Legalize Love. Thanks, Google.

Google is launching a new campaign called “Legalize Love” with the intention of inspiring countries to legalize marriage for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people around the world.

The “Legalize Love” campaign officially launches in Poland and Singapore on Saturday, July 7th. Google intends to eventually expand the initiative to every country where the company has an office, and will focus on places with homophobic cultures, where anti-gay laws exist.

Hey, how about the US?

Image via CrunchBase

I have high hopes that this will be the last generation to see open conflict around homophobia and discrimination. It will never go away completely (I don’t have that kind of faith in humanity), but it will recede into the unacceptable shadows in most places.
But this will be the last generation in which there is even a viable debate to be had regarding same-sex marriage.

I’m an optimist. But I see the difference in attitudes in my generation and the next two, and I feel I have reason to be.

I am openly weeping right now because I can’t marry a restaurant: the Left Handed Cook in

Are you EVEN KIDDING ME WITH THIS STUFF?

the Midtown Global Market in South Minnepolis.  OPENLY.  WEEPING.

Tiny little place, in the space where the much-missed “La Sirena Gorda” used to be (run by Alfonso Menendez, onetime owner of Babalu), this joint has a plateful of awesome called the “Harold & Kumar Poutine”.  Fries slathered with pork belly curry, kimchi, poached egg, chipotle aioli and OH. MY. GOD. THE DELICIOUS, IT IS TOO MUCH.

I think I may have just shorted out my keyboard from the drool.

Go say hi to owners Kat Melgaard and Thomas Kim, and make a plan to return until you’ve worked your way through the entire menu, and then start over again.

AS SOON AS WE’RE DONE MAKING SURE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE WE NEED TO START WORKING ON HOW TO LEGALLY MARRY A RESTAURANT.  JOIN ME.

Capitalism is not a force for good, it’s a force for profit. It’s the best economic system we know of out there, but it requires restraint and limitation by an external system that does not have a primary profit motive, in order to temper its worst excesses and address the issues it doesn’t particularly care about.

That’s why we have capitalism AND government. Does the latter make the former less purely efficient? Yes, of course: restraint will always do that. But it is necessary to do so, in order for society to take care of aspects of itself that capitalism is quite incapable or naturally unwilling to address:

– The public good: education, justice, protection and defense, health, unemployment, the “safety net”
– Long-term infrastructure development that has little or no short-term return on investment, and no direct ROI other than diffuse benefit to the overall population (e.g. roads, public schools, environmental protection)
– Inappropriate excesses of the pure capitalistic urge, which can easily become greed (e.g. protecting worker’s rights and well-being at the expense of profit)

Democracy just happens to be the best governmental system we know of, but it ALSO requires restraint and limitation by an external system that does not have control as a primary motive, but rather a desire to increase personal liberty (and in this case, profit). Hence the tight relationship in our society between capitalism and democracy. Both of these systems, left unchecked, run roughshod over the common good or personal rights, respectively: it is only in their combination and mutual restraint that we find balance.

Are both of these systems (government and capitalism) riddled with corruption, inefficiency, ineptitude? Sure. That’s a side effect of the fact that they are both guided by humans, who have a tendency towards those things (especially when left unchecked).

Is it hard to find a balance between the two? Clearly. It’s one of the reasons we have such sharp political divisions today: any attempt to increase government control and improve what is perceived as the public good will be met with shouts of “socialism!” and “government overreach!” by the other side, as well as disagreement over what constitutes the common good. Any attempt to loosen restraints on capitalism and allow profit to be the single unchecked driver will be met with accusations of cold-heartedness, shouts of “tragedy of the commons!”, pointing out unfair advantages to the already monied from the other side, and disagreements about the definitions of greed vs. profit-seeking.

And both sides can point across the aisle and accuse each other of corruption, inefficiency and ineptitude. The problem is that neither side is actually wrong: but when you do so, you should not be pointing at capitalism and democracy as the sources of those blemishes. It’s the humans behind it. Whenever you have two groups of people and there is the possibility of one of them gaming the system (whether economic or governmental) to take unfair advantage of the other, the probability of this happening over time is, for all intents and purposes, one hundred percent. Of course we will find these things in institutions devised by humans, because… well, because they’re devised and run by humans.

But that’s why you need both sides, constantly monitoring and restraining each other, and constantly testing the always-present tension between the two.

