True Conservatism

Ask anyone who disagrees with me: I'm a liberal.

No, I'm not actually a liberal.  I generally refer to myself as a little-L libertarian, but even that isn't exactly accurate.  If you want the exact term -- or at least as exact as a term can be in regard to my political positions -- I'm a constitutional minarchist.

I believe that the Constitution of the United States of America (the "supreme Law of the Land") is the greatest governing document ever devised in that the government created and limited by it exists solely to uphold individual liberty, individual responsibility and the harm principle.  I believe that there is very little that the federal government (or any government) has the authority or right to do beyond fulfilling that charge.  And I believe that, when the Constitution is adhered to, government succeeds in that goal.

In other words, I'm about as conservative as they come.

And yes, that does fall under the definition of "classical liberal," but we all know that's not what anyone means when they use the word "liberal" in the context of conservative United States politics.  What they mean is that the person they're accusing of being a liberal is an anti-American anti-capitalist anti-gun anti-military anti-Christian Obama-loving Bush-bashing handout-seeking reverse-racist cop-hating homo-fascist commie pinko socialist who caves in to Muslims.  In that order.

There's a line from Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip that I frequently paraphrase to fit exactly this situation: if I had a penny for every time someone has incorrectly accused me of being a liberal, I could buy their house eight times and turn it into my ping-pong room.

That's through no fault of my own.  My positions have been mostly solid since I was in high school... which was a good twelve years and counting ago (yeah, I know, I'm a just a kid).  "Conservatism" in this country, on the other hand, has done nothing but devolve in that amount of time and longer.  And I use sarcasm quotes there because "conservatism" today is not true conservatism.  It's South Park conservatism.

Don't believe me?  In any given Internet comment section, criticize any position taken by a "conservative."  You will invariably receive this response from at least two people:

...and they're not saying it to be funny; they truly mean it.  This is literally what "conservatism" has become in this country.

In fact, when it comes to the language used by the right these days, we truly are living in Nineteen Eighty-Four.  "Small-government conservatism" means big-government liberalism with a different end goal than the Democrats.  "Capitalism" means inverse fascism.  "Security" means an invasive and unrestricted police state.  "Religious freedom" means codified bigotry.

Even our own District 58 State Representative Eric Leutheuser introduced a bill -- the very first in his entire political career, and which has since been made law -- that is, in and of itself, a contradiction. It says that state funding cannot be withheld from any faith-based adoption agency on the basis of that agency's religious beliefs and practices.  It then goes on to say that this law cannot be used to deny adoptions.

Yeah, don't hurt yourself trying to figure how one part doesn't negate the other.  It's not worth it.  Just accept it at face value and move on.  Because war is peace.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  Amsoc is doubleplusgood.  The NSA is watching you.

What this all comes down to is the difference between civil liberties and inherent human rights.  They're not the same thing.  Inherent human rights are inalienable.  They are given by the Creator -- whoever or whatever that is in your belief system -- and consist of the freedom to do anything that does not bring harm to anyone else's person or property.  Civil liberties, on the other hand, are the rights explicitly made law by government, and that's what makes violation of them a punishable crime.

The Constitution is meant to uphold inherent human rights through limiting government, and the Bill of Rights was added to name several civil liberties which the government has no authority to impede.  But the right wing no longer recognizes those facts.  They now believe that our civil liberties are the only human rights we have, and that they're granted by the Constitution rather than being endowed upon us by the Creator.

Just ask your average Republican about their opinion on same-sex marriage.  They'll talk about how those who fall under their derisive term of choice -- anything from "the left" to "the LGBT mafia" -- have "redefined marriage" and how "tradition" should have been upheld, that "activist judges" or "five lawyers in black robes" decided to "legislate from the bench," and that "the will of the people" has been violated.

And then there's the line we all know and loath: "show me where marriage is mentioned in the Constitution."

