Saturday, February 21, 2004

The Porn Tax... Oi-Veh

... and there are times when I wish that I didn't live in Iowa.

My favorite excerpt from the legislation:

... genitalia, buttocks, or the nipple of the female breast

[homer simpson] ...ummmm, nipple of the female breast... [/homer simpson]
Hey, You Can't Poke Fun at THAT!!!

Deborah Mathis has her undies in a bundle today over what one of my Puerto Rican brothers organized at Roger Williams college in Rhode Island. Hey, back off of my homey you gringa girl.

What has Ms Mathis in a tizzy and dissin' "mi hermano Borinquano"? You see, this young man has committed the ultimate political sin for a "minority". No, he's not in jail. Nope, he's not a gang member selling crack. It's much worse than that. (You may want to take the children to another room...). He's a Republican. And, to add insult to injury, my homefry, my brother, "mi pana" Jason Mattera organized a "Whites Only scholarship". Jason thinks that affirmative action is a crock and is poking fun at the concept.

Ms Mathis is not amused. Political satire is all well and good... but not if you do any sacred cow tipping. And she's going to teach him a lesson. First tactic - adhominim attack, namely belittlement.

Jason Mattera must be having the time of his very young life.

He's been interviewed by some of the biggest media organizations in the country, thanks to his unusual protest - a stunt, really - aimed at a famously controversial policy.

Yeah... he's just a kid goofing around. He's too young to know anything. It's a stunt, nothing more. Well... at least she sets reasoned, lofty tone early!

Mattera and his fellow College Republicans... have targeted affirmative action, although their weapon of choice suggests they don't really understand the policy they claim to loathe.

Yeah, satire, humor and comic ridicule should NEVER be used to lampoon the status quo. Those youngesters just don't have a lick of sense to know that these powerful tools of persuasion should only be used to poke fun at the CONSERVATIVE status quo.

Then she really goes for the hyprocricy angle.

As Mattera explained in the Providence Journal, "I'm making a statement that scholarships should be given out based on merit and need."

Interestingly, Mattera, who has a Puerto Rican heritage, is himself a beneficiary of, shall we say, ethnically aware largess. He has a $5,000 scholarship from the Hispanic College Fund...

Ms Mathis thinks that, because he's on an affirmative action-based scholarship that it undercuts Jason's message. Why...? Because Jason is smart enough to see that there's support to be had and takes it? Hey, I take my mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. I think it's heinous. I'd support a flat income tax with no deductions/exemptions... but it's there, it's legal and I take it because... I need the money.

Next step, yell "Uncle Tom" at the top of your lungs.
Mattera, who is living proof to the contrary, is apparently trying to impress social conservatives that he can out-demagogue them by bathing in his own bigotry, denouncing his own circumstances, while perpetrating - and perpetuating - a fraud about affirmative action.

There it is folks. If you oppose affirmative action, you are a bigot. If you oppose affirmative action and you are a person of color, you're a Tom "trying to impress" the folks in the "big house".

All arguments against efforts to show the central hypocritical paradox of affirmative action are "frauds". Why... because Deborah Mathis says they are. And she's a woman of color, so shut the f$%@ up.

Next... up the ante a bit and hiss "Race traitor"!!!

He gives aid and comfort to those who might take his tan skin or Spanish surname as a flag of inferiority.

Next... deconstruct him:

Or who might think he got into Roger Williams as a favor to some idea about diversity, and wouldn't give him the time of day had he not joined their denunciations and offered his validation. It was, in effect, an affirming thing to do, an affirmative action.

Whoa, man, that's heavy: " affirming thing to do, an affirmative action." I don't know that the hell it means... but that is some heavy shit.

Okay Deb... and I know this is a stretch for you... but go with me here... those nasty college Republicans may just have met, liked and found common ground with a young man of principal who happened to be Hispanic and a conservative.

But that simply cannot be. Jason Mattera has to be a grinning-lackey, tap-dancing, smiling and scraping, poser whitey-wannabe. He just has to.


Because, if he isn't... well, then he doesn't fit neatly into Ms Mathis' stereotypes and political agenda. And maybe that is why Deborah Mathis, enlightened big media pundit, feels the need to try to deconstruct and rethorically crush a 20 year old, Puerto Rican college student.

Jason Mattera scares the hell out of her.
An Excellent Evening

Had the privilege of hoisting a couple of beers with David Hogberg and Jeff Cordts yesterday. Both gentlemen were smart, funny and engaging... much like their writing, oddly enough! The conversation was spirited and (I think) a great time was had by all.

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

Extra, Extra! Read all about it! Register Identifies The Wrong Side of History

Go check out David Hogberg’s take on the Register’s “enlightened” view of gay marriage. He’s spot on in his analysis of the Register’s position.

Here's a taste of the original Register Editorial:

Someday, future generations of Americans will look back at the debate over gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about. History will put today's debates in perspective the way society now has perspective on past subjects of raging cultural warfare, such as whether women should be allowed to vote.

I wonder what the always benevolent, huge-brained Register Editorial Board members believe that future generations will think about the current debates over the people's right to keep and bear arms or… to the right keep the lion’s share of the money that they earn away from the IRS, or for that matter… the current dangerous practice of legislation by the judiciary?

Then there's this gem:

The main argument against letting women vote was that it would undermine the traditional family. Sound familiar?

Okay... well... not to rain on your parade, but it HAS!!! You can argue that this is a good or a bad thing, but to deny that the growing political power of women has not had a profound effect on the structure of the traditional family (at least the family that has been "traditional" from the industrial revolution...) is just loony.

I especially love the conclusion of the Register's piece:

In a democracy, with inherent principles of equality for all people, that equality eventually will be achieved. The courts and public opinion, however haltingly, are moving in that direction. Many lawmakers in Iowa and in Congress are not. They stand against broadening the concept of equality under the law.

They stand on the wrong side of history.

Look, I for one would have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry or group marriage (or call it civil union, if the word marriage in this context raises your hackles). I want people to have the freedom to form the personal/economic associations of their choice. No life partner should be kept from seeing their dying mate in the hospital because of the objections of homophobic relatives. But, expanding the institution of marriage or even promoting the concept of civil union is problematic as long as the government is in the lifestyle-blessing and subsidy business.

I can't help but believe that the Register editorialists are talking about equality of outcome in the last quote. If so, they are sadly mistaken. When government gets into the business of making gay folks happy in their marriage (and believe me, it will...) there will blossom a whole new bouquet of unique needs for married gays that will spawn a bevy of new and.... shall we say, interesting social programs. Man... I can just imagine the public service announcements... whee! But, I won't go there...

As long as the government pursues social engineering through the tax code and enforces wealth redistribution under the guise of special or “victim” status, gay marriage (and other similar liberal social issues that I support) will have to take second chair.

Responsibility for self and loved ones must come first. Without responsibility, rights accorded by the government are simply license. This goes for singles, marrieds, straights, gays, transgendered and even bloggers.