Some would argue you need a third element: an agent of morality. I would agree, in general, but note that the individual is that agent. Among the huge problems of introducing a formal organization to control the definition of morality (a role that religion seems to pounce on whenever it gets the chance) is that it rapidly confuses its role with the governmental one. Morality formally organized and defined eventually becomes imposed law that can be managed and coordinated by the government: that’s a good thing when the agency of morality is the individual, but a bad thing when it is a self-appointed authoritative organization, in particular the religious ones that claim moral authority on a basis over which reasonable people will inevitably disagree. It’s even worse and becomes more abusive when the religious authority starts claiming not merely moral authority, but also the right to both impose and punish moral transgression, which is why we separate church and state in the first place.

The agency of morality has to remain with the individual, who collectively monitors the other two but ONLY at an informally organized level if it is to remain restrained. As an aside, this also means that the altruistic initiative must remain at the individual level: it is not something that capitalism will naturally nurture, and if it is formally organized and imposed in any way (whether by government or by religion) it ceases to be altruism.

So:

Capitalism: good but flawed. Tends to overreach.
Democracy: good but flawed. Tends to overreach.
Humans: overall good, intrinsically flawed. Tend to overreach.
Morality: required, but individual in nature (albeit decided collectively)

Balance?

Inevitably contentious, and today seemingly unachievable in political debate, but it MUST be pursued. And do you know what helps that pursuit? If we don’t yell “SOCIALISM!” every time someone notes the benefit of a public good, and if we don’t yell “GREED!” every time someone else sees the benefit of profit. Things are rarely that clear-cut in the pursuit of that balance, otherwise we’d already be in full agreement on everything.

We need both, and we need them to be constantly checking and restraining each other. We’ve had both in this country for decades, and the experiment is an overall success, in spite of imbalance swings (in both directions) over the years. Those swings are a natural consequence of our human imperfection, which is why we need each other as checks and balances at the moral level too.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/anderson-cooper-the-fact-is-im-gay.html

Anderson CooperPhoto credit: Wikipedia)

‎”Recently, however, I’ve begun to consider whether the unintended outcomes of maintaining my privacy outweigh personal and professional principle. It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something – something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.

“I’ve also been reminded recently that while as a society we are moving toward greater inclusion and equality for all people, the tide of history only advances when people make themselves fully visible. There continue to be far too many incidences of bullying of young people, as well as discrimination and violence against people of all ages, based on their sexual orientation, and I believe there is value in making clear where I stand.

“The fact is, I’m gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud.”

Thank you, Anderson Cooper. We recognize that this is something you haven’t discussed publicly in the past, not because you were ashamed, but because it is a private issue (as it should be). But there are a lot of kids who are being made to feel ashamed today and can now look at you and understand the reality behind the phrase “It Gets Better”.

(PS AC: I’m fighting for the right for you to get married, by the way. No need to send me a card, just a little tilt of your head on your show would be fine, something just you and I will connect on. If I get invited to your wedding, it should be “plus guest”. Thank you.)

What is breathtakingly impressive about Obama’s (VERY clear) announcement of support for same-sex marriage is the fact that he made it the day after Amendment 1 passed in NC (by a pretty large margin). That speaks volumes about his desire to do the right thing, regardless of the inevitable hit he’ll take in the polls because of it.

You can be cynical all you want about his motives, but there is no reasonable scenario in which he made this announcement for short-term political gain; in fact it is done at considerable risk, knowing how motivated the opponents of same-sex marriage are, and how his statement will be used to whip up a frenzy of support for his opponents (especially the politically-powerful religious right and the more homophobic branches of the populace), now and in November. Sure, he’s shored up support in the liberal, same-sex supporting groups, but was that really a population that was in peril? He had little to gain, and still has much to lose.

If you can still imagine a scenario where this was just a political pawn issue, played for maximum cynicism and as just another lever pulled by rote in a re-election machine, then I would suggest that you should step back from the conspiracy blogs a little: you’ve possibly lost sight of the fact that these are people we are talking about. People who, like myself, have evolved opinions about same-sex marriage at different speeds.

At some point of their evolution, some earlier and some later, people realize it’s the just the right thing to do. And then they speak out about it.

Some will complain that it took him too long, but you could say that about the past 6 or 7 Presidents too, as well as most members of Congress still serving today: I’m not holding my breath waiting for Boehner to announce his support of full rights and protection for same-sex marriage, considering he’s busy spending his time and your money defending the Defense of Marriage Act now that Obama has instructed the DoJ not to do so. Does anyone want to place bets on how Mitt Romney will spin it? Anyone want to place bets on whether he’ll follow suit?

I say he won’t,  considering he supports a federal marriage amendment barring equality and would uphold the DOMA.. I don’t think I’d have to pay out on that bet.

