It is a weakness for dick that will be our undoing

God damn it, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality. The reason you don’t glorify it John anymore than you glorify, uh, uh, uh, whores. Now we all know people who have whores and we all know that people are just, uh, do that, we all have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but God damn it, what do you think that does to kids? What do you think that does to 11 and 12 year old boys when they see that? …

I don’t want to see this country go that way. You know there are countries – You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo, we all know that, so was Socrates.

Tricky Dick (source)

I have to say, I wish we had a president nowadays as entertaining as Dick Nixon. I can’t imagine Obama saying anything half this funny, even if the humor was unintended. Even W., who was always good for a laugh or two, never really said anything this ridiculous—it was just his inability to string three words together without stammering like a moron.

Good thing we have Fox News and its viewership, then. I had the pleasure, over the weekend, of witnessing a conversation about how the public schools are now teaching about homosexuality and giving kids the impression that it’s perfectly normal for Kenny to have two dads, and, according to someone on Fox News, that this was being driven by a de-population agenda. (This last bit was followed by a shrug, as if to say: “Not sure if it’s true, but sounds plausible enough to me.”) So apparently Nixon’s fear of the society-destroying homo is alive and well in America.

I read a post on some blog recently that laid out the theory that most mainstream opponents of gay marriage aren’t motivated by a fear and loathing of homosexuals per se, but by resentment over the threat of losing one of their few remaining social privileges. I agree with the first part but I’m not sure about the second.

Yes, most of these people don’t care that there are men out there fucking other men—as long as we’re talking about a minority and their behavior, though maybe tolerated, is not really accepted. The fear is that once you start teaching it in the schools (tomorrow in sex ed class: the gay option) or “glorifying it on public television,” you’re basically opening up the flood gates and next thing you know the whole country is one giant bath house and no more children and, eventually, because children are the future, no more America. And all because you just couldn’t keep your hands off the dick.

Are we morally obligated to become activists?

In the comments to Pied Cow’s post about the annoying condescension of “radical” anti-war pundits, High Arka writes:

The only honest answer for those of us on this side of the sword is that we’re guilty, rich cowards, playing the same terrible game as the others, only not winning as much treasure.

To which I responded:

This strikes me as an attempt at one-upsmanship on the moral purity scale. Were the pre-2003 residents of Iraq guilty of supporting Saddam’s evil regime? I’m sure George, Donald, and Dick thought so. I guess we’re all complicit on some level because we haven’t overthrown the government in Washington, but I don’t feel particularly guilty about the possibility that Obama might decide to send the drones after some guy on the kill list without asking for my opinion first.

Even though I disagree with Arka’s conclusion, I still think it raises a good question: Are Americans who don’t actively resist the US government (by not paying taxes, moving to another country, etc.) moral cowards who are complicit in its crimes?

Like I said, I tend to disagree with this, for two reasons (implied in the passage above): 1) Because we don’t pay taxes voluntarily and the government does what it does regardless of whether we consent, and 2) I don’t think the average American is morally obligated to pay for Dick Cheney’s crimes.