandatory health care I don't want paid for by my higher taxes. As a professional, I'll be one of the "wicked rich," despite the fact that my graduate school loan payments will eat up every extra dollar I make over that of others my age. Even with all this "fiscal discipline" (which to Democrats means higher taxes) the looming social security catastrophe will continue to be ignored. Corporations will be squeezed by even higher corporate taxes and more regulation, making it harder for them to employ me and other middle class folks, let alone less skilled employees. Then again, the less skilled employees will be all right because they have unions who will see renewed power to keep the wages of their members high by creating barriers to entry (and thus unemployment). There will be a withdrawal from Iraq (whether we should have gone in the first place is no longer the debate--at this point, the U.S., unlike a Catholic teenager, should not just pull out) and a weakening of our national defenses. Oh, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they will make no real progress on gay issues either.

Well, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Never thought I'd Say This

2008-03-11T19:58:00.004-05:00

I'm pulling for Clinton.

Certainly one reason is that she is more beatable than B. Hussein Obama, but frankly I am starting to get pessimistic at any Republican winning the White House. The economy is likely to be the primary issue of the election, but McCain's focus is on foreign policy. McCain's economic policies (free trade, tax cuts coupled with spending limits, deregulation) are all great, but they aren't sexy. They won't quickly fix anything. We (by which I mean Americans--I am using the nontraditional meaning of "we" that doesn't include me) want our government to meddle right now, to give us money we haven't earned by taking it from rich people we don't like anyway. Never mind that we bought houses we couldn't afford (or conversely made unnecessarily risky loans--both sides of the transaction want bailouts, and neither deserve them).

So why am I pulling for Clinton over Obama--didn't I just say here that there is little difference between the two? A few Reasons:

First, she's beatable...if not in 2008, then in 2012.
Second, she's highly criticizable until then.
Third, her policies are, unexpectedly, like 10% less socialist than Obama. Right now, I'll take whatever crumbs I can get.

Don't get me wrong. I'll campaign and vote for McCain, and I have already given him money. I'm just afraid I'll need a lot of wine over the next four and a half years.

Maybe I can borrow a little vino from those of you who felt the same way for the last 8.

I guess I just don't get it.

2008-03-01T20:57:00.006-05:00

My politics puzzle some and anger others. Apparently I am some sort of Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republican. As a gay man, I guess I am required by some contract I do not remember signing to focus the entirety of my political energy towards the legalization of gay marriage. I am not allowed to consider fiscal policy, foreign policy, or any other policy above gay marriage. Excuse me for thinking that terrorism and the social security crisis are a little more important than legalizing something I don't really need anyway.

William F. Buckley

2008-02-28T09:13:00.004-05:00

William F. Buckley, Jr. passed away last night, and along with Reagan, and Friedman will join the pantheon of almost mythic figures of conservatism. He represented the intellectual side of conservatism and founded National Review Magazine. The sad thing is that with his passing, the right is loses another of its idea men. While poking fun at Hillary and Ted Kennedy can be great fun, that alone is not going influence much.

It is especially tragic that Buckley died at time when so-called conservatives have abandoned many of his core principles.

I'll miss him.

Why I don't hate McCain

2008-02-08T13:35:00.000-05:00

So it seems pretty well set that the GOP will nominate McCain. I can live with this. Is he my ideal candidate? No, but since I am not yet old enough to run for president myself (gimme another ten years), he’ll do. I don’t love him, but I don’t hate him either.

First, part of me is excited about his “maverick” reputation. It’s almost admirable that he is not afraid to buck party orthodoxy when he believes in it. It shows a commitment to principle, which I consider a good thing (let’s save for a moment a discussion of what those principles he’s committed to actually are). I am (yes, still) a gay Republican. I like the idea of a nominee who, while still Republican, doesn’t quite fit the cookie cutter.

Now , there’s a lot that John McCain stands for that I can get behind. He’s pro-life (hardly a litmus test for me, but still I’m more comfortable protecting a fetus). He’s in favor of the death penalty (please don’t make me get into a discussion of reconciling those views. I can do it, but that’s not the point here). He’s hawkish on foreign policy (though he’s staunchly against torture). He’s on the conservative side of universal healthcare. And most importantly for me, he’s pretty much a fiscal conservative.

“BUT WAIT,” the conservative McCain haters shout, “He voted against the Bush tax cuts, not once but TWICE!”

True, but he was worried about tax cuts without corresponding spending limits. That is a very tenable position for a fiscal conservative. Now he did vote for the tax cuts, the third time around, but hey, it’s hard to fault someone for becoming more conservative in voting (where it matters, instead of mere campaign speeches, Mssrs. Huckabee and Romney).

So, he’s looking pretty darn conservative. The only problem is that maverick streak I mentioned is on the wrong issues. Campaign finance reform under McCain-Feingold has been a disaster. The immigration thing was wrongheaded. The other problem is that there are my maverick issues: on most gay rights he’s just like the majority of GOP members.

So what I have here I a Republican I can agree with on, say, 65% of issues (and several of my priority issues are among those) versus a Democrat (either one, they believe pretty much the same things) whom I agree with on, say, 15% of issues. The choice for me is clear: 65% > 15%. I can live with president McCain more easily than I can live with President Clinbama.

Pass me a McCain button, it’s time to look towards November.

Ezra Levant

2008-01-14T14:19:00.001-05:00

After a lengthy hiatus, and without any forewarning, I am posting again. At least for today. This is not an indication that the blog will return in full force or that I will even semi-regularly resume my blogging habit--I just wanted to share (more like save) something a former professor sent me.

Background:

Ezra Levant is a Canadian publisher. In February 2006 Levant's Western Standard magazine (a conservative and libertarian leaning Canadian magazine) reprinted the Danish cartoons that caused the riots after most editors of the Canadian media decided not publish them. A member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada complained about the publication to the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. The Commission called Mr. Levant in for a hearing this month. What follows is Mr. Levant's opening statement at the hearing.

More of an explanation

2007-10-23T09:12:00.000-05:00

My last post dropped something of a bomb, and I think I should elaborate more about what is going on.

First the good:

I started this blog as a way to connect with others I could talk to, when only one other person knew (for sure) that I am gay. In less than a year, I have come out to many more people, including close friends, than I ever expected to. I am well on my way to coming out to my parents, though I haven't done it yet. I'm still a lot closer than I ever thought I would be right now.

I am no longer going to find a sham wife. I am going to live my life my way. This has been a marvelous 8 months for coming to terms with my sexuality. The boy and I still talk frequently (almost daily), and I think we'd be dating if we weren't so far apart (I don't know how to define long-distance relationships, so I don't try). I don't really think I need the blog therapy anymore. I can actually talk to real people I know in person and trust implicitly whenever I have concerns or doubts.

Now the bad:

The other part of this blog was for me to opine about policy issues, but the news has become consumed with the presidential election, which I find depressing anyway. I've had a harder and harder time finding things that actually electrify me, and my policy posts have decreased significantly in quantity and quality.

I'm just going through the motions here. I haven't changed my ideas, values or principles; however, one can only say "low taxes, low spending, free markets, individual liberty" so many times before it becomes rote. Additionally, my readership has peaked and declined. I just don't think I am contributing much anymore. Posting has become almost a chore.

What's next:

I have decided that I won't delete the blog, even though I may not be adding to it. So feel free to read the archives, and visit the links.

I just want to focus on enjoying my third year, graduating, studying for the bar, and starting my job. Beyond that, my future is bright.

I'd like to date, find a partner, adopt a child, and have a family.

I'd like to work for twenty-five years, live comfortably but below my means, build a considerable nest egg, and retire from the law to run for public office (as a Republican in a party that is no longer defined by homophobia).

I'd like to retire from public office after making a real contribution to my community and/or country, and spend the rest of my life in relative comfort surrounded by close friends and loved ones.

Once again, thanks for all your help and support. It has been great for me, and I am a richer, more confident person because of it.

Cheers.

Some Bad News

2007-10-22T22:37:00.000-05:00

I'm noticing that my blog posts are becoming less and less frequent. I'm finding myself growing bored with the presidential race (which is why I have been avoiding it). Nonetheless I obsess over what I will post about or what people say about my posts.

My fewer posts bring fewer readers. I notice that I write for readers instead of for myself anymore. Positively, I am getting more and more comfortable being gay, even if I'm still not out to my family. As important as it has been, I am not sure that I need my online support now that I have the real life support of several close friends.

It may be time to hang up the hat. The cathartic benefits of blogging may have run its course. I hate to say it, but I might be done here.

Maybe one day I write a book instead. Less pressure that way.

You have all meant a lot to me.

I have a question

2007-10-22T09:44:00.000-05:00

Why would global warming raise sea levels?

If my glass of ice water is full, and I let the ice melt, it doesn't over flow. This is because liquid water is more dense than ice. When water freezes it expands, so as ice melts it essentially contracts and takes up less volume. How would the melting of the polar ice caps and ice bergs raise sea levels?

I'm not a scientist, so I guess I'm missing something.

Maybe if all the polar bears drown it would raise sea levels a bit...

Dumbledore

2007-10-21T21:50:00.000-05:00

Was gay.

Interesting, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, but interesting nonetheless.

A few questions. Why is it necessary to sexualize Dumbledore when it didn't come up in the seven books? Is making him gay just something trendy to do?

Sometimes I am a little put off by the current fashion of including a stock gay character for whom sexuality just comes up constantly. I realize that people focus on the sexuality of gay people naturally because it's what makes us different, but there's more to me than my bedroom activities. I guess I just don't want to be seen merely as "the gay guy." However, the more people define characters by their sexuality the more I worry that people will define me that way without getting to know me.

On the other hand, it is nice to see gay characters because perhaps it helps normalizes homosexuality. Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(H/t matt-CNS)

Update:

I realize that it is probably better to have Dumbledore be a beloved and important character. Let him have his role in the story independent of of his sexuality, and then reveal casually that he is gay.

Nonetheless, the reaction to the revelation (both positive and negative) just worries me that Dumbledore will go from being a great wizard character to a great gay wizard character. His sexuality will be inextricably tied to his identity and take on an importance not really warranted by his role in the Harry Potter stories.

If we could look at him as a great wizard character (who happens to be gay), it would be fine. I suppose what really bothers me is that we can't. I'm not mad at JK Rowling for outing him, I'm mad that we care so much that she did. Me included.