In the meantime: congratulations on your evolution, Mr. President.

Taxes are 12 points (Photo credit: 401K)

I believe the top tax rate should be 75%, but with a caveat: the top tier of taxation starts at exactly 10% above whatever my salary is for that year. That way rich people have the right incentive: to make sure I make as much money as possible in order to reduce their own tax rate.

See?  A joke!  A small and insignificant one, but a joke nonetheless!

There is a small kernel behind this, actually: that the tax rate should get exponentially higher the further away someone’s income is from the median income of people whose jobs they are responsible for. That way their incentive is not only to maximize their own income by itself, it’s to also increase the median wage for their employees in order to reduce their own tax rate. And the higher tax rates start increasing exactly at the median employee income.

Once you get past some multiplier X of the median salary of people your company employs, your tax rate should shoot up pretty quickly. I don’t know what the value of X is in order to be fair, but I do know that 300 is way too high, and that’s the difference today nationally between CEOs and the average employee (I couldn’t find any reasonable stats on median).

Of course it’s impractical: there are too many complications to think of and address in a WordPress post. You would probably have to have a minimum number of employees for the median to start making statistical sense, and investors who earn income from indirectly funding work and not hiring employees directly would need a different tax method. But our tax system today is structured in a weird way to provide incentive for personal gain at the expense of community economic health, and we need more ways to make it more palatable than punitive to help improve everyone’s lives. It’s also structured today to make the proponents of “trickle down” economics demand their benefits up front, and expect everyone else to take on faith that they will eventually get some unknown benefit at some point in the future (no guarantees): we need to make sure that these promised benefits are real enough that those who promise them are willing to link their benefits to them as well.

Also, any CEO or board member of a bank that received TARP funds because they were “too big to fail” and then proceeded to buy up smaller banks and sit on the cash instead of making credit available gets taxed at 99% on any income over the lowest income of the owner of any mortgage they’ve foreclosed on. In perpetuity.

This was a Goodyear blimp, but the pilot is a Ron Paul supporter so he repainted it after takeoff.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I truly do not understand Ron Paul’s delegate-based approach: his team seems to be making sure that his supporters are elected as delegates, regardless of whether or not he won the popular vote. He’s not going to win the presidential nomination (there’s no way of that happening), but he will get attention and a voice in the platform that by far exceeds the ratio of actual popular votes he has received. His voice will be amplified, not because he represents the voice of a large number of people, but because he represents a small number of people who happen to know how to game the system.

Let me take that back a little: I *understand* what he’s doing. He’s taking advantage of the fact that delegates are appointed separately from the caucus votes, as in Iowa where “delegates elect delegates who elect delegates”. It’s a grueling process, and not everyone has the stamina for it. What he’s doing is perfectly legal. Yet in Iowa, where he came in third, it seems that 20 out of the state’s 28 potential delegates will be Paul supporters. For all intents and purposes, Ron Paul won Iowa.

What I don’t understand is: why would anyone support as candidate for President someone who is so dismissive of the will of the voters? Shouldn’t the fact that a large majority of people in Iowa did NOT vote for him mean that he should get no more than 1/5 of total delegates, equivalent to the number of people who DID vote for him? Isn’t this behind-the-scenes maneuvering a very dishonest way of saying “we don’t care who the people of the state wanted to elect, we want Ron Paul instead”?

It’s not illegal, and the Ron Paul campaign isn’t hiding what they are doing. And you can’t just say that these are all just Santorum/Gingrich supporters who have switched to vote against Romney now that their favorite candidate has dropped out: the Ron Paul campaign has been admitting to this approach since long before the other candidates abandoned ship. But it seems insane to me that anyone would look at this approach, where the “one-person, one-vote” principle is subverted by ethically dodgy (albeit, as I said, perfectly legal) maneuvers, with the end result that at the end of the day it quite literally DOES NOT MATTER who the people of states like Iowa and Massachusetts and Minnesota voted for, and think: “yes, that’s the kind of respect for the will of the voters that I want to see elected into office.”

It’s not behavior I find surprising from Ron Paul. It seems to line up well with his general “I support States’ rights if I oppose the current Federal law, but I support Federal law if I agree with it” approach. I do “understand” what he’s doing.  But I find it surprising that people support it.

