I came across

an interesting theory regarding homosexuality, and how people truly opposed to homosexuality should actually be in favor of gay marriage. The argument goes something like this: It is generally argued, at least by thoes who are themselves gay, that being gay is not a "choice;" I certainly have never heard someone say, "Well, I could have been straight, but I just prefer to be gay." This implies that homosexuality is genetic, that certain people are predisposed to homosexuality the same way I am predisposed to being left-handed. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then it is an inheritable trait that can be passed from from parents to children. If being homosexual is demonized, and thoes who harbor these impulses are critcized and ostracized for their behavior, then many of these people will seek to hide or suppress their natural inclinations in a heterosexual partnership or marriage. If this occurs, children will almost certainly result, therefore passing a predisposition to homosexuality on to a new generation. If homosexuality was not considered a problem, and gays and lesbians were allowed to live their lives as they chose, the result would be fewer births among thoes who consider themselves homosexual, and in a few generations, the problem would "breed itself out."

While I appretiate this line of thinking for encouraging rights and tolerance for homosexuals, it does so for the wrong reasons, and intent is as important as results. This line of reasoning is nothing more than eugenics, and a truly horrible thing to encourage under the guise of helping other attain an equal standing in society.

This

makes me happy.

Guantanamo Bay has never reallly sat well with me, and has sort of become a symbol of the ever-expanding power of the executive branch. Of course, this does not mean that "Gitmo" (in military parlance) will be shut down; merely that the president's preferred method of bringing the suspects held there to trial is illegal, and he will either have to persue conventional means of administering justice, or ask congress for permission to do it another way (which is what he should have done in the first place; I don't buy this idea that a state of war, as quasi-exists now, gives the President a blank check to do as he pleases in defense of the counrty.)

For me, the ethical/moral quandry here is more important than the legal one. Just because these people are alleged to have taken up arms against the U.S. and are not necessarily members of a standing army (in the modern sense) does not give us the right to toss out the rule book when dealing with them. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a vigorous defense of our sovereignty and long to see thoes who have worked to cause us harm brought to justice, but if we do so in a way that violates very deeply held beliefs about the rights of an individual or limits on the powers of the government, what good are we? We cannot, in good faith, state that our offenses against this or that individual are excused because they are lesser than the individuals' offenses against us. President Bush denounces these prisoners as enemies of freedom and democracy; are we not much the same if we deny democratic processes to those that need it most? Certainly, anyone who is convinced of U.S. treachery in and disdain of Arabs and the Middle East need look no further than how readily we abandon our much vaunted principles of being equal before the law and having acess to due process.

If nothing else, this will help ensure that the detainees (ever notice that the Bush aministration never says 'prisoners?') will have better access to an impartial court to hear their case, and hopefully show President Bush that he cannot act with impunity.

I'm having trouble

understanding how self-described conservatives can still support the Republican party. From what I'm told being conservative (broadly) means you support smaller, less intrusive government and a conservative social agenda. As near as I can tell, this is not was the GOP is about anymore. During the past six years, Republicans have contolled the white house, enjoyed a majority in the House and at least a near-majority in the Senate (it's gone back and forth a little). In essence, Congress and the President have repeatedly been faced with two questions: "Do we expand federal power or reign it in? Do we increase spending or limit it?" They have repeatedly chosen to increase authority and spending, and I fail to see how that falls in line with a conservative political agenda.

As far as the social side of conservativism, I see little action on that front either. Where are the debates on abortion, or prayer in schools? How about some concern for the divorce rate, or displaying the 10 Commandments in court houses? Any discussion of teen pregnancy/promiscuity/abstinence or family issues? None that I can see. Drug abuse & alcoholism? Not on the national agenda. About all that has happened is President Bush has appointed some right-leaning judges and had that faith-based initiatives thing early in his tenure. Congress has broached the subject of banning gay marriage twice, but that issue is so incredibly divisive that it has almost no chance of passing (it lost two votes in the senate the second time around despite the GOP gaining some seats) and, more recently, has been trying to ban flag burning and desecration, a move calculated, I think, to pander to their conservative base. There has been lots discussion about immigration reform, but thus far no action, and given the complexity of the issue it will be while before anything happens. But at least their talking about it.

So what am I missing? Can anyone reading this explain why a conservative would continue to vote republican, (at least on the federal level; I'm sure there are State and local officials who are Republican and still conservative)? Is it merely that some people can't bring themselves to vote Democrat, or is perhaps the recent expansion of federal powers acceptable because of the war on terror? I really would like to know; this isn't me just dumping on the GOP. For the record, I don't understand why people still vote Democrat either; they have almost utterly failed to offer an actual alternative to Republicans. It seems their national platform is "Hey, at least we're not the GOP!"

We sold our TV

and it was the greatest $15 we ever made, and now ranks 3rd on my personal list Greatest Things Ever (#1 is marrying Nomi, #2 is Sydney). If I had known that not having a TV is the great, I would have given it away. If there were no takers, I would shot the damn thing. It's really hard to see how much time was wasted on that stupid thing until you get rid of it. I propose a challenge to (all) my reader(s): Get rid of the TV for week. Don't just turn it off; you'll forget and turn it back on. Don't just unplug it; you'll be reminded constantly of what you're not watching. Get it out of the house. Put it in the shed, put in the garage, stuff it in a closet, loan it to your cousin.

You won't miss it, I promise, after the first day or so.

You may ask, ok, I got rid of the TV, now what?

Whatever you want. Have dinner, at an actual dinner table with your family. Read a book (may I reccommend Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I just started it and it's blowing my mind). Go for a walk. Attend a city council meeting. Take a nap. Almost any activity conceivable is better than watching TV, and anything you might have done before while watching TV will be done better without the damned thing in the house. I had no idea what could be accomplished in the space of a single "Friends" rerun.

Trust me. Try it. You might not want it back.