Really Gay Moment

2007-10-20T14:47:00.000-05:00

Here I am sipping wine, watching bravo, and sewing pink fabric ears for a costume (going to be a pink elephant).

The only way I could possibly be gayer right now is if were naked with another man.

Public Transport

2007-10-15T08:19:00.000-05:00

Whenever I have the opportunity, I am a consumer of public transportation. The fact that it reduces my carbon footprint is immaterial to me, really I just find it cheaper and more convenient.

Consider a Washington Metro trip from Vienna/Fairfax to Farragut West during rush hour. The cost is $2.35 (or less if you buy weekly passes and even just use them for commuting on weekdays), and it takes about half an hour. During that half hour you leisurely listen to your iPod, read a newspaper, and the only real inconvenience of the experience is the crowding.

Now consider driving into DC from Fairfax the time is already into the hours. Parking is going to be a minimum of $10, and that doesn't include the costs of gas, wear and tear on your auto, or the disutility of the maddening fury that dealing with DC traffic causes.

So as a consumer the choice is clear. But I wonder, is it efficient?

A rail system undoubtedly requires an immense capital outlay as well as significant maintenance expenditures, and with fares like these, when do they recoup the investment? Washington DC doesn't seem to. Although rail ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 was almost 208 million, fares and other revenue (like advertising) provide only about 60% of the Metro's funding. In addition to fares and advertising revenues, the system receives money from each jurisdiction is serves [source (PDF)].

State and local taxpayers are funding a significant portion of the Washington Metro system. The Metro essentially operates at a loss (typical public program), which is disconcerting. It doesn't have to. The fare prices are extremely low compared to the cost of driving into and throughout DC. They could be doubled and it would still make rational sense to use the metro. Even if fare prices start to exceed the cost of commuting, the extra traffic into the city is going to raise parking prices and increase the psychological cost of driving (more commuters = more frustration). So before long, the metro would still be the more economical choice.

Perhaps, you think of the positive externalities, most significantly the reduction of the environmental impact of the daily commute into our nation's capitol. One can make an argument that the because of the tragedy of the commons and the public good problem of the environment, environmentally friendly enterprises such as mass transit should be subsidized. I don't quite buy it because as I pointed out above, there isn't really a market failure here: the market isn't for the environmental benefits, but for the transportation space. Transportation space is not a public good: it both is rivalrous and excludable, and a mass transit system can be operated for a profit. The positive externality of reducing emissions per commuter is just that: external to the market considerations at work here. It's gravy.

It doesn't make sense that public transit should be public in that it is owned and operated by the government. If it is operated at a loss, it is inefficient and then it is subsidized by taxpayers who may or may not use it. Further, in most cases could be operated at a profit. If it is operated at a profit then the private sector is better suited to own and operate it. Why should the government get profits in addition to the taxes they steal from us?

Weekend Getaway

2007-10-14T15:25:00.000-05:00

The boy is one that I have mentioned here before. I met him, and we went to a mountain retreat for the weekend. Without revealing too much about my whereabouts (Cheney and I prize our secrecy), I must say the mountains are GAW-geous.

It was a rather leisurely weekend of eating, drinking and other things [[ ;-) ]]. Neither of us are terribly outdoorsey, so we didn't go up for the hiking or anything else, just for a change of scenery and the chance to be alone.

Chris is terribly generous, and I may have actually paid less than my fair share (while I don't really like the idea of taking advantage of someone, it's nice not to be taken advantage of!). Nonetheless, the things I did pay for, I typically had to convince him to let me.

I'm finding myself growing fonder and fonder of Chris, and I am sad to leave him. I wouldn't say we are dating dating, but I would definitely consider it. And it's not because he pays for things. Well, not just because of that :)

But before I go...

2007-10-10T14:47:00.000-05:00

I am not going to make a political point (though I was very tempted to); instead I wish only to offer my sympathies and prayers to the students and families of SuccessTech Academy in Cleveland.

A Gentleman Caller

2007-10-10T09:45:00.000-05:00

I will be seeing a boy for a long weekend.

Don't wait up for me.

Self Protection

2007-10-09T07:26:00.000-05:00

Shirley Katz, a teacher in Oregon, is suing the school board for the right to carry a concealed handgun in the classroom. As you might guess, I am on her side.

Although she seems primarily to be making a point about the second amendment, there are some legitimate concerns with being unarmed:

"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," [Katz] said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."

Ms. Katz has a concealed weapons permit, which requires a certified gun safety course, and she practices regularly. The school board is, naturally, against this (why am I reminded of Dolores Umbridge?). According to a CNN broadcast, the Superintendent noted that guns are banned in "courthouses, private work places, airplanes, and sports arenas, so why should schools have a lower standard of safety?"

The argument is asinine, not least of all because two of those areas are readily distinguishable. First, private citizens may not be allowed to bring guns into courthouses, but courthouses are crawling with police officers or U.S. Marshals who have very visible guns. Second, firing a gun in a pressurized cabin poses risks far beyond just being caught in the line of fire (although following Sept 11 and even today I think that pilots should be trained in firearm safety and be allowed to carry a gun).

As for the rest of the Superintendent's argument: allowing teachers (properly permitted) to carry handguns in school will make students safer! Gang members and psychos don't heed the prohibition against guns, and that just leaves the law abiding population unprotected. It is more than reckless to put our heads in the sand against the dangers posed to children rather than trying to protect them. Why aren't we affording a higher level of safety to our children than we do to sports fans or private office workers?

It's a start

2007-10-09T07:19:00.001-05:00

Students in Tehran staged a protest against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Iranian president presented a speech criticizing Western-style democracy.

This isn't the first time:

The president faced a similar outburst during a speech last December when students at Amir Kabir Technical University called him a dictator and burned his picture.

These are good signs.

Since it relates somewhat and I watched the movie last weekend, here's a clip:

I'm Negative

2007-10-08T12:01:00.001-05:00

And that's positive.

I considered titling this post "My Results are Positive," and then saying I am HIV negative. I am classy enough not to do that, but boorish enough to tell you about it anyway.

Not that I was really, really worried, but still it's nice to know for sure.

No News is Good News...Right?

2007-10-08T08:07:00.000-05:00

Getting an HIV test always makes me nervous. I don't engage in high risk behaviors (intravenous drug use, unprotected anal sex), but being a gay man, I naturally worry. I stupidly timed this one so that the weekend would fall within the 2-3 day period they give. Well, today is day 3, and I am checking my phone every 6 minutes.

If I haven't heard by noon, I am going to call them.

Gay Republicans at Disney!

2007-10-04T16:55:00.000-05:00

Back in 1941.

Of course this was back when a Pink Elephant merely suggested drunkenness.

It gets kind of creepy...

Dirty Sexy Boy

2007-10-04T08:49:00.000-05:00

Soo, the show is getting okay reviews, but one highlight is Seth Gabel as Jeremy Darling.

It took me forever to figure out who he is until Wikipedia came to the rescue: he was Adrian, Eva Moore's adopted son during the Second Season of Nip/Tuck (new season start in just a a few weeks!). Below is a picture of what he looked like on that show.

Seth's character on Nip/Tuck was delightfully wicked. Apart from being a sociopath, drug dealer, and emotionally abusive, he tried on several occasions to seduce Matt McNamara (who was sleeping with the woman Adrian though was his mother). Oh, and Adrian was also sleeping with the woman he thought was his mother (but Eva was a transsexual, and not actually a blood relative of Adrian's. Apart from the sometimes unnecessary (though no less enjoyable) ass shots (Seth has a couple!), can there be any question why I love this show?

Anyway, I'm over Zac now (we broke up since neither of us are really out yet). Seth is on my list instead. I'll be watching him on Wednesday nights on ABC (Project Runway will have to be Tivo-ed).

PS, I am writing this post in class, so I can post no shirtless pictures. Sorry :(

We need to disengage!

2007-10-03T08:50:00.000-05:00

In regards to my own debt woes, Jonathan aptly pointed out that I should consider the disastrous tax effects of the upcoming Clinton II administration (does it bother anyone else that her presidency would mean that two families occupied the White House for a quarter century?). Tim, chimed in noting that we have to find some way to pay for the war (the legality or illegality of which I am not prepared to discuss).

And while the cost of the war is considerable and causes me great worry (not least of all because of the proposal to impose a War Surtax), but there is an even bigger monkey on our fiscal backs: The elderly.

Robert J. Samuelson in the Washington Post today notes that

From 2000 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will roughly double, from 35 million to 72 million, or from about 12 percent of the population to nearly 20 percent. Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- three big programs that serve the elderly -- already represents more than 40 percent of the federal budget. In 2006, these three programs cost $1.1 trillion, more than twice defense spending. Left on automatic pilot, these programs are plausibly projected to grow to about 75 percent of the present budget by 2030. [emphasis added]

So forget about the paltry War on Terror, our War on Death is costing us more than twice as much, and it is exepected only to get more expensive. Add to that the drive for Universal Health Care, and we can expect those elderly to live even longer. Once the Death tax comes back, these longer living seniors are going to use up their estates instead of leave it to us younger, better looking descendants. The picture is dire indeed.

Analogizing from our dear Speaker's remarks regarding the war on terror, we have only three choices to avoid these staggering deficits:

Institute a draft. It is politically inviable to force people to be nursing home attendants. I have always opposed this measure
Tax our people to support this program, so the true cost hits home. I always and with all my might oppose any tax increases whatsoever
End our engagement with the War on Death because it is too costly.

As I am sure you can guess, I support the third option with regard to Social Security just like Nanny Pelosi supports it with regard to the war. We must systematically stop spending money on extending the lives of these far less productive members of our society. No more Social Security (you didn't save to eat in your retirement, too bad!), nor more Medicare or Medicaid (you are old and about to die anyway).*

Oh you aren't willing to do that to save on our deficit problems? Then please don't use the rhetoric of the fiscal conservative as a rationale to end the war.

*Please note: my actual suggestions for Social Security are not so draconian as those above, but I suggest them to make a point.

Note further: I do actually see the distinction between funding a campaign that creates death and has little to do with national interests anymore and a program that purportedly enhances the quality of life of certain citizens of this country. But you will forgive me if I am a little resentful at the prospect spending most of my working career funding the retirement of a generation that perfected the art of living beyond their means. I'll gladly stop whining once I am allowed opt out, which I promptly will.

