Why Barack Obama is not My President.

Recently at a rally, President Obama was asked the question, "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?". He then proceed to respond saying the following "I don't think it's a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up. We're all children of God. We don't make determinations about who we love. That's why I think discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong."

It's completely outrageous that someone supposedly so intelligent would give such an answer. Firstly, homosexuality has been proven to be determined by genes and the genetic basis for it has been isolated across a number of scientific fields, from neuroscience, to genomics, to biology. Homosexulaity exists in over 500 different species of animals and some of the genes that cause it have already been discovered. Saying "I don't think it's a choice" is a disingenous cop out.

Secondly and probably most importantly, it shouldn't matter even if homosexuality was a choice. There are plenty of things people choose to do on a daily basis that aren't cause for ridicule and persecution. People choose their neighborhood, their religion, their job, and aren't affected because another group doesn't like their choice. It shouldn't be any different in terms of sexuality.

Thirdly, the fact that he would even entertain the question should be a call to the entire Queer community to end all support for his presidency. To me, asking the question "Is homosexualtiy a choice?" is tanamount to asking the question "Are minorities as smart as caucasians?". These extremely offensive and troubling questions both smack of a type of ignorance that any so called "educated" person would not even bother answering them because the premise of each is so ludicrous. The fact that President Obama tried to answer the question in its literal meaning shows exactly how completely ignorant, oblivious, and naive he is regarding issues affecting Queer people. What he should have said is "It's been proven that it is not a choice." What he should have said is, "It shouldn't matter if it is a choice or not." What he should have said is "Every American should have the right to love." But he didn't. He gave a vague answer articultating that he "believes" Queer people are the way they are because they have a certain "make up" and left nothing certain in the minds of his audience about the authenticity of LGBT identities.

Barack Obama's administration has defended the Defense of Marriage Act, failed at gaining support for DADT, and largely put the rest of LGBT issues on the backburner, only giving lip service to the Queer community when it's politically expedient. Some will argue that he signed the Matthew Shephard hate crimes bill into law, and that he's extended benefits to same-sex federal employees, and hired the most LGBT people in his administration ever, but these accomplishments are menial in comparison to what could have been done with the previous democratic 59/60ish seat democratic majority in the senate. The hate crimes bill did not take any real courage on the President's part and could have been passed by congress in any year of any democratic presidency. Extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees was pretty much an easy lift as well and doesn't really mean anything for the vast majority of sexual minorities not working in government. In addition, hiring the most LGBT workers to his administration doesn't mean anything if substantive pro LGBT legislation doesn't follow. George W. Bush had an extremely multicultural cabinet and administration, yet most of his policies were disastrous to non-white communities across the board.

In the end, Barack Obama's presidency is a lost presidency, not just in terms of Queer rights, but across the board. Too much compromising and cowtowing to the Republican party in the beginning of his administration has put him in a position where the Congress has shifted hard right. He wasn't forceful or articulate in terms of affirming his leadership and creating a vision for the country and now he is left with a diminished majority in the senate that will most likely be subjected to even more obstructionism by the newly energized Republicans.

As a woman, a minority, and a gender variant, I know what it's like to have someone challenge your being. I support the rights and humanity of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals wholeheartedly and will not support any politician who doesn't have the courage to assuredly affirm their right to exist.

Top 5 Atheist Videos

I know what day it is and all the talk about the Jewish zombie is kind of making me throw up, so I decided to throw up some rationalist videos. Some of the videos are funny, others deal more seriously with the obvious logical fallacies. Hope you enjoy. Again, I ask the question: "What is the difference between faith and ignorance?"

5. Pure Hilarity! There is no one better to lay waste to the contradictions that exist within christianity than my friend TJ.




4. This next video is probably the most important to watch for people who were raised in a christian or religious household. They tackle the subject of childhood indoctrination and it's implications for people and their ideas about reality. I couldn't combine these two videos, but they are excerpts from the same segment.







3. One of the best comedic pieces on religion ever!




2. Probably the most concise case against religion and religious claims put to video. It totally disproves the "Jesus" myth.




1. Bill Maher's "Religulous" receives my top honors. It's a great movie to check out for someone who is still not sure what they understand about religion. It's funny and insightful.

Is Santan a Catholic?

If he were real, I definitely could see how one could make that argument. My friend Pat certainly makes a great case.



