A recent Gallup Poll shows Ron Paul carrying 0% support. I realize in the blogosphere, Ron Paul is the best candidate since Howard Dean. Apparently, Digg users and bloggers love an economically conservative, gay hating, sexist, godbagging Republican. Oh, yeah, I forgot, he’s against the Iraq war, and that trumps all his bigotry. My bad.

I know it gets talked about a lot, but I wonder if Ron Paul is really affecting the “debate”, whatever that means. After all, Republicans have always tried to ban abortion, discriminate against gays, and push their religious beliefs onto others. That’s not something new that Ron Paul brought to the debate. No Republican is adopting his other platform of tearing apart the federal government. So he’s not had an effect there either. As for the Iraq War, please. Republicans are running away from the President because they want to get re-elected, not because of Ron Paul. Does anyone really think Republicans looking to be re-elected would support the war if not for Ron Paul?

So, I see little influence from the Ron Paul campaign. Yeah, he’s big on Digg and YouTube, but come on, big deal. He’s not getting votes, he’s not influencing campaigns. He’s just a gay bashing, woman hating, religious pushing white male from Texas. Um, don’t we already have enough of those?

According to On The Issues, Ron Paul voted yes on “an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.” It’s just another indication of where Ron Paul stands with regards to treatment of homosexuals. He doesn’t want gays to either marry or raise kids. What a guy.

Furthermore, I would like to bring back Ron Paul’s comments from the debate and highlight once again the evidence of how anti-homosexual he is:

MR. SPRADLING: Congressman Paul, a question for you.

Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military?

REP. PAUL: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way.

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

To sum up, Ron Paul thinks the current policy is a good one, and that disruptive conduct by heterosexuals or homosexuals should be grounds to dismiss military personnel. On the last part, I agree in general. However, and here is the key point:

Unlike “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and Ron Paul, I don’t think the act of merely saying one is gay is disruptive

There is no other way to interpret Ron Paul’s comments. If he thinks the current policy is a good policy, then he thinks just being gay is disruptive. So despite all the blather about state’s rights, individual freedom, blah, blah, from Ron Paul, that only applies if you’re straight. If you’re gay, forget it. You’re too “disruptive.”

Last night, Ron Paul revealed (not for the first time) his right wing social agenda in response to a question about Bush’s past mistakes. According to Ron Paul, we’ve gotten away from “Christian philosophy” when we enacted pre-emptive war. I’m not sure why Paul felt the need to say “Christian” but judging by his legislative history, it’s because he wants to push a Christian view of society.

In 2004, Ron Paul supported and praised HR 2028, the Pledge Protection Act. The sole purpose of this act is to allow states to mandate that “under God” be allowed in the pledge. How libertarian is it to wink and nod at states forcing religion onto people?

Once again, Ron Paul fails to protect the rights and freedom of the citizens of the United States.

My last post on Ron Paul generated a lot of hits and comments. Most comments were negative and in some cases contained ad hominem attacks on me. I realize that Ron Paul is the darling of the blogosphere so this response was not unexpected. Digg users are especially in love with Ron Paul. However, despite all the comments against my conclusion about Ron Paul and his desire to use the power of the federal government to push his right wing social agenda, I’m not budging. I believe I’m correct. I did a little more digging and I think I’ve found more evidence to support my case, and in addition, the case that Ron Paul cherry picks what issues he thinks the federal government should be involved in.

I know lots of people take issue with the style of Christopher Hitchens. I don’t agree with him on every issue, and I think his style can sometimes take away the power of his arguments. However, there is one thing that Hitchens is dead on almost every time: religion. His book, The Missionary Position, which revealed to me more filth and evil about Mother Theresa than I ever imagined, is possibly his best work. When I had him, in obvious sarcasm, sign a picture of Mother Theresa for my wife, he gleefully called Mother Theresa a “fucking cunt”.

Here are some links to transcripts, where Hitchens obliterates Jerry Falwell. Must reads.

Hannity & Colmes Transcript

Anderson Cooper 360 (quarter way down the page)

Update: I made it clearer that Hitchens was calling Mother Theresa a cunt, and not my wife.

I used to be against legalizing drugs, until my mid twenties when I read research that showed how few deaths actually occur from recreational drug use. When I thought about it some more, I realized that I never became a drug user because I didn’t want to be a drug user, not because of the laws. I did a little drinking in college, some of it stupid, but it never became close to a problem. I tried pot a couple times, and thought it was pretty lame. In any case, the reasons I never had a problem with substances has to do with me not being a moron. I always wanted to be a successful programmer, and that was just what I made my decisions based on.

So now, in my early thirties, I’m firmly against the “Drug War.” I believe in lowering the drinking age to eighteen. As long as you’re an adult and doing it in the sanctity of your own home, do whatever you like. This “War on Drugs” is just so asinine. It costs too much, it’s ineffective, and it’s disproportionately affecting minorities.

Here are a couple articles that do a much better job than I can do, in explaining the inanity of the “Drug War”.