Ain't gonna happen--though I wouldn't mind if it did

2007-10-02T17:44:00.000-05:00

Seems if Rudy gets the nomination, a group of evangelical Christians has threatened to back a third party candidate.

It might be nice to clear them out of the Party, but they will vote Rudy if he gets the nomination. Three words why: Madam President Clinton.

I'm hemorrhaging money!

2007-10-02T08:36:00.000-05:00

I will have significant educational debt (we're talking six figures) when I graduate. I plan to live like a student another couple of years and pay off my loans within 5 years. The plan is ambitious but possible. When I start work I will earn a lawyer's salary, but work a lawyer's hours, which will mean not a lot of time to go out and spend. So if I can live off less than half of my income (I should be able to, some people raise families on that), I will be able to meet my debt repayment goals.

The big problem will be keeping my focus whilst working among lawyers, who are notorious for consuming. Unlike many of my peers I will not be buying a brand new fancy car upon commencement of my career. My own car is still pretty new (about 5 years) and has been quite reliable. Not dropping 35,000+ on a rapidly depreciating asset that I won't be using much (public transportation is good in my city and will be my method of commuting) is pretty easy. What will be hard is not running into an upscale store and buying a pair of jeans (on sale for only $200!) as a reward for a stressful week, or not spending three times as much on meal because it's just easier to eat out than to cook for myself.

I plan to keep a leash on my spending by putting only a portion of my income into my checking account and the rest into harder to touch savings or investment accounts. I can't trust myself, I need the external enforcement. I'm a little concerned about having a credit card. I wish to build up a credit history, but worry that without close monitoring I will get careless. Perhaps the early payment of my student loans will be enough without having an actual credit card, but I'm not sure.

These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that I've been living a little fast and loose lately (my trip a couple weekends ago was rather expensive). I haven't been thinking too much about the money going out. Last week I ate lunch out every day but one. I would prefer not to burn through my loans so that I can return some of the money at the end of the year. With that in mind I have decided to make two changes:

Start using cash. Right now I use a debit check card to pay for everything. It's a whole lot easier to put down a piece of plastic than to count out bills, so this would reign in my spending.
Limit meals out to three a week, total. That may sound like a lot, but I am not talking about three dinners. Eating out would include paying for the meal in the school cafeteria, so I will be bringing most of my lunches to school.

It feels good to set up a plan. Now to execute!

Tangent:

I ran across a blog about money issues for GLBT people: Queercents. I've read a couple articles, some of which have a sort of sanctimonious anti-materialistic bent (particularly the article on Board Games), but I am going to poke around to see if there is some useful information.

Gays in Iran

2007-09-30T11:37:00.000-05:00

From the Washington Post today. Copied here in full:

I'm one of those people Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says don't exist. I'm a 25-year-old Iranian, and I'm gay.

I live in Tehran with my parents and younger brother and am studying to be a computer software engineer. I've known that I was different from my brother and other boys for as long as I can remember.

I was born in 1982, two years after the start of the Iran-Iraq War, and when I was growing up, most boys loved to play with toy guns, pretending to be soldiers in the war. I liked painting, and playing with dolls. My brother preferred to play with the other boys, so most of the time I was lonely.

I was 16 when I first realized that I was sexually attracted to some of the boys in my high school classes. I had no idea what I could do with that feeling. All I knew about homosexuals were the jokes and negative stories that people told about them. I thought a homosexual was someone who sexually abused children -- until I saw the word "homosexual" for the first time in an English encyclopedia, and found a definition of myself.

After that, I started searching the Internet for information about homosexuality. Eventually I came across two Iranian Web sites where I could communicate with other gays. I was 17. At first, I didn't want to give anyone my e-mail address because I was afraid that I could be abused or that my parents might find out, or that people on the site could be government spies. But I finally decided to exchange e-mails with one person, and after some correspondence, we spoke on the phone. I'll never forget the first time I heard the voice of another gay man. We arranged to meet at the home of a friend of his, and the three of us talked for hours. I felt so comfortable with them. The next day I learned that the friend was interested in me. His name was Omid, and we became boyfriends.

I also became interested in the gay social movement that started in 2000. Around that time, Iranian society became more open under President Mohammad Khatami's reformist government. The Internet became common, and everybody started talking about issues they couldn't even have thought about before.

Until then, the gay world had been underground and secret. Under the Islamic Republic, gays could face the death penalty; they could also lose their jobs and family support. Meetings and parties took place only in the most trusted private homes. Heterosexuals were almost never seen at these gatherings. Even fellow gays were only slowly accepted. It could take years for a homosexual to become known and trusted. Most older gays were married and even had children, and their family and friends had no idea of their sexuality.

There was a handful of gathering places for outcast homosexuals in Tehran, people who couldn't hide their sexuality and had lost their jobs, or people whose families had disowned them, and who had turned to selling sex for money. Those places were always being attacked by the paramilitaries.

My generation was the first to start the coming-out process. I decided to come out when I was 20. I thought that if I just talked to my parents about it, they would accept my reasoning. I was totally wrong. Their reaction was horrible. They started to restrict me -- I couldn't use the phone or invite any of my friends over, and they cut back on financial support. Part of their reaction was religious; part was their concern that I couldn't survive as a homosexual in Iran. They were also ashamed to tell the rest of our family and wanted to see me married to a woman.

We argued constantly; they insisted that I wasn't gay, that I only thought I was. It took me years to calm them down, but over time, they lost any hope of changing me, and they started to change themselves. Now they accept that I'm gay, but they're not happy about it.

Meanwhile, the gay community has worked to educate people via Web sites and dialogue with our friends and families. But we've found that the most effective way of changing people's minds is coming out. When people see us as reasonable humans, their negative views of homosexuality are shattered. I can honestly say there's been a change in the way Iranians view us now. Gay life in Iran isn't as underground as it used to be. We have gay parties with heterosexual guests -- and even our parents! We have places where we can congregate -- in coffee shops, special park areas and even certain offices. Many more homosexuals are willing to come out these days. Activists estimate that .5 percent of the Iranian population is homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.

But we weren't surprised by Ahmadinejad's comments about gays at Columbia University. What else could he say? We stone homosexuals in Iran because that's what God wants? It was a joke, but he gave the only answer he could.

I wish our president could learn to respect gays instead of denying us. But I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, my only response to his remarks is this: Whatever he says, Ahmadinejad can't change the fact that we exist.

Amir is an activist in Tehran whose name is being withheld for his safety.

This isn't about marriage

2007-09-29T13:38:00.000-05:00

By this, I mean this post. Surely, at this point, you are all familiar with my position on gay marriage (indifferent) as opposed to civil unions (support).* However, I find this video encouraging:

Why do I find it encouraging? Not because I care that much about marriage, but because Mayor Sanders is a Republican. Another Republican who is more amenable to gay rights is someone everyone loves to compare to Emperor Palpatine, the Vice President. What do these two men have in common? Gay daughters.

These kinds of things show that while it may easy for some people to think of gays and lesbians as "the others," proximity and experience causes second thoughts. This isn't the case of "we're queer, we're here, get used to it" being shouted from outside their homes. Rather, the proximity comes from inside the home, the office, the country club. It's not a question of numbers or visibility, per se. The experience comes from the happy times they spend with people before realizing they are gay. It's about people learning that gays and lesbians are their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, friends, neighbors, colleagues, etc.

It's quite difficult to be gay and then get close to someone who is a homophobe. Instead it seems to be more effective to be close first and then come out as gay. Sure there are still cases of "no son of mine," and I personally dread coming out to my old-guard Republican family, but seeing things like Mayor Sanders have a change of heart because he realized he loves his daughter more than the party line gives me great hope.

On a grander scale that's why I still refuse to leave the Republican Party. If I leave and become an elephant hunter, it's like my shouting gay pride slogans right outside their home. Republicans won't change their minds from angry outside opposition, instead they will get defensive and even more steadfast in their homophobia. I honestly think that well within my lifetime we are going to see the Republican fear of gays and lesbians go the way of opposition to fear of interracial marriage. But that it's only going to happen through relationship and bridge building; it's positive experience with gays and lesbians that will make the difference.

P.S. This isn't the post I can't remember. I fear that one may have evaporated forever.

(H/T: Richard J. Rosendall at Independent Gay Forum)

* According to Towleroad, some New Jersey same-sex couples are reporting that civil unions as opposed to marriage are not enough. An excerpt:

Craig Ross, of Somerset, said his employer refused to give health coverage to his partner, Richard Cash, after the two formed a civil union in April. They were one of several couples who described how business have cited federal laws that refer to 'marriage' or 'spouses' in order to deny health coverage to gay and lesbian employees who have tried to obtain benefits for their partners under New Jersey's civil union law. "They're looking at it as a ceremony, not even a relationship or a legal status," Ross said. "It's just words."

This seems like a) poor drafting of the New Jersey law or b) poor lawyering by the businesses. I don't have a copy (and am too lazy to find one) of the New Jersey law, so I cannot say for sure. Simply creating a ceremony recognized by the state called a civil union but does not afford that union equal legal status with a marriage, is as Craig Ross argues, "just words."

If, however, it does afford civil unions the same legal status as a marriage, then I am not sure how citing Federal statutes that refer to "marriage" and "spouse" will help these businesses. State law may (usually) afford more rights to its citizens than does federal law. I doubt that any judge is going to accept the argument "regardless of what the state of New Jersey says about health coverage by companies doing business in New Jersey, since Federal law requires no more than to recognize opposite sex spouses, our business must only meet that standard."

Before you worry about the cost of litigating the issue, let me assure you that this would be ripe for a non-profit gay law group to do pro-bono.

Another, whinier excerpt:

Tom Walton, of East Brunswick, said the difference in name — civil unions versus marriage — sends a message that gay couples are inferior. "Having to explain it automatically devalues it," Walton said. "Even if it gives us the same rights marriage, it doesn't give us the respect."

The government can't make people respect you (and whining like this won't help either). If people don't respect same-sex unions, they probably won't respect them if you call them marriages either. The minute a male talks about his "husband" instead of his "wife," people are going to hear "partner." Whether they respect the coupling has nothing to do with what it's called.

memory

2007-09-29T10:17:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I was driving and had a great idea for a post. I recall thinking it was both poignant and clever. Now for the life of me I can remember what the hell it was about.