Raping children in mass numbers, condoning slavery, oppressing Jews, promoting conquest rape and pillage of native peoples and their lands, oppressing women, torturing and killing homosexual and transgender people, arguing against the use of life saving medicine for suffering people... Any other institution with this record would have been disbanded by now. If god were real he must have a big shadow because the Catholic church, the church supposedly created by "Jesus" himself is hiding behind a lot. I wonder what type of mental gymnastics any Catholic with a conscience must do to support such an institution.

No Credibility Whatsoever

In light of the recent child rape scandals in the Vatican, anyone interested should really check out this documentary. Not only did the Catholic Church officials try to cover up the mass molestation of children, they also sought to drastically suppress the cases in which little girls were raped so that they could pass the problem off as a "Gay" issue. Even more damaging is the fact that Mr. Ratzinger was at the center of the cover up and indicted in the state of Texas, but was later pardoned by President Bush. How can anyone speak about peace and love for humanity with this type of record?

Aurora

Capitalism doesn't work. Monetary Economics doesn't work either....

If there is anything one should learn from the "Great Recession", one recession in the many recessions experienced by America and the world, is that capitalism has major structural flaws. What is capitalism exactly? Capitalism is defined as "an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists." (investopedia.com)

The modern idea of capitalism can be traced back to Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations" which was written in 1776. Many of the understandings of capitalism and more broadly monetary economics are based on perspectives on human behavior that are over 200 years old. While capitalism and monetary economics have changed the one thing that hasn't is the old world view that scarcity will always exist. Scarcity is the underlying premise of all monetary economics. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, all include the idea of scarce resources as their starting point for the rest of their economic philosophy. These ideologies were created at a time when world globalization did not reach the extent it does today. Nations were more disconnected. Travel, communication, and the spread of ideas and goods were a lot slower in Adam Smith's time.

When one observes capitalist and monetary economic theory, the first major flaw that should be noticed is the notion of scarcity. If someone were to read the writings of Adam Smith and then walk into a Wal-mart or Sam's Club she or he might start calling into question the so called "reality" of scarcity. Scarcity as argued by Smith and later economists is the belief that the Earth's resources are limited. Basic monetary economic theory tries to tackle the social problem of allocating seemingly scarce resources among a population with seemingly unlimited wants and needs. However, in a technological world such as ours these problems are not as they seem. The idea of scarcity comes from a world in which most of the resources were static, since resources could not be duplicated or synthesized. For instance, in the early 1800s there was theoretically a set amount of coal that could be mined. Once this coal was gone, it could never be used as a resource again because it was exhausted. Even "renewable" resources like wood and leather can be theoretically exhausted in a monetary economic system. If all the trees in a forest are cut down, there is no more wood to be gained from that forest. Likewise, if the entire population of cattle is slaughtered there is no more leather. So in effect, renewable and non-renewable resources seem scarce.

While this notion is true in the less technologically developed world of Smith, it is not so in modern society. The technological development we see today allows for goods and services to be mass produced. Any company or corporation attempts to produce as many goods as are demanded by a certain population. Demand roughly speaking is the aggregate willingness and ability of individuals within a population to purchase a valued good or service. In an isolated world or system devoid of technological advancement, resource scarcity is a truer reality. However, in an open world were resources are shared and technological advancement is achieved resource abundance can be realized.

Since scarcity is related to the premise of unlimited wants and needs, I can not go any further in debunking the notion of scarcity without first addressing this factor.

Though it may seem that seem that the wants and needs of a population are limitless, it is simply not true. For one, the economic law of diminishing value is in direct contradiction with the idea of unlimited wants and needs. The law of diminishing value states that over time a person's value on a particular good or service decreases as they obtain that particular good or service. For example, if Tom has is hungry for hot dogs, each hot dog he consumes makes him less likely to want hot dogs. If the needs and wants of a population were truly unlimited as stated in basic monetary economic theory, people would buy each particular product they valued until they ran out of money. While the number of hot dogs Tom will consume in his lifetime may seem like a hard number to calculate, that number is still fixed. Tom will never want infinity hot dogs, he will only want how many he is able to consume. Therefore, it is possible to calculate how many hot dogs Tom will eat over his lifetime. Peoples' desire for goods and services is directly based upon how much they can process. A person cannot watch thirty televisions at once because she or he has only one pair of eyes, and so does not have the physical capacity to consume an unlimited amount of televisions sets. Even if one were to argue that a person could keep wanting different televisions every time she or he wanted to view television, that person would still have a fixed amount of televisions they could demand based upon human physical limits most obviously, life expectancy. Furthermore, human behavior has a tendency towards familiar attachment as people are generally not comfortable with using new technological tools each time they need to complete a certain task; so the likelihood of a person wanting a new television set each time she or he wanted to watch television is statistically nonexistent. By the law of diminishing value, each person has a limited amount of wants and needs they can physically consume over their lifetime. When extrapolated over the world population for any point in time, the entire wants and needs of of the people of Earth is theoretically a fixed calculable number.