None of this, of course, is at all correct.  Even if marriage had been redefined (it wasn't), it wouldn't be the first time, even within the Judeo-Christian tradition.  And tradition is not what the law exists to uphold -- a point that the Supreme Court has correctly made several times.  Activist judges do, by definition, legislate from the bench, but that didn't happen on June 26th; the court very clearly (and, again, correctly) ruled on constitutional grounds that marriage is an inherent right regardless of sex or gender, and the will of the people does not trump inherent rights.

And while marriage is not mentioned, the Supremacy Clause makes it absolutely clear that no law at any level overrides the Constitution or federal laws directly relating to it.  Since state bans on same-sex marriage violate two Constitutional clauses, both of which uphold inherent human rights, those bans are null and void.  They were neither legal nor lawful to begin with.

Modern-day "conservatives" have no arguments against any of these facts.  They'll simply tell you that "you've been brainwashed" and that if you believe any of that, "you're not a real conservative."

Barry Goldwater is sitting in Heaven right now shaking his head and saying "I told you so."

But that's just one issue.  Let's talk about the War on Drugs.  "Conservatives" love the War on Drugs.  It's a big money-maker for government and police departments.  Don't get me wrong, civil asset forfeiture is a major problem, too, but if you want to talk about insane confiscation of private property for no valid reason, the drug war is where it's at.  Not to mention the destroyed lives and the rise of ever more harmful synthetics... not because of drug use, but because of its criminalization.  All in the name of "public safety" and "morality."

And what about the relation of the drug war to border security?  Did you really believe that all that outrage over Fast & Furious was genuine?  Haha!  Oh, you poor fool.  All those politicians calling out Obama and Holder were only doing it because it made for good partisan politics.  Gunwalking was nothing new; it had supposedly started in 2006 under President Bush, and "conservatives" were more than happy to go along with it, because it grew government in the way they liked.

I say "supposedly" because that's the earliest date the investigation learned of.  Trust me, plenty of people knew it had been going on well before this scandal went public, and I think it's pretty safe to say that the practice had been taking place long before 2006.  

While we're on the subject, how about border security and illegal immigration?  Let's ignore the blatant racism that the right makes a pathetic attempt to hide and talk about real solutions.  In addition to increasing protections against criminals and terrorists, let's talk about making legal immigration into this country a far more reasonable and welcoming process.

"Gasp!  We can't do that!" say "conservatives."
Why not?
"Because... well, we just can't!"
Why not?
"Because... because... you just don't want any borders at all, you anti-American liberal!"
That's not what I said at all.
"I bet you voted for Obama!"
No, I voted for Gary Johnson.
"Who?"

You see, in every which way, "conservatism" has been twisted and perverted into everything that true conservatism is not.  In modern "conservatism," social tradition takes priority, and anything that may threaten the "conservative" ideal of what the world should look like is deemed "liberalism" and a menace.  Racism, nationalism, hatred toward religious and sexual minorities, and an almost fanatical devotion to the practice of making tax cuts without any corresponding cuts in spending... these are all core tenets of modern "conservatism."

This is not true conservatism in any way whatsoever.  It's right-liberalism.  The left-liberals are just as bad, they simply have different reasons for doing all the same things... and they're slightly more honest about it.

See, true conservatism is called conservatism -- at least in the United States -- because we true conservatives hold to the principles of individual liberty and small government that our founders fought for.  We seek to conserve our inherent human rights.  Liberalism is called liberalism -- in that same geocentric context -- because liberals believe that government can be grown and used for the benefit of the people (which has repeatedly been disproven).  They espouse a liberal use of state authority.

Meanwhile, "conservatives" claim that they stand for small government while at the same time using government to enforce their socially traditional values.

Again, don't hurt yourself trying to figure out how one doesn't negate the other.

To be a true conservative is to acknowledge that we don't have the authority, through government or any other means, to prevent people from doing what they want to do as long as their action doesn't harm anyone else or anyone else's property.  That doesn't mean that we have to give up on social traditions, it simply means that if someone else wants to give them up and it doesn't bring about harm to others, you can't stop them.

And more importantly, they can't stop you.

That's individual liberty.  That's individual responsibility.

That's true conservatism.

