Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Why Straight Men Don't Get It On In The John
One reason, and one reason only: Straight women usually won't participate.

Naturally, Jonah Goldberg turns this into a left-right issue, suggesting that lefties condone bathroom fucking, where the right is above such a thing. Of course, one of the leftier people I know, who happens to be gay, suggested that the real problem with airport bathroom sex between men is that a 7-year-old shouldn't be exposed to this. (Perhaps somebody should inform him that he's now a neo-con.)

Now, maybe a good deal of America neatly divides into a big block of left and right, but more and more, I think even people who were quite left or quite right are becoming more like me: pretty damn disgusted with all of them, and trying to avoid voting (sorry) for the lesser of two weevils.

I'm really looking for The Smorgasbord Party, a fantasy organization where the policy has a nice thick tether to economic and foreign policy realities, and is informed by history and good data. I'm looking for a candidate who isn't about turning the country into one big church/tax haven for the super-rich, or into a rerun of communism but with McDonald's, Wal-Mart, and health care run -- and run into the ground -- by the state.

Yes, I am a little hard to pigeonhole: I'm a fiscal conservative (no tax dough for NPR, no nationalized health care, no paying for other people's kids to go to school except for the very poor, and no goddam freebies on the taxes for yachts). I'm also socially libertarian: Do drugs if you want, just don't steal my TV to buy them or get behind the wheel after you snort, shoot, or inject. And go ahead sell your body if you want to and/or ask somebody to help you kill yourself if you're so inclined.

Can anybody propose a candidate for the likes of me? They don't actually have to be running. (They do have to have ethics, integrity and all the important add-ons.)

Posted by aalkon at September 4, 2007 11:54 AM

Comments

Sorry to have to state the obvious here: But the candidate most likely to meet the highest number of your criteria is Ron Paul.

Posted by: Theodor at September 4, 2007 2:02 AM

Oh, gawd...they're everywhere, aren't they?

Posted by: Doobie at September 4, 2007 4:39 AM

Other than some of his bizarre ideas on foreign relations, Ron Paul only has one major flaw:

He's batshit fucking loco!

Anyone who addresses a forum of truthers with anything other than the disgust and disdain they deserve is one of them, in my book. And Ron Paul did just that.

Posted by: brian at September 4, 2007 5:01 AM

As for Ron Paul, see the part about not turning the country into one big church:

http://skipoliva.com/?p=5

Paul is anti-abortion, a position he attributed to his years as a practicing obstetrician. There’s always been tension with libertarianism over abortion and the proper moral and legal status of the unborn. Paul’s position has been described as favoring “state’s rights”: Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, the federal government should get out of the abortion issue, and each state should be free to permit or ban the practice as it sees fit.

Paul’s position isn’t quite that simple, however. In the House’s he introduced several bills that would impose a federal definition of life as beginning at conception. One such bill, H.R. 1094, contains the following operative language:

The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.

The Congress declares that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.

A central theme of Paul’s campaign is his blanket assertion that he “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.” But where does the Constitution authorize Congress to make scientific determinations or define the existence of human life? The Constitution only addresses individuals as citizens, which the Fourteenth Amendment defines as “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” (italics added.)

The Fourteenth Amendment also undercuts Paul’s “state’s rights” facade. He says he would simply restore abortion to its pre-Roe status as a state matter. But if Congress–employing some mystical authority–declares that human life begins at conception, then wouldn’t the Fourteenth Amendment’s proviso that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” require every state to ban abortion? After all, no state could deprive a person of life or equal protection based on skin color or sex. Paul’s definition of life extends that same principle to every zygote, fetus, and unborn child. There would be no more latitude for states to permit abortion than, say, racial lynching.

Paul’s stance also opens the door for science to become even more dominated by political factions. If Congress can declare that life begins at conception, it can also declare that evolutionary biology isn’t valid, global warming is caused by rats, or any other proposition that commands the support of a congressional majority. That’s not a recipe for restraining Congress to its enumerated constitutional powers.