I am annoyed.

Burma

2007-09-28T06:52:00.000-05:00

Like Andrew Sullivan I have decided to longer recognize the name change of Burma brought about by it's violent and authoritarian dictators.

Things are getting tragic over there:

Shots were fired to clear crowds defying a brutal crackdown in Myanmar Friday as authorities reportedly cut Internet connections and graphic new video footage showed troops using deadly force.
***
A day earlier, troops with automatic rifles fired into crowds of anti-government demonstrators, reportedly killing at least nine people in the bloodiest day in more than a month of protests demanding an end to military rule.

By shutting down the Internet, the dictators are trying to prevent images of the bloody struggle from escaping the country.

Tough as it is over there, let me make clear that I am not advocating a Wilsonian Crusade to free the Burmese people. Nonetheless, things like this are both hard to watch and perversely encouraging. The reasons it is hard to watch are obvious, but I am glad to see a people standing up to its oppressive government. I wish the people success.

The Leviticus Strawman

2007-09-26T08:33:00.000-05:00

Many are quite fond of the following clip:

I am not. I see it as a strawman argument that if anything only weakens the position of homosexuals who still consider themselves Christians (like me).

Humorous yes. Persuasive, no. The big problem is that the whole argument relies on the Old Testament.

Even the Fundies recognize that the Old Covenant was broken, and Jesus created a new one. That's why Paul goes to such great lengths to show that Gentiles may be Christians and that many of the old laws are just not important (in particular I am thinking of a time when Paul argued that it's okay for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed). The big problem for homosexuality in the eyes of the Fundies is that while Paul argued that many of the old laws about works were unimportant, he still lumped homosexuality as one of those things that is still bad.

That's why any defense of Christian homosexuality must be functional as opposed to formalist, i.e. consider the themes of Christ's message, such as love and the way that religious legalism ruins faith. The problem is that for the Fundies, that just doesn't cut it. In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan argues that one appeal of fundamentalism is that it is that it is easy to apply: the Bible says that this is bad, so it always is, and we don't have to think any more about it. That means that functional arguments aren't enough. It might be if the New Testament were silent on the issue, but it is not. Case closed: this satisfies prong one of Chevron. (I can't believe I just made an administrative law joke)

The best that homosexuals can do with the Fundies right now is a "love the sinner, hate the sin" + "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" kind of relationship.

Fun times

2007-09-26T07:49:00.001-05:00

I still email occasionally with one of my old econ professors. He was a Republican Academic, an even rarer species than the gay Republican. He sent me this cute little thing. You may have to click on it to read it.

Myanmar & China

2007-09-25T19:38:00.000-05:00

The military dictators of Myanmar imposed a strict curfew after Buddhist monks staged pro-democracy protests. I hope the monks defy the curfew and restrictions on assembly, because that would put the government in an awkward position:

If monks who are leading the protests are mistreated, that could outrage the predominantly Buddhist country, where clerics are revered. But if the junta backs down, it risks appearing weak and emboldening protesters, which could escalate the tension.

Although, that is not to say that the monks have the upper hand. Generally speaking, pacifists don't fare to well in armed confrontations and the Burmese government has dealt with this before:

When faced with a similar crisis in 1988, the [Burmese] government harshly put down a student-led democracy uprising. Security forces fired into crowds of peaceful demonstrators and killed thousands, traumatizing the nation.

If the people of Myanmar are lucky, this little skirmish my lead to the beginnings of freedom.

What is interesting about this story has been China's reaction to the protests:

China has quietly shifted gears, the diplomats said, jettisoning its noninterventionist line for behind-the-scenes diplomacy. A senior Chinese official asked junta envoys this month to reconcile with opposition democratic forces. And China arranged a low-key meeting in Beijing between Myanmar and State Department envoys to discuss the release of the leading opposition figure.

The government that committed the Tiananmen Square atrocity is now quietly telling the Burmese government to cool its jets. Why? After all, almost two decades after their own massacre of pro-democracy protesters China is still an oppressive authoritarian state. The cynic in me wonders if China just wants to look good for next summer.

Regardless, the Burmese monks are in my thoughts and prayers and I hope they have even mild success.

Fun things to hear

2007-09-25T19:28:00.000-05:00

My trip to visit Karen's family was delightful! Her parents are perfectly hospitable. Although on Sunday we decided to stay an extra night in a hotel and not tell them, just to be spontaneous.

Anyway, to summarize my trip let me list things that are fun to hear:

"I hope you like steak"

"We can replace your phone for free"

"Those jeans make your ass look good. You should get them."

"Of course we should get more wine"

"Here's your swordfish"

"I'd love to sing showtunes with you both"

"That's enough football, let's get in the hot tub"

"No, sir, it isn't a problem to cancel your 6am wake up call"

Back to cranky

2007-09-21T08:24:00.000-05:00

Just a short little post at Cato-at-Liberty raised my blood pressure or caused me mild depression, I can tell which. Thrust of the post:

But while we’ve still got a moribund and bloated government postal service, Germany’s privatized Deutsche Post seems to be at the leading edge in global shipping and business services. We’ve got congested, government-owned, and union-dominated seaports, while Dubai will be host to a huge and efficient intermodal system.

Who'd have thought that we would be looking at Germany as an example of less bureaucracy?

I truly, TRULY believe that the best thing our government can do for our economy is to get out of the way. We can argue all day long (and we would, since we never seemed to get anywhere) about whether government should subsidize our health care, and I will concede that the nature of that good makes it a complicated debate. However, why do we have a transportation bill where the question is not how much will we subsidize an industry (or really, a single company) instead of why should we be subsidizing it?

I get it!

2007-09-20T14:33:00.001-05:00

So at lunch the other day with Karen (over glasses of wine, because let's face it: we can drink at lunch), she was describing how Sean doesn't understand how she makes money by buying on sale. Karen's rationale goes like this: If the handbag costs $900, and I get it on a great sale for $500, I have made $400 dollars. Sean counters: No, you spent $500, so you lost $500. The truth is, they are both wrong, but Karen is closer to right.

Karen's wrong only because she hasn't made money, but she has increased her utility.

Say Karen values the handbag at the full price (meaning she would buy it for $900). If she pays $900, her utility is the same. She has lost $900, but gained the handbag which she values at $900.

Now, say the handbag is on sale for $500, and Karen buys it. Out of Karen's $900 she has lost $500, and in exchange she got something she values at $900 and still has $400 of her money left. Her total utility (as measured by dollars) is $1300, a gain of $400.

Happy bargain hunting!

I'm not cranky

2007-09-20T14:14:00.000-05:00

At least I don't think so. In an effort to provide a bit of mood diversity I am going to describe my afternoon. I don't usually do this because, I really don't think people are all that interested in the details of my day to day life instead of the big moments or my (admittedly cynical) views on politics or policy.

I went to professional responsibility class this morning (an unnecessary requirement in the training of lawyers), afterwards I got some work done, and then went to lunch with Karen and Alan.

We sat outside on a patio for two hours eating our lunch and drinking wine. We just relaxed, enjoyed the sun, and had a good time talking. I'll be visiting Karen's family this weekend so we discussed what we wanted to do (oh that reminds me, I might be MIA this weekend: I'm not sure if blogging will be a priority when I am visiting Karen's family). All in all, it was a pleasant, leisurely lunch.

The best thing is we do this at least three times a week now! Like I said before, for third year law students with jobs, school is only a minimal commitment.

Now, don't you wish you were me? ;-)

The Right to be a Jerk

2007-09-19T09:15:00.000-05:00

I support it. I know I am a jerk sometimes. You are too. Until my jerkitude causes me to commit a battery or infringe the property rights of another, I want to be able to be as offensive as I want. Similarly, I am allowed to associate with people and patronize businesses as I please, so if one offends me, I can move on. You can do that too. If I am so much of jerk that no one want to talk to me, they shouldn't have to.

All this brings me to Blue Joe's in San Antonio. The owner of the bar refused to allow an artist to show his photographs because they depicted the artist's boyfriend dressed in Victorian costume and wearing make-up. According to the artist:

[The bar owner] just said they looked too much like drag queens, and he didn't want to attract that type of clientele to the establishment. Of course, right then and there, I felt really offended.

In response, the bar owner has been accused of homophobia and a myspace campaign started to spread the word. The bar owner tried to defend his decision because the photos might give an impression that they cater exclusively to gay customers, which they do not. The owner has a valid point: in a commercial setting, artwork needs to appeal to the broadest customer base. Chances are, though, Joe Blues won't have to worry about any gay customers for a while now. (Though if the owner really is homophobic, a boycott by gays might be the very thing he wants)

So far the response has been perfectly appropriate. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop: Joe Blues being sued for anything other than breach of contract. They may have a perfectly appropriate breach of contract cause of action, but if I know lawyers, and I do, that won't be the only claim if a complaint is filed. Since this is Texas we probably don't have to worry about any legislation flowing out of this little tiff.

My point: using market power and information to punish businesses that offend = okay; using the power of the state to force them not to offend or to punish after they have = bad.

Meteorite Suspected Cause Illness

2007-09-19T08:51:00.000-05:00

A meteorite that crashed in Peru is being blamed for nausea, headaches, and respiratory problems.

We have seen this kind of thing before. Notably in the 1950s and 1960s. One terrifying example below:

A real fiscal conservative

2007-09-17T07:45:00.000-05:00

Now, readers may know that I am quite disappointed with the Bush administration, first for its kowtowing to the religious right, and second for being real RINOs when it comes to limited government and fiscal conservatism (I know the War on Terror, especially the Iraq war, figures prominently in many critiques, and although it was clearly handled poorly, it is not one of my makes-me-so-angry-I-can't-see-straight issues).*

Seems, I am not alone in my fiscal policy disappointment. In his new memoir Alan Greenspan criticizes the Bush administration on deficits and spending. Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman (for what, 70 years?) and devotee to Ayn Rand's ideas on the glories of capitalism, has a bit of credibility when it comes to economic policies. According to the review in the NY Times,

Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.
Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

The bulk of the bulk is devoted to his views on markets, globalization and the American economy. I will be excited to read it.

*In fact, one could (and many, including me, do) argue that the abandonment of the limited government and fiscally responsible principles that Republicans still pay lip service to (sometimes) is what led to the dominance of the religious right within the party--a classic example of selling out.