Attorneys General Are Pissing Me Off and Other News You Should Be Paying Attention To

It sure is a good thing that I don't get paid to write this blog, because if I did, it'd be a pretty paltry paycheck given how infrequently I've posted to it.  So to make up for lost time, let's just skip the formalities and go straight to what's on my mind these days, shall we?  We shall.

Let's Talk About Dishonest Lawyers, Part I (or, In What Way Is Pam Bondi Breaking The Law This Time?)

Florida's attorney general (who I cannot mention without pointing out that she believes so staunchly in the sanctity of marriage that she's on Fiancé #3 right now) is "expediting" the legal process by intentionally stalling it.

As The Advocate reports, Bondi told WPLG on Tuesday evening that she still plans to appeal the Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County rulings overturning the state's unconstitutional same-sex marriage ban directly to the Florida Supreme Court.  This despite the ruling of the Third District Court of Appeal (for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties; Broward and Palm Beach are in the Fourth District) that, because these cases came from the county courts -- which are not the same as district courts -- they must first go through the appropriate district courts of appeal before they can be brought before the Florida Supreme Court.  A decision which is based on, you know, actual law (see subsection (b) (1) (A)).

And in case you're wondering, yes, what Bondi is doing here is WHOLLY illegal, and she could and should be disbarred for it. As per Florida Statute 57.105 (2):

At any time in any civil proceeding or action in which the moving party proves by a preponderance of the evidence that any action taken by the opposing party, including, but not limited to, the filing of any pleading or part thereof [...] was taken primarily for the purpose of unreasonable delay, the court shall award damages to the moving party for its reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the order, which may include attorney’s fees, and other loss resulting from the improper delay.

Which means that because Bondi is insisting that the Florida Supreme Court take up the case even though they procedurally cannot, the families she's fighting against can, as soon as she attempts to file the case, go to the state supreme court, move that she's pleading to cause unnecessary delay, and Bondi would be forced to abide by the lower court's ruling that she has to go through the appellate process first.

In other words, she's not only violating her oath of office by refusing to uphold the United States Constitution first and foremost, she's breaking state law to do it and violating one of the most basic rules of ethics in her profession. It's known on the federal level as Rule 11, and lawyers live and die by it.  And damnit, if Pam Bondi is gonna die by it, she's gonna die on her terms!  It's the juris equivalent of the mafioso in a noir movie shouting out the window of his getaway car, "YOU'LL NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE, COPPAS!!!" just before crashing into a brick wall and bursting into flames.  What makes it especially egregious is that she's doing it to the detriment of thousands of people whom she swore an oath to protect.  The level of my disdain for this woman and her actions is beyond measure.

Governor Rick Scott, by the way, is almost just as awful a person for the very reasons that WPLG's Michael Putney pointed out on Sunday morning.  Almost just as awful.  Not quite.  But almost.

Let's Talk About Dishonest Lawyers, Part II (or, Bill "The Will Of The People" Schuette Is A Despicable Human Being, But Then, We Already Knew That...)

It's pretty pathetic that Michigan's attorney general has had to fall back on human trafficking as a campaign issue to win points with a voting public who's had enough of him.

Let's take a look at the situation our fine William finds himself in:

• He continues to violate his oath of office to defend the unconstitutional Michigan Marriage Amendment while insisting against all mathematical possibility that it was "the will of the people."
• His unpopular (and illegal) attempts to undermine the state's medical marijuana laws continue to anger just about everyone, from seniors and their advocates to those of us who understand the failed "War on Drugs" to be nothing more than statist bullshit.  His antics even sparked several attempts at recall campaigns against him, though they unfortunately fizzled out.  Mostly because the people behind them didn't really know what they were doing.  Not that that excuses Bill's actions at all.  The folks had the right motives, they just didn't know how the system works.
• Almost every major poll in the attorney general's race so far has put combined undecided/third-party voters at more than half of his support.  Meanwhile, his Democrat opponent, Mark Totten, is only two to twelve percentage points behind him... with a few ties, and even one poll putting Schuette behind Totten.  The Detroit News just finished up a poll that's making them nervous.  Hell, even Tim Skubick asked all the way back in July if Schuette was vulnerable, and if you've lost Tim Skubick, you've lost the election.  Schuette knows he has to do something to garner more support, and that something is apparently relying upon one of the most emotionally-charged issues available to run on.