It's easy to be gungo ho about Paul -- until you take a closer look.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 4, 2007 5:21 AM

Here's a more comprehensive link about Paul:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 4, 2007 5:25 AM

The above links via Wendy McElroy, who urges people to look closer at what a hypocrite this guy is, and who feels he'd "would impose a religious social conservatism of unprecedented proportions."

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/news.php?extend.972

P.S. Only put one link in per comment or you will trigger my spam filter!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 4, 2007 5:28 AM

Well I'm gone go out on a limb and say "Amy Alkon for president". If you want a candidate with your view it sounds like the most optimal solution. You could run on the "Opinionated bitch platform".

Posted by: vlad at September 4, 2007 6:01 AM

I'd vote for Amy. At least she doesn't try to hide her inner bitch behind a facade of overweening niceness. I find honesty refreshing.

But Amy won't run. She probably can't afford the pay cut.

Oh - Roe WAS wrongly decided as a matter of law. However, thanks to Marbury there is no available legislative solution to the issue. If the Court wishes to reverse itself and state that there is no Constitutional right to abortion, then the states would be free to handle the issue democratically, which would take a lot of the venom out of it. That won't happen for one simple reason - too many people will be out of jobs if the issue of abortion is ever put to rest. I mean, what other marketable skills does a professional protester really have?

Posted by: brian at September 4, 2007 6:20 AM

vlad is on the right track. Seriously Amy, run for something. The major parties have a stangle hold for the same reason most rotten shit happens in the world: people are either lazy or scared. You don't strike me as either.
If you can't picture that, invite a current candidate or office holder to visit your blog for a Q/A with your readers.
This is supposed to be a participatory democracy. Why people are content to sit around kvetching when you can legally storm into these people's offices and yell at them baffles the shit out of me.

Posted by: martin at September 4, 2007 6:59 AM

Newt Gingrich is the closest thing we've had to a modern-day politician with the 18th Century liberal values Amy mentioned.

And he writes alternate reality science fiction!

Posted by: snakeman99 at September 4, 2007 7:36 AM

Hah...you beat me to it...was just about to post this vid of Newt -- a rare episode of somebody on the national political scene talking sense:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/08/07/sot.newt.gingrich.cnn

I also liked is nine/90 suggestion in his LAT op-ed, that candidates, in the nine weeks leading up to the election, should have nine 90 minute debates -- something he is uniquely qualified to do, as there's more to him than a gaggle of nervous strategists behind an empty suit, like so many of them.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 4, 2007 7:45 AM

And he writes alternate reality science fiction!

That I can live without!

And thanks for the suggestion about the Q&A. Going to look into doing that with somebody or somebodies.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 4, 2007 7:47 AM

Never thought I would say this.... (And I don't know how accurate it is...)

Barry Goldwater?

Zombie Barry Goldwater?

Undead Barry Goldwater?

(You're not one of those prejudiced against the dead or undead are you?)

I realize that Barry Goldwater is either too liberal or regrettably insists on his principles and stances to get nominated by either party these days.... He is rested, and maybe ready.

Posted by: jerry at September 4, 2007 8:03 AM

Near where I live, there have been plans to place huge magnets around Barry Goldwater's body and wrapping coils of wire around his coffin in hopes of turning him into an alternative power source. As the Phoenix/Tucson corridor becomes more populated, such a power plant could very easily offset our straining nuclear power plant.

Posted by: jerry at September 4, 2007 8:36 AM

Right now Steve Forbes is a guest on Bloomberg. He is a very astute man, and I think his philosophy would blend social pragmatism with a true world view regarding finance and diplomacy.

Posted by: eric at September 4, 2007 8:52 AM

(They do have to have ethics, integrity and all the important add-ons.)

Amy, I hate to say this, but that statement reminded me of the bumper sticker that reads, "I believe in faeries, unicorns, good men, and other fantasy creatures."! o_O

Posted by: Flynne at September 4, 2007 10:01 AM

Thanks for doing your part to burst the Ron Paul bubble, Amy. I'm tired of seeing this guy held up as the very model of libertarianism, when thanks to the logical extension of his position on abortion he's anything but.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 4, 2007 10:53 AM

TO: Amy Alkon
RE: What, Exactly....