The plan

2007-09-16T16:51:00.000-05:00

This is not about coming out.

In order to avoid dealing with certain things (especially if they might provoke strong emotion) I often try make myself too busy to think about them. I do this by giving myself goals and projects. (For anyone who puts any stock into the enneagram, this is classic type 3 behavior).

Currently there are two competing situations in my personal life--one good and one bad (and again, I am not talking about coming out). The good is that in about a month I may have a boy visiting me. To avoid the bad one, I am going to focus entirely on the good and getting in good physical shape in time for the visit.

This, my last year of school, is perfect for finally seeing my abs (I've felt them, just never seen them). I have a well equipped gym at my disposal for no extra charge, and because I have a job, school takes up only minimal time (meaning enough preparation not to be embarrassed, and then taking a long lunch).

I have a couple of hurdles, though too. I have several friends who love to cook and do it well. And though they'll cook fairly healthily (using ground turkey instead of beef, making sure we have vegetables, etc.), the quantities completely blow everything to hell. Also, I am a moderate party guy (meaning I love to drink when someone else is paying for it). Though I have considerably limited my beer intake (preferring wine instead), I'd probably see better results if I went off both entirely. I'm just not quite willing to commit social suicide my last year of goofing off before the real world sets in with a vengeance.

So with that background, here's the plan:

Weather permitting walk to school. I go to school in a small college town and live less than a mile from campus. Walking is not that strenuous, so why not? Also, I'll save money on gas and maintenance (what do you mean by "environment?").
Work out at least three times a week. I warm up by running a mile, do weight machine circuits, and then cool down by running another mile. When I run I use the interval method. Maybe after a couple weeks I'll add a cardio day to my workout schedule.
Eat more than three times a day. Make my biggest meal lunch.
Increase my protein, green vegetables, and fiber. Limit my fried foods (a toughie for this southern boy!)
No more carbonated beverages (though I make exceptions when it's used as a mixer--not that it's healthier, but otherwise I'd have the mixed drinks plus the Cokes throughout the day. I'm still decreasing my Coke intake).

These are small adjustments, and it's not like I am trying to lose 30 lbs in a month (5 would be fine). I'm starting from a good position, and hopefully if I can keep up this regimen, I could look like this :)

Evolution of Dance

2007-09-16T13:54:00.000-05:00

I just found this, and thought I'd share.

Gay marriage in NY + Arthur Branch

2007-09-14T08:53:00.000-05:00

A New York Supreme Court determined that it is unconstitutional (under the state constitution) for New York not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

People familiar with the courts in New York will immediately recognize why this isn't terribly exciting: unlike other states and federal courts, In New York the "Supreme Court" is the trial level. Still appealable.

It's interesting that in just a couple weeks two big trial decisions regarding gay marriage came down in separate states.

In similar news, I am aware of Arthur Branch's, um, disappointing statements regarding gay marriage. The self-described Federalist is uncomfortable with just this type of thing: A state judge determining that a state has to recognize the same-sex marriage of another state. He supports (or at least used to support) civil unions at the state level. I'm curious to know what he thinks about the Department of the Treasury or Social Security Administration recognizing them as well.

Like I have always said, whether it's called marriage by the state is irrelevant, it's the recognition of civil benefits for same sex partners that matters.

Further, I find it interesting that some people think that civil unions would hurt the push for marriage. I realize that having a separate but equal institution seems unpleasant, but with the progress we have seen in just 10 years, do we really think that it would stop with civil unions anyway?

Update: Mea Cupla, I forgot to link to the news story about the NY court ruling. You can read about it here.

Just Be Me

2007-09-12T08:58:00.000-05:00

I've owned this song for about a year now, and it seems perfectly suited for coming out. First of all, it has a stereotypically gay electronic dance beat. But more importantly, the song speaks so perfectly to coming out that I suspect it was intended to be a coming out song (I'm not trying to imply that Kirsty Hawkshaw is a lesbian, just perhaps that she is sensitive to what we gay folks go through sometimes). Indeed, I sort of consider Just Be Me to be my personal coming out anthem and often listen to it to remind myself what this whole thing is about.

Six years later

2007-09-11T14:12:00.000-05:00

I know everyone is doing it, but I want to say a few words about 9/11.

I still remember that clear morning. It was my first semester of college and I only had one class on Tuesdays, which wasn't until 11 AM. Tuesdays were my sleep in morning. My roommate, Jim, was an athlete (had a crush on him, buts that's a story for another day) and he got up early to work out on Tuesday mornings.

Blissfully asleep, I am awakened by Jim practically breaking the door down shouting "we're being attacked!" I tended to be the calmer head between us, and still annoyed at being awakened I asked him, "what the hell are you talking about"

He said that he saw on the TVs in the gym that a plane had crashed into the world trade center. Not being one to jump to conclusions, I suggested that it was probably just a tragic accident. Then he told me about the second plane. We turned on the TV in the dorm room just in time to learn about the pentagon.

It was a terrible day. Luckily, I was very fortunate. I didn't know anyone in Manhattan, and no one my parents knew were killed or even injured. But even so, I won't ever forget that.

By the way, I chose a picture of a memorial for flight 93 because the passengers on that flight are my heroes. Just typing this makes me tear up.

Arthur Branch d/b/a Fred Thompson

2007-09-10T14:21:00.001-05:00

I'm sure he's a dear man, but I've said before, I think it would be a mistake for Republicans to nominate him.

So what if Rudy or Mitt appear too liberal to the base? We don't need to worry about the base voting, because liberal as Rudy and Romney appear, Hills [pictured below] seems more liberal. She will get the Republican base out in November 2008. But if Fred appears too conservative, the moderates and swingers (not that kind of swingers) won't want him.

I'm also getting a little annoyed by the Reagan comparisons. I certainly understand why the Thompson capaign is invoking the name of our 40th president, but I wish they wouldn't. I do not mean to sound derisive, but Fred is not Ron. Apart from both being relatively conservative Republicans and having acting experience, the comparison seems a bit superficial. The issues facing us today are quite different than those facing us almost 30 years ago.

Further, although I may be, our nation is probably not looking for a Reagan. I may not have been paying much attention to politics (or even alive) when RR was elected, but it seems to me as though 1980 was a response to Carter. We don't have a Carter; we have Bush II. Any backlash/response is not going to be in the direction of "more conservative." My only hope is that the response is not so severe in the direction of "less conservative" that it pushes into, well, you know. (Of course, certain factors outside the presidential election can make me a little more comfortable with a party shift in the executive branch).

Elections for me are always depressing; it's never about whom I want, it's about avoiding the one[s] I don't.

Sen. Craig...still

2007-09-10T08:34:00.000-05:00

You'd think that when he resigned, Sen. Craig would have drifted off into the sunset, or at least into the rest stop bathroom of his choice. Not so. He is apparently trying to withdraw his guilty plea.

Note further, that he is trying to withdraw his resignation as well:

He announced Sept. 1 that he would resign at the end of the month, but told Senate leaders last week that he would remain in office if he was able to get the plea overturned.

Does he really think he still has a career either way?

I'm Not Dead

2007-09-10T08:04:00.001-05:00

Okay Okay, I have been remiss the past many days. Mea Culpa. This is because I have been very busy doing things like catching up on Bravo (new motto: who needs Logo when you have Bravo) and trying new cocktails (what is this "schoolwork" you speak of?). I don't yet have wireless at home, so I have been leaving my computer at school. Further I have been leaving school almost immediately after finishing classes.

Anyway, the little break gave me some ideas for a few posts, which should be forthcoming this week. Right now, I have to eat breakfast. I wonder if Flipping Out is on (Ryan, the business partner and ex-boyfriend of the main investor guy, is sooo pretty).

The situation

2007-09-04T17:16:00.000-05:00

Tim noticed that I have been rather doctrinaire lately. He posits that it is because some left wing boy broke my heart. It's true that my mind has been elsewhere lately, but actually it's quite the opposite: people seem to fall in love with me too easily. I know it sounds a bit conceited, and I, of course, say it with tongue in cheek (this time my own), but really I am not used to this.

Back in my "straight" days, I was basically asexual. I ignored girls sexually, and was oblivious and indifferent as to whether they ignored me. Sexual attraction was largely a non-issue.

All of a sudden, I spent a summer out of the closet, and went, admittedly, a little wild. Now I can't seem to leave the summer in the summer. Not a day seems to go by without a text from some guy I met last summer (thankfully, David got the message. Though I doubt he reads the blog). One guy even offered to fly me back to the city for a long weekend. I'm not saying we're in stalker land, but then again I don't really know where that line is.

Here's the odd part, while I consider myself above average on looks, intelligence and personality, I don't think I am enough on any measure to warrant the kind of attention I am getting. It's not that I don't like the attention, it just confuses me. I like the attention; I want people to want me, but I feel a little guilty about leading the boys on.

Happy Marxism Day

2007-09-03T16:44:00.000-05:00

Apart from being a school boy with a three day weekend (my school year always started in mid-August), I never much cared for this holiday. It sounds Marxist. It's basically our softer and older version of the International May Labor Day (which incidentally commemorates events that took place in the U.S., but I suppose we didn't need two labor days in this country)

It really doesn't affect my life too much now that automatic and internet banking are so pervasive and I often forget to get my snail-mail for days. Also many, if not most, retail stores still open their doors, and even have sales. As a student I can still do my work on Federal holidays (and often have to). When I graduate, I can bill for work on weekends and holidays just the same as work done on other days. So all in all, my only complaint is that it just leaves a bad ideological taste in my mouth.

Tangent: the discussion Matt had about capitalism with some Yugoslavian youths made me sad inside.

In other news: time to put away those white dinner jackets and linen suits. I don't care who says the rules have changed.

Note to the World

2007-09-03T08:17:00.001-05:00

Unless I am close enough to kiss you, I do not want to smell you. This is true whether you smell good or bad.

Please take note.

Marriage in Iowa

2007-08-31T08:06:00.001-05:00

An Iowa Court ruled that same-sex couple can marry. The ruling was based on equal protection. Before Iowans jump for joy, I must disclose it is a district court decision--meaning appealable. The Court also struck down an Iowa law that decreed a marriage could only be between one man and one woman.

Because I have no connection to Iowa or have much of a sense of the judiciary there, I cannot predict what will happen to the case as it inevitably makes its way through the appeals process. For at least a minute, though, Iowan gay couples get the same civil benefits as straight married couples. The fact that this is accomplished by calling the union a "marriage" is just gravy.