Measuring Prohibitions by Radley Balko
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119675.html

Prison Rape and the Drug War by Jacob Sullum
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119284.html

What’s Wrong With the Drug War? by The Drug Policy Alliance
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/

I was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, and I still am today. I was never a supporter just because of WMD’s. While I did believe he had WMD’s, and though his previous behavior with inspectors was indicative of someone who had something to hide, it appears Saddam was only hiding his non WMD’s from his generals. These possible weapons, though, were not my main reason for wanting to go to Iraq. Simply put, I think leaving homicidal dictactors in power is a bad thing. Leaving homicidal dictators in power in the Middle East is an even worse thing. So, while people can argue about strategy and our planning, it doesn’t change the fact that I think it was the right thing to do.

Now we find ourselves four years into an unpopular war, with both our political parties failing us all in any attempt to resolve it. The main lesson of Vietnam was not to play politics with war, and here we are thirty years later with both parties playing politics with war. Lately, I’ve been wondering should we stay, or is it time to cut our losses and leave. It wasn’t easy but I think I can be happy with it.

Republicans have accused Democrats of a “cut-and-run” attitude towards Iraq. They’re only half right. What the Democrats are really proposing is “cut-and-forget.” What are they forgetting? The 26 million Iraq’s who have gone from the rapacious dictatorship of Saddam to the incompetent elected government of Maliki. What do Democrats think will happen once we leave? They say it’s a civil war now, that it’s not our fight. Fine. So, because Democrats are afraid of conflict, 26 million Iraq’s could suffer indefinitely. Very nice.

The Republicans have been constantly going on about “sending the wrong message to the terrorists.” It’s not about the terrorists. The terrorists aren’t going to beat us. Stop worrying about what the terrorists think. The terrorists in Iraq are a bunch of cowardly, religious, whack jobs. Forget them, and start worrying about the *people of Iraq.* You know, the people we liberated? This isn’t even about “winning” any more. Win what? We beat Saddam’s army. The terrorists aren’t going to win. What we need to do is focus on getting the Iraqi people a real government. Republicans need to stop with the byline

So what did I conclude? We should stay. Not to “Stay the Course™” or to avoid “Cut-and-Run™”. Simply because the people of Iraq deserve a chance. We probably need a new strategy, but I doubt one will happen while both parties are more worried about appearance than subtance.

Q. Which of these fundamentalist nutbags is scarier?

Bill Donahue of the Catholic League

Osama Bin Laden of Al-Qaeda

A. If you’re John Edwards, apparently Bill Donahue is the scarier entity after seeing Edwards fold this week. So, for any of you Edwards supporters out there, please ask yourself how Edwards could stand up to Bin Laden, if he can’t even stand up to Bill Donahue.

One of these days I will complete my report on my Amaz!ng Meeting 5 experience. I’ve been so busy with work and something new my wife are working, that I haven’t had a chance to really sit down and finish.

Anyway, on to my dislike of John Edwards. I’ve always disliked John Edwards for the following reasons:

1) He is a personal injury lawyer
2) He is a personal injury lawyer
3) He is a personal injury lawyer
4) His whole campaign is based on class warfare
5) Despite his talk of “two Americas”, he does no pro-bono work
6) He is a personal injury lawyer

Now I have a new reason. A couple weeks ago, Edwards hired bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work on the blog side of his presidential campaign. Marcotte was to be the blogmaster, and McEwan a part-time technical adviser. I will admit I am not a regular reader of either of their progressive issue oriented blogs, but I have read enough of Marcotte’s blog to know how “anti-religious/pro-science” her blog is.

This didn’t sit well with Bill Donahue, the leader of the Catholic League, who spends all his time combating the “war” against Catholics. We all know how oppressed Christians, especially Catholics are in this country. For example, when the latest pope was selected, it was hardly covered by the 24 hour news networks. Christmas and Easter are practically ignored. Donahue made a big stink over the hiring of these two bloggers, releasing press releases and going on television to complain.

On February 7th, Salon.com reported that Marcotte and McEwan were fired, but this turned out to be incorrect. They hadn’t been fired but, as the Edwards campaign put it, they were “reviewing the issue”. They let the bloggers twist in the wind for a full day before releasing a statement that chastised Marcotte and McEwan for what they wrote on their blogs. Instead of coming to their defense right away, and fighting back against the blithering idiot Bill Donahue, the Edwards campaign buckled. Sure Edwards didn’t fire them (they in fact have both resigned now), but he publically took the side of Bill Donahue, and not his supporters. Nice job John.

Therefore, I’m calling out John Edwards as a spineless douchebag. If you’d like to see how someone with principles and integrity handles Bill Donahue, check out this clip from the Opie and Anthony Show, where Louis CK destroys Donahue: Audio Clip.

Well, while the chances of me voting for John McCain were already in the slim range, this latest story makes it zero chance:

McCain Wants ‘Dialogue With Dr. Dobson

“Sen. John McCain said Tuesday he hopes to patch things up with conservative Christian leader James Dobson, who recently said he wouldn’t support the Republican’s presidential bid under any circumstances…”

So, yeah, uh, fuck you John.