"Can anybody propose a candidate for the likes of me? They don't actually have to be running. (They do have to have ethics, integrity and all the important add-ons.)" -- Amy Alkon

...are you looking for here?

You started off about sex in men's public restrooms.

You end up asking for someone to satisfy you....one way or another.

If you're interest is 'sexual gratification', you can find that from any Richard Gere act-alike. However, I advise you that it is not nearly as satisfying as a true meeting of minds-bodies-and-souls.

If you're looking for a political candidate, there is a problem. Most regular sources of information on such are so 'bias' you can't trust them for squat. I recommend you look for a candidate who is willing to engage the public in the blogosphere and who claims, legitimately, the values you hold dear.

Be advised....they'll be hard to find. The problem is that the political parties don't think such creatures (1) exist or (2) can win.

Makes me think it's time to think about a third party.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. If you're more interested in the former issue than the latter, I suggest you start looking into a good church.....

Posted by: Chuck Pelto at September 4, 2007 4:14 PM

The candidate most likely to meet your criteria is.... Amy Alkon! I've voted for myself for every office, in every election, on the grounds that no one else is qualified to make decisions for me. Its a philosophical stance, and likely a futile one, I admit. But it feels better than that "lesser of two evils" crap that I have to listen to from... well, most people who talk about such things.

Posted by: Frank at September 4, 2007 4:53 PM

So, Jonah Goldberg is being his usual dishonest self. So what else is new?

He writes: Maybe I'm a product of my times, having grown up in New York City in the 1980s, but gay cruising in random places, specifically bathrooms, most certainly was part of the gay rights agenda (heck, I even remember when it was considered "anti-gay" to refer to the "gay agenda." Now at least it's simply anti-gay to describe the gay agenda in terms liberals don't like. I guess that's progress).

When was this? When was legislation ever proposed that would legalize anonymous sex in public restrooms? When was this ever considered a "gay right"? Jonah, I'm all ears. What you seem to remember growing up in NYC doesn't really cut it as evidence.

So, you're a compulsive liar. YAAAAAWN. I've known that for years.

Posted by: Patrick at September 4, 2007 7:11 PM

Yep, Ron Paul is a loonie (he was a special guest on Monty Python's 'Spot the Loonie').

I certainly wouldn't vote for him for president, but Jesus Christ in a chariot driven sidecar, how could he possibly be any worse than the rest of the clue free ass clowns vying for that position?

I swear, we'd be orders of magnitude better off just grabbing some random joe off of the street.

As for Amy for prez, I'd vote for her! :o)

Posted by: Rod at September 4, 2007 8:01 PM

Restroom sex is part of the gay rights agenda? I must have missed that email. Have any of you BEEN in a public men's room lately? Even the cleanest ones are decidedly UNsexy. Most gay guys I know (myself included) are obsessive neat freaks.

Posted by: Darry at September 4, 2007 8:34 PM

Oh, and I think Amy would make a great politician too.

Posted by: Darry at September 4, 2007 8:37 PM

Oddly enough, some of our best known Feminist(TM) bloggers have been seen the past two weeks minimizing what public restroom sex is all about, what Craig did, and comparing public restroom sex to the verbal harassment women face on the streets on an hourly basis, and finding that public restroom sex is not as bad as what women have to go through.

(In the last week, Amanda Marcotte had to leave her apartment and within 30 minutes was sexually harassed three times. Usually it's only once or twice.)

(Amy, I never realized, and on behalf of all men, I am very sorry.)

When they ask questions like, "what is wrong with restroom sex" and "what is it to you if you're not involved?" and "the code is discreet and the sex is discreet too" then I'll I can imagine is that the Feminists(TM) are involved in some "let's free the gays that can't have restroom sex" campaign, or that maybe they are trying to turn this into another case of men oppressing women.