Aside: On the Federal side, I think the only thing the government needs to do is recognize gay couples as equal to straight ones. So far as I can tell, the department that needs to do so most urgently is the Department of the Treasury. Especially once the estate tax comes back. Yes, once again, it all comes down to money for me.

UPDATE: Kip has a much more detailed analysis of the court decision than I will ever do here. First off, the decision is 63 pages long. I'm now a third year law student with a job (read: coasting), so I'm only going to read the decision if I'm paid to.

A little more common than I realized!

2007-08-30T08:43:00.000-05:00

A humorous parody of Sen. Craig's embarrassment, from Anonymous Lawyer:

I was in the restroom today and I saw an associate in the stall next to me wiggle his fingers under the partition between stalls. I ignored it, like I do whenever associates do anything besides work. He did it again. I thought maybe he was holding his hand out for an assignment, thinking perhaps I'd brought one with me to the bathroom. It turns out I had. I took the papers from my pocket and put them in his wiggling fingers. Then his foot crept under the stall and rubbed against mine. He wanted more. So I reached into my other pocket and pulled out a credit agreement. I scrawled at the top, "Proofread this," and slipped it under the partition. He took it. Forty minutes later, the completed assignment and proofread credit agreement arrived on my desk. Well done. Associates bold enough to ask for assignments in the bathroom are acceptable in my book.

But not everyone sees it that way. See, this associate was already working for another partner. And it's not entirely within the normal protocol for an associate committed to one partner to be looking to engage with other partners, especially in the bathroom. And especially from a completely different practice group. There are rumors he's done this before. There are a number of different bathrooms in the office designated as "work bathrooms," where there are outlets in each stall for laptop computers, fully functioning wireless, a printer, and a secretary on duty at all times. While these bathrooms function as normal bathrooms throughout the day, everyone is aware that work does go on there, especially in the corner stall. So an especially eager associate can cruise these bathrooms throughout the day and, if he's lucky, find an extra assignment or two. These may not be the best assignments the firm has to offer, but they allow some exposure to new partners and perhaps enable connections that will help the associates down the line. Most associates don't talk about their secret bathroom rendezvous. Somehow the bathroom assignments are considered dirty, illegitimate, cheating. And some associates, over time, get a reputation.

What ends up complicating matters is that most associates don't like it when one of their own is begging too hard for these bathroom opportunities. They don't like to see someone stand out, meet new partners, and put themselves in a position to move ahead. So once an associate gets a reputation for cruising the bathrooms, he puts himself at risk for vigilante justice. Associates who aren't into the bathroom scene corner their colleagues, rough them up a little bit, steal their copies of the tax code. It can be an ugly scene. But it's not my job to police the associates. In a way, I like to see associates take matters into their own hands. And I like that it means that associates who want the bathroom assignments know they're taking a risk, but they do it anyway. Their impulse to do as much work as they can, their impulse to impress as many partners as possible, their raw biological impulses are so strong that they're willing to put their bodies (and tax codes) at risk for it. That's the kind of dedication I like to see. The kind of commitment that makes me proud to work at a place like this, and proud to see an associate's fingers wiggling under the bathroom partition and give him exactly what he deserves. To put that thick, hot-off-the-printer lease agreement right in his hands. Makes me proud to be a lawyer.

Why I'm Not Buying Free Health Care, Part 3

2007-08-28T16:11:00.000-05:00

Perhaps I already have--just not on purpose.

I found an interesting set of statistics in the book Non-Profit Organizations: Cases and Materials (3d ed. 2006) by James J. Fishman and Stephen Schwartz (I'm using this book for a school project; an online version doesn't seem to be available, sorry). Health care is the single largest sub-sector in the service providing non-profit sector (service providing excludes religious organizations), absorbing 60 percent of non-profit revenues and 25 percent of charitable contributions. Fishman & Schwartz at 22. Further, hospital care represents the single largest component of health care in the United States. Id. at 24.

Now here comes the interesting part: the break down of Hospital Care. Non-profit hospitals comprise about half of all hospitals. Id. Non-profit does not mean not profitable, but rather tax exempt and prohibited from distributing profits. Id. at 3. So for those non-profit hospitals that do earn a profit (not all do!) those revenues must be reinvested into the provision of services rather than distributed to owners. There is no investment incentive in a non-profit; revenues must come from fees for services, government grants or charitable contributions. Id. at 18.

The second largest group of Hospitals in the U.S. are government hospitals at 31 percent. Id. at 25. Government hospitals mean run by a governmental authority, mostly at the state and local level. Id.

Then for-profit hospitals are only 19 percent of all hospitals. Id. And they seem to be smaller as the account for only 14 percent of hospital beds. Id.

What does this all mean for this debate? On the one hand you might look at the numbers and say, "See, Pink, the market doesn't need to regulate health care; as you said quality is great. Such great quality is delivered without a significant market incentive for investment! Let's socialize that pesky 19 percent!"

On the other hand, you can just as easily say (as I will, predictably), "Perhaps many of the ills in our health care system, such as lack of access, are created by the lack of market incentives for the majority of hospitals."

Discuss!

Another Republican Sex Scandal

2007-08-28T06:30:00.000-05:00

We aren't talking Foley proportions, but another Republican, this time a Senator from Idaho, was involved in something that may be, uh, inconsistent with his voting record. Apparently Senator Craig was arrested for lewd activity in which he was allegedly soliciting sex in an airport bathroom (ew). He plead guilty.

Why bring this up, it's just another scandal, and a relatively small one at that? He paid a $500 fine and his 10 day jail sentence was stayed. In the course of human events no one really cares.

Well, some people might care, since Craig has a predictably dismal voting record with regards to gay and lesbian issues (according at least to the HRC, the be all and end all of gay and lesbian policy positions--thank God we have them to tell us what to think). So it's easy to get smug and shout "hypocrite." That's a rather appropriate reaction, but that's not what I want to talk about.

Over at Sully's blog a guest blogger expressed some guarded sympathy for deeply closeted gays and lesbians. The blogger then noted that his sympathy does not extend far enough to accommodate those closeted gays and lesbians who, in order to protect their "shameful secret," are openly hostile to other gays and lesbians. Particularly those who are in a position to influence national policy. Fair enough. When I hear these kinds of stories I sort of feel something similar, a mix between pity and disappointment.

Don't get me wrong I am trying to defend his record at all. Instead, I am just noting that it must be awful to be someone like that. Really, all I can say is that thanks to some close friends and this blog, I'm grateful that in 40 years I will not be another Senator Craig.

Better late than never

2007-08-27T08:26:00.001-05:00

Gonzales finally resigned. That is not to say that I have changed my opinion about the whole U.S. attorney thing (I still think it was a manufactured scandal-farce). But so long as he stayed around, scandal loomed over him. Also, it's not like he was otherwise non-controversial. Gonzales had almost no credibility as attorney general.

So first Rove, and now Gonzales. I am starting to get a feeling of And Then There Were None.

What am I doing?

2007-08-26T15:19:00.000-05:00

I am taking environmental law this semester. This may surprise you; it does me. Of course I could be cynical and say "I need to know the enemy [in this case burdensome environmental regulations]." That's not really it, though. It's about the Professor. You can practically smell the leftwing on her, but nonetheless she is engaging, smart and has a sense of humor. Most importantly, not only does she tolerate me in class (I've had her before), but she actually values that I often have a divergent point of view. Weird, huh?

Anyway, I am bringing it up because right now I am reading my first assignment for that class and my eyes are rolling out of their sockets. I'm reading about the dark years (as far as I am concerned) of 1965-1980 when the regulatory state started gaining real momentum. Siiiiigh.

PS sorry about my delinquency in blogging. I've been getting settled in at school.

Update: The class got off to a great start. In the first few minutes the professor picked on me a bit for being the "cold, economic type." Then she contrasted me with other students who may be of the radical "trees have feelings" variety. It's fairly clear that I can be relied upon to voice a viewpoint that few others interested in environmental law might hold.

Last date Lowdown

2007-08-23T16:46:00.000-05:00

After an unexcused absence I am finally ready to tell you about the last date of the summer. I met Chris at my city's primary gay bar the week before I left for my trip to visit Karen. He bought me a drink [[we made out]]. Anyway, we texted a bit for a week, and then when I got back we arranged our date.

Chris is a "paramedical esthetician," which I think means "pretend plastic surgeon." He works for a real surgeon, and I get the impression Chris can use needles and lasers, just not a scalpel. Botox but not breast implants, and so forth. Of course I have no idea. Nonetheless, he seems to do well for himself [[I didn't have to pay!!]]. Chris is slightly nellier than I tend to prefer, but since he has a professional (mildly?) job, I was able to overlook that. I think I am becoming something of a career queen (surely there is such a thing?). Did I mention he paid [[I'm two steps away from being a prostitute, boy toy, second husband]]?

I arrive at his condo (he has equity! Swoon!) and I call to tell him I'm in the lobby. Turns out he's not ready yet, but buzzes me up anyway. Turns out his view is gorgeous, and I spent time out on his balcony as he finished getting dressed (nothing scandalous here--he did so in his bath and bedroom). Shortly thereafter, (though still after a surprisingly long time) we are on our way to a Vodka Bar [[not really a gay bar, but practically one]].

He has a Cosmo; I have a Vodka Tonic [[I am the more butch of our pair]]. We both eat Salads. Eat drink talk eat drink talk. Learning my lesson I do not disclose that I hunt the poor and minorities for sport [[am a Republican]]. We talk about work and theater and other such stuff. Eventually I learn that Chris considers himself a movie buff [[he follows the Oscars closely but has probably never heard of, say, The Seventh Seal. Not that I judge him for that, I mean, who likes Swedish cinema?]]. Chris was quite surprised that I had not seen The Queen yet. Several drinks later we decide to go to his condo to watch that film.

I still have not seen The Queen [[ ;-) ]].

Campaign Songs

2007-08-18T23:01:00.000-05:00

I know I said I'd Blog about the date, and I will. I'm just tired right now. Take from that what you wish ;-)

Hillary has geared her campaign towards caring about those poor unfortunate souls that remain "invisible" to the Republicans. Accordingly, Hillary has chosen a new campaign song. Click below to see her sing it.