The notion of scarcity resulting from unlimited wants and needs is also fallacious due to the fact that it does not account for human technological advancement. Resources are ultimately a means to an end of solving a human problem which is realized through want or need and the subsequent obtaining of the particular resource. While a certain resource may be scarce, the human capacity for finding an alternative solution to the problem posed by lack of that resource is exponentially greater to the point of limitlessness than the looming scarcity, as long as individuals work together to solve the problem. This factor can be seen in any of today's corporations or scientific studies where answers to problems are continually being solved. People who are educated and working towards solving a problem have a greater chance of figuring it out if they collaborate than if they simply work alone. In truth, it can be said that the entire cumulation of human knowledge and well-being is a result of one giant collaboration. In a sense,Stephen Hawking is nothing without Einstein, Einstein is nothing without Newton, and Newton is nothing without Copernicus, etc. This capacity for collaboration, if maximized can lead to endless growth and acceleration beyond resource scarcity. Resources are only scarce when there is a lack of answers on how to make them abundant or to utilize other materials to alleviate the problems posed by not having the particular resource.

Aside from the fallacy of scarcity, the most alarming and probably detrimental aspect of capitalism and monetary economics is the idea of the profit motive. Profit exists in a monetary system due to the premise of scarcity. In a monetary system, currency is the medium of exchange. Goods and services are sold to accumulate more money or purchasing power. A basic example of this would be, if Jim has a business and it costs him $3 dollars to make a product and he sells it for $8, he makes a $5 profit. The problem with the profit motive is the fact that it is not always within the best interest of profit to solve human problems. In fact, profit is often a detriment. The profit motive leads to inefficiency when addressing human wants and needs. If Jim's business produces goods that last 50 years he will not make a profit because each time he addresses a person's need and wants, less people within the population will exist who desire his goods or services. This fact drives Jim to produce goods and services that don't fully address the population's desires. He will make his products last only a couple of years in order to turn a profit. In the world of economics this is referred to as planned obsolescence. Businesses make products not necessarily to address human desires but rather to make a profit. If our friend Jim started out making pencils to address the need for better writing materials, he must find a way to produce the most quality pencils at the cheapest sustainable cost. If he produces a pencil that costs too much and therefore undercuts his competitiveness in terms of price and the ability of people to buy his pencils, he will not be able to stay in the business of pencil production, even if his pencils last long and work better than other pencils on the market.

The inefficiency from planned obsolescence is just one problem with capitalist and monetary economics resulting from the profit motive. As stated earlier, the profit motive more often than not is in direct conflict with addressing the problems underlying human wants and needs. Another area where this should be crystal clear is in the subject of poverty. Poverty is the condition of not having the economic purchasing power (money) to accommodate one's needs. People living in poverty exist in first, second, and third world countries. It the direct result of a restriction of resources based on the profit motive of monetary economics. If a resource is abundant it cannot be sold. Resources have to be either seemingly scarce or artificially made scarce in order produce monetary economic profit. For example, air cannot be sold because it is abundant and up to this point in our history cannot be made artificially scarce. On the other hand, clean drinking water though technically abundant is made artificially scarce through inaccessibility. Technology exists today to supply the entire water demands of the world. Water can be recycled as well as desalinized. The only reason it isn't is because of the inhumane tenet of monetary economics that scarcity must exist for the sake of profit. Millions upon millions of people each day go thirsty and even die from dehydration because of a lack of drinking water. However, the monetary economic value system allows people who are not dying from dehydration to go about their day without feeling any remorse because of the economic value system they uphold, even though it is artificially denying the poor of the ability to drink.