Here's an example. It contains some gems from some of our bestest and brightest Feminists(tm)

Those here that are gay and think that public restroom sex is wrong? No, you're wrong!

Posted by: AnonForThisPost at September 4, 2007 10:50 PM

> Posted by: AnonForThisPost

Don't be gay.

Posted by: Crid at September 5, 2007 12:07 AM

> Naturally, Jonah Goldberg turns
> this into a left-right issue,

Aw c'mon, everyone's turned this into a left-right issue.

> Yep, Ron Paul is a loonie

Not saying your wrong or right, just that I'm amazed that all you have guys have the energy to worry about this in late summer.....With another summer yet to go before the election. And all the rest of a year, too.

You guys are badass. You're hardcore.

Posted by: Crid at September 5, 2007 12:12 AM

Crid - it's not a matter of worrying about it, it's a simple statement of fact. RP is a nut. McCain ain't so good in the brain-box either.

Oh - and this whole thing with restrooms and gays - I don't recall there being any mention of actual sex acts taking place here, just the propositioning. And is America really free if a politician can't hit on a cop in a bathroom?

Although I know that there were several arrests made in the late 80s - early 90s here in a local mall where a certain restroom of a certain store was being used precisely for such sexual activity.

So obviously SOMEONE was gettin' they groove on in the john.

Posted by: brian at September 5, 2007 4:43 AM

I'm a fiscal conservative (no tax dough for NPR, no nationalized health care, no paying for other people's kids to go to school except for the very poor, and no goddam freebies on the taxes for yachts). I'm also socially libertarian: Do drugs if you want, just don't steal my TV to buy them or get behind the wheel after you snort, shoot, or inject. And go ahead sell your body if you want to and/or ask somebody to help you kill yourself if you're so inclined.

Sounds like the definition of a libertarian to me

For all the Ron Paul bashers - perhaps he only seems "out there" because he isn't reading a script approved by 13 speechwriters and 47 publicists? Like - maybe he's human, instead of a puppet?

Posted by: bradley13 at September 5, 2007 5:39 AM

Like - maybe he's human, instead of a puppet?

No, Bradley. Like - maybe he's a fundamentalist religious conservative, instead of a libertarian.

Posted by: Rebecca at September 5, 2007 8:19 AM

No, Bradley. Like maybe he's a hypocritical political weasel just like the rest of them, and just has better "game" to convince shills like you to pay fealty to him.

Face it, you've been played. I hate the player AND the game.

Posted by: brian at September 5, 2007 9:11 AM

Can't speak for the social-libertarian side (or the fiscal side, for that matter), but on the fiscal side, how about this guy?

Posted by: Jessica at September 5, 2007 8:02 PM

or the ethical side for that matter. Apologies. I'm on the East Coast, and it's late.

Posted by: Jessica at September 5, 2007 8:03 PM

I am a libertarian (in principle, anyway), and I'm constantly disappointed by the constant stream of mental defectives that the (big L) Libertarian party always seems to come up with.

I'll have to say that Ron Paul is less of a loonie than many of those fronted by the Libertarian party, and while he couldn't be any worse than the current dregs of the two major parties, he's still a loonie (9/11 conspiracy beliefs, and his attitude about religion are clear signs of loonieness).

If we can't have Amy for Prez, I'd be cool with crid for president :o). While I can't always agree with him, at least he's rational and consistent (those being the very qualities that disqualify one for current high political office).

Posted by: Rod at September 5, 2007 10:06 PM

An exploratory committee is being formed, and there'll soon be a USPS address to which campaign contributions can be forwarded.

If everything falls into place, Rod, you'll be given your choice of directorate positions: Institute of Museum and Library Services (budget: $240 million) or ) or the Corporation for National and Community Services ($952 million).

Posted by: Crid at September 8, 2007 1:46 AM

B- b- but whuddabout killing people who have sex with little kids before they kill them or the whole "they need killin' law" in general? Answer that one right and I'll work on your election campaign staff for FREE!!

Posted by: Chief at September 9, 2007 12:40 PM

Leave a comment