Related articles

• Paul Campaign Gameplan: Hijack GOP Convention (foxnews.com)
• Ron Paul’s Nevada campaign rebuffs Republican National Committee warning (fromthetrenchesworldreport.com)
• Ron Paul’s Delegates Deluge: Minnesota, Washington State, Louisiana (tatoott1009.com)
• Ron Paul Wins Louisiana and Massachusetts Caucuses (lewrockwell.com)
• Ron Paul captures 16 delegate spots out of 27 in Mitt Romney’s home state (headlineclicker.com)
• Washington Post: Ron Paul’s stealth state convention takeover (aksyrin.wordpress.com)

Faith is not necessary to believe in fairness. There is no requirement for a deity in order for you and I to believe in equality and justice. And there is no need for prayer in order to have a successful, happy marriage. In fact, in the United States today, prayer, faith, deities and religious belief are not necessary to get married in the first place: just as there is no religious test to hold any government position in this country, as guaranteed by Article 6 of our constitution, there is also no requirement to proclaim or hold any faith in order to be married… other than the secular faith in our system of laws. Therefore it is our position within Americans United for Separation of Church and State that laws that impose strictly
religious tradition and—even worse—discrimination on secular ceremonies and events that have no need for them, are unconstitutional. They have no place in a society established on the principle that no person should be made to feel like a second-class citizen because their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are not in line with those who impose the laws.

There are 515 rights and protections guaranteed by law within the State of Minnesota to married couples. There are hundreds more at the Federal level. These rights go from the simple and relatively banal (like the right of a surviving spouse to inherit their spouse’s fishing license) to the powerful and truly heart-rending rights to make medical decisions on behalf of a sick or injured partner who is unable to do so, or the rights to testify against a spouse’s murderer in the sentencing phase of a trial, or the rights to request citizenship for a partner. All of these rights are currently denied to same-sex partners in long-term, committed, loving relationships in Minnesota and across most of the country.

If we believe in fairness, if we believe in justice, if we believe in love, and if we are truly a nation that demands equal rights and protection under the law, then this kind of discrimination has no place in Minnesota’s constitution. I urge you all on this Day of Reason to join us in reaching out to your friends and family to explain to them why it is so necessary to defeat the Marriage Amendment this fall. You already know all this, otherwise you wouldn’t be here today: others do not.

Have the conversation, so that we can celebrate Reason after we vote “No” in November just as much as we are doing today.

An Irish priest has been asked to leave his parish and take a sabbatical owing to some gay porn he had on a computer and accidentally showed to parents. To be honest, I just feel bad for this guy. Most probably a man who, thanks to the Church, has felt guilty his entire life for being who he is and feeling what he feels. Quite possibly pushed into the ministry to help quell his “un-Biblical” desires. Living a celibate lifestyle because of his Church’s disapproval should he choose to be part of a loving, consensual relationship with who he truly wants.

How much of that was his choice, versus what was imposed on him? And to top it all off, the Church that is now throwing him out of the only life he’s known is the very Church that has been embroiled in huge scandals in Ireland regarding the decades-long perpetration and concealment of child abuse, or in Spain for tearing babies away from their mothers and forcing them up for adoption. This is the organization that claims the moral ground and feels worthy of the authority to disapprove of him.

“The church reported the incident to police, who said no crime had been committed.”

I disagree. But it’s not the crime the church thinks.

May this be the opportunity for him to find the freedom and happiness he most probably deserves. But he won’t find it in his church.

Several hundred years passed between Leviticus 20:10 (“I order you to put to death all the adulterers”) and John 8:7 (“…but only by those with no sin, which is no one.”). In the hundreds of years between this mandate and its “minor” clarification hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women were put to death. Stoned to death, in most cases.

Morality (Photo credit: tdietmut)

Today, societies still based on that kind of morality (and there are several) are rightly considered barbaric. That behavior wasn’t moral then, and it isn’t moral now. And anyone who makes that kind of commandment to his followers, we throw in jail and refuse their parole.

We don’t base our astronomy, chemistry, biology, medicine, physics, or any of our current understanding of the universe on blind unquestioning belief in any books on those topics written several millennia ago. By the same token, we have to recognize that we don’t base our morality on those books either, regardless of any claims of their supernatural origin. We can’t. We definitely don’t base our legal system in the US on it, and until you can show me the laws against graven images, I don’t think you can claim so.

We base our legal system and our morality on common, secularly-derived understanding of what is right, and reaching a mutual understanding of the type of society we would all choose to live in. It’s not divine inspiration, it’s definitely not biblical interpretation; it’s our use of reason. And reason is what allows us to look at these old books, understand their all-too-human and oh-so-fallible origins, pick the elements that are still OK and throw away the unnecessary rest; as it turns out, that discardable flotsam includes all the parts of the text that claim that our reason and our morality come from anywhere outside of ourselves.