That last point, of course, begs a few questions. For starters, if human trafficking is such an important issue to him, why is he only now making it a priority to publicly address it?  Has human trafficking become more of a problem during his first term? And if so, doesn't that mean that his efforts to fight it aren't working?  Because remember: the laws are already in place; he's simply pointing out that he's been using them.  So if what he's doing isn't working and the effort needs to be stepped up, whose fault is that?  Certainly not Totten's.  Certainly not yours or mine.  Who's the elected official in charge of taking these things to court?  Ah, yes!  That would be... Bill Schuette!

And just who in the political arena supports the criminalizing of kidnapped children who have been forced into sex work?  Is Totten going around telling people that the victims had it coming?  I highly doubt it.  You'd think that would have made the news by now if he had. 

And finally, when the hell did this step out of the realm of "something we should be doing without begging for credit" and into the world of "hey, look at me, I'm doing the most basic function of my job description, so even if I'm not going above and beyond, you should definitely vote for me!"

The man continues to sicken me.

And Speaking Of Douchebags In Michigan's Government, Rick Snyder!

Apologies to the Columbia University Marching Band for stealing their joke format.

To be fair, The Tough Nerd was the best candidate on the ballot the last time around, and given the options that were on that ballot, I'd vote for him again.  But we won't ever see that ballot again, and frankly, we could have done better.

Yes, Michigan needed a businessman in Lansing.  Governor 867-5309 did a real number on this state's economy -- long before the national and world economies decided to play along with her -- and only someone who actually knows how the economy works could have fixed the damage she left in her wake.  In that regard, Snyder was the smart choice, and it was obvious that most Michiganders understood that.  Otherwise, obviously, he wouldn't be in office right now.

Problem is, even going to the polls to pull the lever for him, most of us understood that there was a lot about his politics we didn't know.  For example, he (wisely) tended to avoid social issues on the campaign trail, and the deflections he replied with when asked didn't really inspire any hope that he was a social liberal.  In fact, he was (and still is) particularly adept at giving a repeated complete and total non-answer to questions about his position on same-sex marriage.  And that answer is this: he was elected to enforce the laws of the State of Michigan, and he will enforce the Michigan Marriage Amendment.  He will not answer whether or not he supports same-sex marriage either personally or politically, but simply that the MMA is state law, and his job is to enforce it.

Keep in mind that the unconstitutional Michigan Marriage Amendment was passed in 2004, so it had already been firmly established as state law by the time he was running for office in 2010.  And both of those elections took place quite some time before the now well-established support for marriage equality supposedly became the majority.

(I say "supposedly" there because it was the majority even before state bans became all the rage.  Those bans were nothing more than a result of Reagan's biggest mistake: tying social conservatism to fiscal conservatism in the Republican Party.  Every one of them came about at the same time Republicans won power, and you can thank Reagan for courting the religious nutjob wing as a campaign strategy.)

Today, however, the majority will not be silenced, and yet Snyder still refuses to give a clear answer on the topic.  He has stated that, quote, "I will respect what happens in our court system,"... buuuuuuuuut let's not get our hopes up just yet.  You'll notice that he said he will "respect what happens in our court system."  That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll abide by the 6th Circuit's ruling (whenever the hell they decide to make it), it could also mean that he's prepared to go to the Supreme Court with it.  The Detroit Free Press also points out that he has, in the past, stated his desire for the state legislature to take up the issue, which would say to me that he wants to find some legislative circumvention of the ban's inevitable courtroom demise.