Even people who give to charities in order to end hunger and starvation don't realize that their efforts are completely futile. As long as the world upholds capitalist and monetary economic values there will always be winners and loser, "haves" and "have nots". It is impossible to end hunger and malnutrition in a monetary economic system because business and industry can't make a profit if goods and services are abundant. People somewhere will always not have food because if food were abundant it couldn't be sold. It is a system that upholds winners over losers, and without losers you can't have winners in a monetary system.

Ideally the goal of an economic system should be to maximize human well-being. However, the values upheld in capitalism and monetary economics lead directly to monopoly. Currently 1% of the entire human population holds 40% of the wealth/access to resources. That means 99% of people on our planet have to compete for access to only 70% of its resources. To use a fashion metaphor, it's like trying to fit a big person in pants that don't fit them, while the other person has enough fabric in their pants so that they can not only fit but also can make a shirt, a dress, and even a jacket from the left over fabric. From the beginning, the goal of any business is to maximize market share and therefore profit. If Jim has more people coming into his store to buy products than other stores, he does better. If Jim has everyone buying things in his store he does the best. This motive can be easily seen in the business practices of Wal-mart, where many other "mom and pop" stores have been simply out competed and put out of business. People lose access to goods and services if they are not able to compete within a capitalist system. Eventually, those able to compete build off their success and create more purchasing power for themselves while those unable to compete are dragged along with the "progress" and so are denied of basic necessities. Over the long run, the wealth gap can only increase in a monetarist system. As people get richer their methods of making money become more refined and so they strive to maintain build off their economic power.


The fact that the premise of scarcity and unlimited wants and needs do not apply in any meaningful way to our world today, along with the profit motive side-effect of poverty that exists within capitalism and monetary economics should compel any person to seek alternative resource allocation methods. Many if not all of the worlds problems today are caused by the inevitable conflict that arises when many people don't have access to goods and services while many others do. Most of our wars are fought over resources either directly or indirectly. Most of the crimes that are committed are directly or indirectly related to the neuroses that is created within the human psyche when one does not have access to resources or is forced to compete with others for resources. I think it is safe to say that with all the advancements in technology as well as psychology and cognitive neuroscience human beings can successfully create and implement a resource allocation system that truly maximizes
the well-being of all people instead of forcing them to compete for irrational profit.


Aurora

I support RuPaul! and ramblings on Black History Month

First off, if the local minority community leaders of LA really cared about Black history they'd make some clear straightforward guidelines for elementary school and high school teachers to follow. Secondly, RuPaul is a role model. In school I really wasn't all that fond of Black History Month because it was mostly either about Slavery, George Washington Carver, or MLK. The entire social studies curriculum in most schools is designed to promote a "America is the best country in the world" propaganda and so I think these community leaders' beef should be with the process of who gets to decide what goes in the textbook, instead of self-righteous indignation over teachers who don't teach according to their particular views.




Ooohhh notice how they called RuPaul a "flamboyant crossdresser" as if that is a bad thing. There are tons of entertainers who could be considered flamboyant, Mick Jagger, Kanye West, Lil Wayne, Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, etc. Also, how is cross dressing such a bad thing? I can tell I live in a nation with a lot of idiots when the newsflash to be shocked about is that someone cross dresses. On to the more important stories please...

Barack Obama, The Greatest Yuppie of All Time

Upon watching this video I couldn't help but feel what has been the writing on the wall to for many Obama supporters since the end of his first year as President; that ultimately he is a deceiver like all other politicians and that politics is an outdated and crude way of solving human problems. Though it is my understanding that the current governmental gridlock is not entirely his fault, I do know that the platitudes and twisted logic he uses in his soaring awe inspiring speeches only adds to the problem of America's backwards cultural psyche.