Last date of the summer

2007-08-17T17:22:00.000-05:00

I'm meeting him for drink in a little bit. He's part Greek and really cute. Too bad I met him right before I go back to law school :(

I'll tell you everything later--now it's time to make myself presentable!

Rapid Fire

2007-08-16T22:06:00.000-05:00

I spent today cleaning (no need for jokes), so this will have to be quick.

Democrats pledge to reverse unions' decline: No kidding. How altruistic of them to protect the power of a group that consistently delivers votes to the the other party. Oh wait, scratch that, reverse.
I am aware that Rove has resigned. I just don't have anything to say about it.
I was not invited. I wouldn't have gone, though.
I am against the Real ID Act. Do I have to explain this? The next step is just to station an American soldier in every household in order to catch terrorists. Sure that's unconstitutional, but only for now.
I bet I scared you a little by having a link in that last line :-)
And yet, this doesn't bother me all that much.
An interesting comparison of Health Care proposals among the candidates of both parties. I like most of what the Republicans have to say (SHOCKER!). Tax Deduction are two of my favorite words--but only when right next to each other. Tancredo's attempt to bring Health Care back to his pet issue looks a little forced, but hey, who can blame him? The Blurb about Romney makes him look a tad, well, untrustworthy--dare I say, Kerry-esque. Sadly I can't really blame that on that particular "liberal" medium. But boy has Romney got hair.
On the lighter side, like it does most gay men, the first minutes of The Nines...er...excites me. Especially around minute 4:45.

Lots of silly posts this week

2007-08-15T23:41:00.001-05:00

This made me laugh

(Courtesy Rad Ass Homo Adventures)

And while we are at it, so did this. (Don't give me that look, I'm a Republican)

(Courtesy Sully)

The Cycle

2007-08-15T22:36:00.000-05:00

This

is why I'm not this.

I'm okay, though--I have a 32 inch waist. So I'm also not this

In fact, I was good today! I had this for dinner.

That means I deserve one of these.

States Rights = bigotry (?!)

2007-08-15T20:56:00.000-05:00

Sen. Mike Gravel, who is apparently seeking the Democratic Nomination for president in 2008 (excuse me while I try to remember exactly who Mike Gravel is . . .), is not happy that Hillary Clinton deferred to states rights in defining "marriage," though she strongly supports equality of benefits (incidentally, though Hills' stance mirrors my position, this one issue is not enough to make me even consider supporting her in anything other than retirement). You can see a video of the statements to which Gravel refers at the bottom of this page.

Mike Gravel states, in part:

By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation's history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.
States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots. Now Hillary has given rhetorical cover to the homophobes. If she wins the Democratic nomination, opponents of gay marriage will cite her statement to justify their opposition to national marriage equality over the next decade.

Now I much beg Senator Gravel's pardon, but it seems a little dangerous to put all our eggs in the Federal basket. Why, isn't DOMA federal legislation? Didn't the FMA start in federal government (and admittedly die there)? Or the Federal Estate Tax that will hit gay couples quite significantly once it is reinstated? Has the Senator from Alaska noticed that at least 16 states plus the District of Columbia have workplace protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation while ENDA continues to languish in a Democrat controlled Congress?

OH wait, I get what Gravel's doing: he's trying to get attention by using a relatively insignificant issue to compare the front-runner in his race to a defender of slavery. And we trust people like this with our government?

PS, I NEVER thought I would be defending Hills on this blog. That Sen. Gravel made me do that is the most irritating thing of all.

Coming out update

2007-08-14T18:15:00.000-05:00

today I had an IM conversation with Matt at Debriefing the Boys and we discussed my progress with coming out (sorry to treat you like a coming out coach, Matt--I hope you don't mind).

Where I am:

I have been out all summer. I was out at work (I rather expect I will return to the same firm after graduation--assuming I get an offer. I find out next week!). It really was great to learn to get comfortable with myself. I think that was an important step. Had I not taken it, I am certain I would be seriously considering staying in the closet for ages.

I have been able to date some, as well as just have fun. A lot has become clear to me this summer. For instance, I always hated kissing, until I started kissing guys. Now I actually really like it--a bit too much perhaps given my inability to remain appropriate after a drink or two. I suppose that means I actually am gay.

Where I need to be:

I really need to start thinking seriously about telling my family. So far, I have trying to build up to them, but Matt suggested it might be easier to go the other way: family first then friends. Otherwise i have worse worry for longer (let's face it, most of us are more concerned about how our family reacts than our friends, however close they may be).

Now, I have decided to wait about a year. Before you get too concerned that I am still stalling, let me tell you why. A year from now I will have graduated and finished taking the bar. I will have made, at least in my own mind, the transition into bona fide adulthood. As an adult I should be honest with my parents about who I am. But at the same time I will be in a position to take care of myself, should it come to that ( I don't expect it to, but it just seems prudent to have this option).

Further, assuming I get the job I hope to, I will be working rather long hours over 500 miles from where they live. That will give them a sort of buffer of time and space to deal with it on their own terms (and honestly, it will give me some means to forget about the discomfort my sexuality will cause them while they do deal with it).

Finally, it will give me time to prepare how to do it. Should I tell my sister first, or my parents first? I'll probably do it while they are visiting me here rather than at their home. I feel like I need to read up more. Perhaps plan out exactly the things I want to say. This is not the kind of thing I think I should jump into cavalierly. It wouldn't be fair to them.

PS: I regularly re-link to it, but once again I want to go over Nick's Mom's advice. She's awesome.

Conflicted

2007-08-14T11:54:00.000-05:00

I have stated before that I am behind the War on Terror (though I still think it's a stupid and misleading name). Like any American I am angered by plots against my country, countrymen and allies . But I think we gays have an extra stake in the game. I truly believe there is no more dangerous religious movement to homosexuals than that of radical, intolerant, fundamentalist Islam. Christianists may not want us to have families or jobs, but their policies pale in comparison to the hostility of fundamentalist Islam towards gays.

Nonetheless, I still get bothered by the encroachment on civil liberties in the name of security. I'd like to expand on the old saying about liberty and security. What liberty (excluding religious or existential "liberation") is there in death, or fear of death. But then what good is life without liberty? It's not either/or, its a balancing act (law professors LOVE balancing things). The problem is I keep going back and forth on how to balance them.

I'm pretty well comfortable with allowing my government to protect me from foreign threats, but when does protection become oppressive? Honestly I'm not all that concerned about feds listening in on international calls, but I am troubled by increasing executive power--especially in the name of something so ill-defined as a War on Terror (It might as well be called a War on Sadness, or a War on Aerial Strikes). But if these measures help save the lives of Americans, could they be worth it? How do we keep security from infringing liberty without making ourselves vulnerable? I don't have answers here, only questions (how annoying, right?). Your thoughts?

Well, that was fun

2007-08-14T08:57:00.000-05:00

I got back safe and sound. I went to visit my friend Karen (whom you may remember from here, or here-Sean by the way is out of the country). Some highlights:

I woke up the first morning not in Karen's apartment like I should have, but instead in the hallway on the floor above.

I learned that I will make out for a drink. Sometimes for less. (I'm a little embarrassed about that one).

I saw some great theater.

I had one of the best steaks in living memory.

I got to meet Karen's friend Kim. She lives in a charming porno district.

I spent more money than I care to think about.

On the plane trip back I read Harry Potter 7.

Good times, good times.

Slight Delay

2007-08-09T16:23:00.000-05:00

I'll be traveling this weekend. Although I'll probably have internet access, I cannot promise that I'll find the time or effort to post while I am away.

Since I am neither as famous as nor have the vast readership of Andrew Sullivan, I have not attempted to get substitute bloggers for when I am away.

You have a couple of options for the next few days:

First, you could turn off your computer and go interact with real people.

I'm sure there's some housework you need to get to.

Why not start learning a foreign language? Arabic is in high demand (unless you are gay).

Finally, you can always check out the links on the right (in particular, this one).

Now, to finish things off, I am going to embed a few movies that I found rather amusing. It's a two parter about how to know if we are ready for marriage. So before you run up to MA, you might want to give this a watch:

Why I'm Not Buying Free Health Care, Part 2

2007-08-08T13:27:00.000-05:00

(About damn time, huh?)

Okay, so it's easy to dispel the Moore favored single-payer system:
Assume that the government is now paying for same total amount of health care--however, because health care consumers experience no out of pocket cost for additional health care (what economists call a zero marginal cost to the consumer), they will demand a quantity of health care greater than they demand now. Boom Shortages. Problem not solved.

You've still got rationing, except now it's done by government instead of insurance companies. You really think that will be better? A quick (if only) trip to the DMV should disabuse you of that notion. You may think it's tough arguing with insurance companies about coverage, but have you ever tried arguing with an administrative bureaucracy [IRS]? Think about how politics can get involved: "why are my good Christian tax dollars going to help treat that homosexual with the gay plague?" [The excellent politics point respectfully stolen from Kip Esquire].

Oh but we're not finished, let's look at the producer side: We all know that the incredible quality (not including access) of our health care comes from profit motivated innovation. An egalitarian single payer system is going to ruin that. People are not going to be able to pay more for better, so why make anything better? Certainly there are some who would like to cure diseases for the humanitarian good, but that research still costs money and that money is going to be harder to come by when investors looking for profit are no longer going to provide any of it.

Woe is us. What can we do? Well, some, try have their cake and eat it too, with a dual system. The free health care for everyone, but still allow people to pay for private health care if they want it (Paging John Edwards). That sounds nice at first blush: you solve the access problem, but you don't damage the profit motive for innovation! Except that you do.

Providing health care to everyone using tax dollars will mean providing health care to those who do not pay any taxes, as well as to those who don't pay enough taxes to cover their consumption of the government provided good. The free system is going to be strained from day one. Then there will be those who will use the free health care even though they could afford private (hey, it's free!) Of course there will be those super rich who will prefer paying the higher cost for private health care, because it will be a) better in quality (of course you are paying for it) and b) fewer other people will be using it, so there will be shorter lines! Problem here comes with b. Fewer people paying, means they will be paying more to retain the quality of the good. Otherwise the income from providing the private health care won't be enough to pay for the innovation that makes it better. So either the quality differential will evaporate or the price will keep going up.