You'll also notice that he said he will respect what happens.  There's no guarantee that Bill Schuette will, and Snyder was quoted by MLive shortly after Judge Bernard Friedman struck the MMA down, saying, "I'm not spending my time on the appeal nor did I spend my time on the lawsuit.  I'm spending my time on the implementation of what the law is."  Which draws an interesting parallel: two governors of states that I've lived in, both named Rick, both refusing to take responsibility for their attorney general's refusal to abide by now clearly established judicial precedent on the same issue, both with the authority -- and responsibility -- to put an end to this blatantly illegal discrimination once and for all, and both of them falling back on the entirely untruthful excuse that "that's not my job."

But social issues aren't the only front on which Nerd Boy's facing trouble; oh no!  Let's start with the right-to-work law.  Fantastic law.  I supported it 100% and I continue to stand by it.  He absolutely did the right thing by signing it into effect.  It is unquestionably one of the best moves this state's government has ever made.  But in the very heart of American unions?  It was political suicide.  It hasn't played a role in he or his opponents' advertising, and received nary a mention at the one gubernatorial debate.  But it didn't have to.  The moment that bill was signed into law, his numbers dropped drastically.  If he hadn't signed it, he'd be clobbering Mark Schauer right now.  He knew that would be the case when he did it, and I respect the hell out of him for it, because I would have done the same, but he's got a tough road ahead of him on that point alone.  I don't doubt he'll pull it off, especially since the third-party candidates are barely even showing up in the polls, but Schauer wouldn't have nearly the support that he does if Snyder hadn't passed right-to-work.  That's just how the game is played.

And now, he has an actual strike against his economic leadership credentials: protectionism for car dealership franchisees.  Long story short, Tesla Motors sells their cars directly.  Instead of signing franchise agreements with dealerships, they simply open up shop and do all the business themselves.  In Michigan, that was already illegal, but this new law goes a few steps further by prohibiting manufacturers from dictating transaction fees and explicitly requiring the manufacturers to sell through franchised dealerships.  And guess who came up with that language?  Why, the dealership lobby, of course!  (Oh yes, they exist.)  They slipped this in and poured the pressure on, and now Tesla, after publicly stating that they want to bring stores to Michigan, won't be able to do so.  Standing up for special interests when he feels like it?  That's One Tough Nerd.

Things Just Keep Getting Worse for Darren Wilson

You know that second autopsy of Michael Brown's body that came out last week?  Remember how it was played up in the media as vindicating his killer?  Yeah... if you had actually read the autopsy report instead of all the news stories about the autopsy report, you would know that it doesn't vindicate Wilson at all.  Actually, it confirms the eyewitness accounts and calls Wilson into question even moreso than before.

Let's start with the bullet wound to the thumb.  This shows that Michael Brown was shot in the thumb during the struggle in the vehicle, as the only time he was in close proximity to the gun was during that struggle.  Which begs the question: why did Wilson pull his gun while he was sitting inside his vehicle?  Firing a weapon in that enclosed space is insanely dangerous and irresponsible, even if the use is justified.  If the door was shut and Brown was trying to get in through it, Wilson should have grabbed the steering wheel, floored the gas pedal and rolled up the window, in that order.  Brown would have had to let go at some point.  But the wound to the thumb shows that Wilson's first reaction was to go for his gun.  That's gotta instill confidence in police training, huh?  The wise choice is to drive over or through your attacker, but the police choice is to pump lead whether justified or not.  I feel safer just thinking about it, don't you?

Then there's the skin left on the outside of the vehicle door.  Wilson pulled his gun and was threatening to shoot Brown while Brown was struggling against the door.  The eyewitnesses claimed that Brown was struggling to get out.  Wilson claimed that Brown was struggling to get in.  A la the infamous Maury segment, the skin on the door proves that was a lie.  Think about it: if you were trying to get inside an SUV through the window, you would be using downward force on your feet to push your way up through the window, not inward force on your legs to push yourself away from the window.  The inward force could easily result in scratching of the legs on the running board as you struggled against the door to get away, whereas the downward force would not, as you're putting your weight on the ground -- or possibly the running board -- and wouldn't have as much freedom to move your legs.  It's at this point that Wilson's story begins to crack.