Obama has a way of melding seemingly good logic over bad policy ideas so that the American people are still able to somewhat support him even if they otherwise disagree with the policy. As someone who majored in marketing in college, I try to pay close attention to exactly how people present their ideas. Many times in this past year Barack Obama has seemed to me like a more well-spoken version of George W. Bush. Here is a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show that highlights my point:



Barack Obama is so effective at getting people to believe in him through his speeches because he uses emotional stories as the platform behind his policy initiatives. All throughout the 2008 campaign he invoked the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement. He talked about the work ethic of Americans pulling themselves out of the Great Depression and the valor of the American soldiers who fought in World War II. The problem with this method of political speech is that capitalizes off of peoples' feelings of elation in a way so that they are not able to rationally evaluate the true nature of the policies being debated. Even though the campaign is over and one year has passed and his approval ratings have fell since he took office, President Obama is still very adept at getting people to believe in his cause. For instance, in his Nobel Peace Prize speech President Obama over the first twenty minutes outlined why war is necessary giving emotional historical stories of "just" battles that were won. During the last half of his speech he only briefly highlighted the non-violence efforts of Ghandi and Dr. King and did not include any historical examples expounding on his ideas of how peace can be maintained. He did not speak with the same inspiring tone about his prescribed methods of keeping peace and it was clear that the speech was designed to maintain global support of America's wars while at same time appeasing those in the international community calling for peace.

This say-one-thing-mean-another approach is inherently detrimental to any discussion aimed at solving human problems. If someone were really concerned with the problem of war and violence they would give a speech examining the psychological reasons for why people fight and offering solutions that would not hesitate to criticize the institutions that make war seem necessary, in particular our capitalist economic system that inevitably leads to hegemonic behavior. Barack Obama exemplifies exactly what an effective politician is, someone who keeps people complacent but hopeful:



When looking at the healthcare debate it should be obvious that President Obama is either uninterested in ensuring effective reform or completely incompetent at brining about the health reform millions upon millions of Americans desperately need. While it should be noted that he is not alone in this discussion as he has to worry about the will of 100 senators and 435 representatives, one also has to take into account the fact that the President still sets the agenda and larger political narrative. It seems suspicious that the team that so beautifully managed to market the idea of a mixed race African American with a Muslim name becoming president can not manage to successfully navigate the politics of passing effective health care reform with only a decrepit Republican party and a few largely corrupt and already unpopular Democratic senators standing in the way. The popular conclusion that Obama believes in his proposals is even more problematic than the belief that he is legislatively apathetic because either way he has proven to be great at getting people to believe more fervently in the ideals that support an establishment culture that is largely detrimental to the well-being of the public; and when someone truly believes in what they do they are usually more destructive. Although President Barack Obama is an example of a few good aspects of political activism bringing about equality, he exemplifies everything that is wrong with political thinking and the use of politics as a means of addressing problems:



In an ideal world, our handling of issues would be arrived at objectively through the evaluation of experts in the particular field pertaining to the problem, not arbitrarily debated through the emotional opinions of those seeking to maintain power. One can not even think to effectively fix the absurdity posed by the system currently in place if she or he believes in the institutions upheld by that particular system. This is at the crux of Obama's and the liberal community's overwhelming ineffectiveness at changing the world for the better.

Sincerely,
Aurora

Rush Limbaugh Dancing to Lady Gaga!

So I woke up today and came across this piece of gold on the web.



Hard core conservative dancing to Lady Gaga. Okay Rush, we all saw that you've been holding that one in for a while so can we finally get support for Queer rights? LMAO

Aurora

America's transition from Democracy to Corporatocracy is complete!

I like many others am really angered by the Supreme Court's ruling today that destroys the dollar limits on the amount of money corporations can put into political campaigns. Back in business school I argued with my yuppie colleagues over the idea that corporations should be treated as individual people. Logically it makes no sense to ignore the math and treat two or more people like they are somehow one person. Today that logical fallacy cost our nation greatly because corporations will now be able to almost completely drown out the voices of individual voters.

Corporations are not people no matter how you slice it, they are organizations of people. No one person has complete access to the amounts of money a corporation does. Even Bill Gates couldn't free up the amounts of money a large corporation can on his own. No one person can do 5 or 5 million completely separate things at once. Even the most proficient multi-tasker couldn't call the president, the congress, and the voters at the same exact time, while also fundraising for other political candidates and giving speeches at a rally somewhere. America has really sold itself into economic slavery with this one. Corporations are "super people" in a sense, and now just got the ability to fund any politician they want unlimitedly. When people look back at the fall of the American republic, this day will be marked as the "event horizon" of its demise.

That's my take on this whole mess.

You can read more about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

Aurora

Sorry I've been gone.... :/

Hey all,

Everyone who knows me know's I've been busy and really dealing with the fact that I'm alive.


Thanks for continuing to check out my blog and I promise I will have more posts coming soon.

Sincerely,

Aurora