Consider the following analogy: Education. We have free public schools as well as not free private schools. Most won't deny that the quality of private education is by and large better than what we find in public schools. However, the cost of private schools is prohibitively high for most, and is going up for those who can still afford it (still paging John Edwards). So we want to import this model into our health care? (One important difference: even private schools are non-profit. They don't need profit to provide higher quality education, but the quality of health care depends on innovation that needs to be paid for by profit, so I think the differences between public and private health care cost will be even starker than the difference in the education).

Now I am a big supporter of school choice. I truly believe that by letting the consumers direct where their educational dollars go, we will keep our super posh private schools affordable only to the elite; we will develop mid-range schools that are better than the bottom tier and are affordable to the middle class; as well as improve (eventually) the quality of schools for those who can only afford what the voucher is worth. I think this model might be the best choice for our health care problem, assuming we believe that the government should be subsidizing it (and it looks like more and more people believe that).

While we are at, PinkCare will make money paid beyond the health voucher tax deductible, return unused voucher dollars at the end of the year, and allow tax deferred IRA style Health Saving Accounts. I have full confidence that this will go a lot farther to fixing the problem than simply letting the government take over the whole operation.

Discuss!

2006 wasn't so bad after all

2007-08-07T10:40:00.000-05:00

Does everyone remember how back in November of 1995 and again a month later the Air smelled sweeter, the birds sang louder, and according to some reports no one was ever sad? Of course, I'm talking about that glorious governmental shutdown due to budget disputes.

Why so glorious? Well, when the government doesn't operate, it's not oppressing me. or you. or anyone. (Okay okay, so "essential services" including the military and U.S. Marshals were in full force, and conceivably they could still have rounded us up and put us in concentration camps for being Jews, or homosexuals, or intellectuals, or Libertarians, or Star Trek fans. But ours isn't a country where I think we have to worry too much about the hard "German Style" oppression. We go more for the soft "French Style" oppression--a slow but steady increase of state power.)

A government shutdown is better than a congressional recess because, I think most people don't realize that while Congress is the great enabler, it is the administrative state that does the actual thumb twisting of the citizenry. That said, I'll take a stalemate over a one-party government any day of the week and twice on Sundays! (Besides, stalemate is the first step to shutdown). We aren't there yet, but if we're lucky it wont be long:

In the current era of divided government, Bush does the signing or the rejecting, confident so far that despite his poor approval ratings he has enough Republican support to avoid a veto override.
It's far from tidy, and not likely to get any prettier in September, with the president and Congress both pointing toward a spending showdown as well as a resumption of their struggle over Iraq.

I'm just giddy over the possibility of a spending showdown. They build character.

Meanwhile, though the farm and energy bills are in dire straits, the one thing the Dems can get through is an INCREASE IN THE EXECUTIVE'S POWER TO EAVESDROP ON INTERNATIONAL PHONE CALLS WITHOUT A WARRANT? I thought you all got elected on the "Bush is delusional and the war on terror is out of control" platform. So while you are too busy squabbling about mommy issues like CO2 Emissions and farm subsidies, you just rubber stamp another increase in executive power in the name of war. Democrats, your voters would like to have a couple words with you--the second word being "you."

Why I am not taking your calls anymore

2007-08-06T21:30:00.000-05:00

David,

By now it should be clear to you that we are not "over;" we are a "never were." I really don't want to hear from you in the future. Let me tell you why.

1) I made it clear from the beginning that I am not looking for a relationship. I am only in town for the summer, so anything long term is out of the question. Also, you know I am only just barely out, and any dating I do is more about testing the waters than looking for a boyfriend. The expiration date of whatever we were has passed.

2) Despite my being clear about our having no future, you sure got possessive really quick. You flipped out when I mentioned I had a date with another boy. You tried to make me feel guilty, even though I WAS ALWAYS CLEAR THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE SERIOUS. You even got me to apologize just to shut you up. That was a big strike against you. When you asked later if I had seen 401(k) again, I lied when I said no. Shame on me, sure, but I was trying to avoid another scene.

3) Then the next time we went out, you got someone's phone number. Were you trying to get back at me, or are you just a hypocrite? Either way, strike two.

4) It might have been nice for you to have paid once. I know I made more money than you, but it's not like I took you to Bistro Vendre Trop Cher to flaunt it. I was careful only to take you to places that you could afford as well. Yet, never even a suggestion that you could pay this time. Classy. Strike Three. In baseball you would have been out at this point. Lucky for you, I don't follow sports.

5) The moment I decided not have any more to do with you came at Pride. HUGE red flags went up when you revealed your cavalier attitude towards HIV testing. Thank God this prude was always very careful.

6) When two weeks before my trip I said, "let's see what my schedule is like after my trip," that should have tipped you off that I am pulling away.

Oh, and while we're at it, here are some other things I don't like about you.

7) You smoke. [Note to blog readers, although I will fight for the smoker against the government, it is a disgusting habit, and it doesn't make me want to kiss you].

8) You have no obvious goals or ambitions.

9) I have to explain my jokes to you.

10) You called me "honey." I never want to be called "honey." "Dear" is even worse. We weren't even close to point where you could try out pet names.

11) You reacted very badly when I mentioned that I am not a Democrat. I don't expect you to agree with me politically, but I do expect that you can at least allow me to have my own opinions.

So, David, I hate to be the bad guy, but you leave me no choice. We are not compatible at all. I wish you the best and hope you can grow up some. However, you will not be growing with me. Please lose my number.

Most sincerely,
Pink Elephant

PS: I've met someone else.

New Elements

2007-08-06T18:19:00.001-05:00

For the longest time, the closest thing I had to a blogroll was "Things of Interest to me right now," but for some reason I have decided that that doesn't allow me to categorize things properly. Also, I felt odd adding anything new that wasn't largely political in nature (DtB being the exception, since it was my blog inspiration). But also, I felt kind of selfish not returning the favor to blogs that added me to the blogroll.

So, I have revised the links on the right. First you will find a list of the news sources I tend to check most frequently. Next are the political blogs that made up the bulk of my previous list. I also added a few more, including one that I frequently disagree with (can you guess which one?). Third, are the personal blogs I read as well as the ones that link to me (so far as I know). Finally, Divertissement offers my most frequent diversions from the serious or important. I chose to title that list in French to further convey how unimportant in the grand scheme of things those diversions are :)

Also, be aware that apart from the News and Political Blogs, some of my links might not always be safe for work. However, I won't link to sites that are mostly and typically pornographic. You can find your own porn.

FYI, and annoyance

2007-08-06T15:14:00.001-05:00

FYI:

If you buy the soundtrack to hairspray on iTunes it comes with a video of Zac (since we're secret [i.e. pretend, i.e. I'm delusional] boyfriends, I don't need to tell you his last name) performing Ladies' Choice.

Maybe it's on the actual CD too, but iTunes tends to be cheaper.

Now for the annoyance:

Yesterday, I went shopping and stopped in at Nieman Marcus. I never buy anything there, but I like to look at the mannequins to get ideas of things to buy at more reasonably priced stores or expensive stores on super-sale. (ALSO, I found this D&G cashmere and modal t-shirt priced at a ridiculous $200, but it is the softest thing I have ever touched in the whole world. If I were the son of a billionaire, I would be wearing it right now).

There was one retail queen salesman that gave me a sneered "if you need anything, let me know" in tone of voice that strongly conveyed a not-so-subtle "as if you in your Banana Republic jeans could afford anything here!"

Now, first I was carrying a Diesel bag (super-sale) and they freaking sell Diesel at NM! Second, it's not like I was in Wal-Mart sweatpants and a Hanes Pocket-T. And THIRD and this is the big one, just because he has the dream job of one out every ten boys (until he is discovered as a triple threat in the local production of A Chorus Line, that is), and has to max out his credit cards just to look presentable to his customers does not make him better than me! The fact that I won't buy a $200 t-shirt doesn't mean I can't afford it, it just means that I have other priorities (though I cannot stress enough how unbelievably soft and luxurious that t-shirt was). I am not Vivian from Pretty Woman, dammit!

Yes, I know am being judgmental too, but somehow it seems better to judge people on their irresponsible spending habits than their lack of unreasonably priced designer clothes. So, as we say down south, "Bless his heart" (Translation: I hope his Prada suit still fits him when he's eating ALPO in retirement).

Trust WHO?

2007-08-05T22:52:00.000-05:00

(Yes it's a pun).

In this 1998 press release the World Health Organization stated:

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers (emphasis original)

That's interesting. Considering this quote from the actual study [PDF]:

Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

Translation: "Sure we found an increase, except that the increase was not greater than that which could attributed to statistical error. Okay, we didn't really find anything, but hopefully people will only read the press release."

Apparently, the WHO will not let a silly little thing like scientific and academic integrity get in the way of its mission to use the force of government to protect us from ourselves. In bars. While we drink poison.

(H/t: Penn Jillette)

How have I missed him?

2007-08-04T20:39:00.000-05:00

Today I saw Hairspray (really liked it), and just fell in love with Zac Efron. I watched the movie and the whole time was thinking "who is this man? I want to be cowboys with him" (a reference to The Best Little Boy in the World). Luckily, the credits to Hairspray are fun to watch so I didn't look like a weirdo staying in the theater long after the movie ended just to learn his name.

I get home, ready to do my internet "research" on this previously unknown (to me) dreamboat. Turns he's a freaking IT boy right now! I feel so behind the times. That's what I get for not seeing High School Musical when everybody else did.

P.S. Even though it's meant to be kitschy, I like him with the Hairspray hair better than the shaggy HSM do. If I liked long hair, I'd be straight. (yes, I am aware there is more than hair at issue here).

The Military

2007-08-01T08:47:00.000-05:00

How come every time I watch a Jack Ryan movie I want go out and join the Armed Forces?

If I did, it might postpose the ugliness of coming out (it'll be for AMERICA!).

Of course, the idea of Hills as my Commandrix in Chief makes me physically ill. Nonetheless, I feel kind of disingenuous for not serving--like I use DADT as an excuse (as if I'm out and proud anyway).

Just a little bit of sharing

2007-07-30T12:21:00.001-05:00

So, I have recently realized I have a thing for bike messengers, generally. I tend to get a little tinge of excitement when I see them in the office. Maybe it's because they are almost defiantly casual in formal business environments. Maybe it's because by virtue of their vocation they tend to be lean, fit and tan. Whatever the reason, I like 'em.

(not everything has to be so serious around here)