Then comes the full-fledged shattering: the shot to Brown's forearm was from the back to the inside, which means that Brown was NOT facing forward when that shot was fired, and his hands were down at the time, which would suggest that he was still running away.  That tells us that Wilson fired at Brown BEFORE Brown turned around.  Again, a confirmation of eyewitness accounts.  And given that standard training is to continue shooting until the clip is empty or the target is dead, that means that Brown could have motioned for surrender after he turned around, but Wilson would have just kept firing anyway.  Which he obviously did four more times, according to the math.  In other words, Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown from behind.  That's the damning evidence right there.

It should also be noted that the presence of marijuana in Brown's system (or anyone else's, for that matter) does not necessarily mean inebriation. Tests do not reveal how long marijuana has been in one's system, and it stays in the body for days or even weeks after losing its intoxicating properties. So the presence of marijuana in his system is entirely irrelevant to the events of that fateful day.  Even if Brown had been high, marijuana isn't the kind of drug that would make you charge full-speed at a police officer who's firing a gun at you.  In fact, it's well-known for its ability to induce paranoia, particularly the kind that makes you fearful of authority.  Making a huge deal of the presence of the drug in Brown's body (as many in the media have tried to do) is not merely ignorance or anti-drug hysteria, it's an attempt -- by those who have everything to lose from the truth -- to spin public opinion in their favor.  Because the facts are quickly adding up against them.  Don't fall for it.

Long story short, in order to accept the idea that this second set of autopsy results vindicates Darren Wilson, you HAVE to believe either one of two things. Either:

1. Michael Brown was freakishly capable of doing the physically impossible by rotating his arm outward on a vertical axis at the shoulder, or...
2. The bullet that hit Brown in the back of his arm and exited the inside was a Kennedy-style "magic bullet" that somehow passed Brown, stopped and turned around mid-air, then hit Brown from behind.

If you believe either one, I have some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you.

Oh, But We're Not Done With The FPD Yet; Oh No!

If you thought the Ferguson Police Department was a circus act before, you're gonna love this turn of events.

It seems that CNN, relying on their ever-accurate anonymous sources (this time credited as "government officials familiar with the ongoing discussions"), reported Tuesday that FPD chief Thomas Jackson would be announcing his resignation next week.

Jackson, of course, flatly denies this, stating that he is the man in charge here, and he's keeping his job no matter what you hear from those mean and nasty journalists who ask too many questions and always want explanations for things.  God, it's like people want to hold you accountable for your actions or something!  The nerve!

Sadly, even if the CNN report had been true -- or if it still is, we have yet to see -- it would just provide the opportunity for just yet another Won't Get Fooled Again reference.  The same people that put Jackson in charge in the first place are still running the show now, and whoever they pick this time around would most likely be just as bad.

Another option that's been floated out there is to simply close up shop at FPD and let the St. Louis County Police step in to do the job, but that's just as terrible an idea.  Let's not forget that SLCPD had a very key role in the repressive and overkill (terrible pun intended) insanity that was the militarized response to peaceful protestors and journalists, and they themselves have a long and storied love affair with racial profiling.

Either way, meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

Now there are calls for reform from the top down, but how do you effect that kind of change when you have two different police agencies operating under the jurisdiction of two different government entities?  You can fire all the cops in the world, but you can't un-elect the people in office who hired them and write their paychecks, and unless you hold those elected officials criminally responsible for something (and what would you hold them criminally responsible for, exactly?), there's nothing stopping them from taking things right back in the same direction.

Basically, the residents of Ferguson have to keep fighting for their city, not only on the streets, but at the polls.  This has to be a local political revolution, or nothing will change.

I Was Going To Title This Section "Monica Lewinsky Needs To Get It Through Her Head," But That Might Be Too Tasteless, So I Won't

No, Monica Lewinsky was NOT "patient zero," as she puts it, for cyber-bullying.  She put herself in the public spotlight when she and Bill Clinton -- The President of the United States at the time -- decided to have an affair.  Yes, mean and nasty things were said about her by media figures and no-names alike, but that in and of itself does not constitute cyber-bullying; it was the public discourse -- vile as some of it may have been -- about a woman who opened herself up to it by getting down on her knees under the Oval Office desk.  The entire situation could have been avoided if she had simply said "no" to Slick Willy's advances.  Her failure to take into account the consequences of having sex with the president does not give her license to escape those consequences.

In contrast, victims of cyber-bullying are outside the public spotlight and have done nothing to bring such attacks on themselves.  They're usually a student in school being attacked by peers, which means they can't just ignore it because they are inescapably surrounded by their tormentors in person every day.  None of that describes Monica Lewinsky.  She wasn't cyber-bullied, she made a conscious choice and she had to deal with the fallout.  I have no doubt that said fallout did her emotional and psychological harm, but that does not in any way make what she went through cyber-bullying.

In getting the definition wrong, she is misrepresenting herself and wrongfully appropriating the term, which in turn diminishes the public perception of cyber-bullying and endangers its victims.  She is literally doing more harm than good.  I don't believe she's necessarily doing it to be self-serving or self-promoting; I think she genuinely wants to help.  But she cannot.  She is incapable of helping victims of cyber-bullying by falsely claiming that she, herself, was cyber-bullied.  She needs to take a few steps back and think that through.

Listen Up, Neocons: Here's Your Civics Lesson For The Century

A friend of mine brought this story to my attention about a week and a half ago through this blog post right here.  (Don't click that link unless you feel like both screaming in rage and laughing at the author's stupidity.)

Here's what's going on.  Two bigots -- a married couple who both happen to be ordained ministers -- run a for-profit wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; much like the kind in Las Vegas where you can elope and get hitched by an Elvis impersonator.  The city, in 2013, passed a non-discrimination ordinance which includes protection on the basis of sexual orientation as well as the standard bases of race, sex, religion, et cetera.

This law applies to all public accommodations, otherwise known to you and I as for-profit businesses.  Basically, if you're conducting business with the general public, you have to serve all of the general public unless you suspect that they are committing or planning to commit a criminal act.  That means that this for-profit wedding chapel, which is classified as a public accommodation, cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation.  Even if the ordinance hadn't been written to include sexual orientation, discrimination against same-sex couples is sexual discrimination against either one partner or the other, because one partner is not the opposite sex from their significant other.  So either way, now that same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho, a for-profit wedding chapel is clearly committing a criminal act by rejecting the business of same-sex couples, be that defined as sexual orientation discrimination or sexual discrimination.  You just can't do it.

But that's exactly what these two morons did.  According to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, a man called the chapel to inquire about booking a same-sex ceremony.  The idiots on the other end of the line turned him down, and then proceeded to file for a restraining order against the city to prevent them from enforcing the non-discrimination ordinance.  They have also filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming that they're facing oppressive religious discrimination.  The city, for its part, correctly makes the case that the chapel is a for-profit business serving the public, and as such, they are subject to fines and/or jail time if they do not comply.

Now before you neo-conservatives get your big girl panties all in a wad, no, this is NOT an attack on religious liberty, because if these two clowns want to be able to discriminate against same-sex couples without the threat of fines or jail time, all they have to do is convert their chapel to a full-fledged church, which will make it a religious institution under the law, and therefore exempt from the city's non-discrimination ordinance on religious grounds.  Or they could also simply hire an officiant who is willing to perform same-sex marriages.  The fact that the two operators of the for-profit wedding chapel are ordained ministers means absolutely nothing, because they're not performing wedding ceremonies individually as ordained ministers for a fee, they're operating a for-profit business, the sole purpose of which is to provide a primary source of income for themselves by performing wedding ceremonies.  They are not under attack, their freedom of religion is not being violated, and they could easily solve this problem if they hired another minister just for same-sex weddings or were to simply start a church.  The latter option being, you know, what ordained ministers are kinda supposed to do: pastor churches.

So why don't they do that?  Simple: they want to create a situation that appears to fulfill the lie that same-sex marriage is inherently an attack on religious freedom.  They're bigots, they want to continue both their bigotry and their business, and they have to make it appear as though they're the victims here in order to gain your sympathy -- not to mention spark a frenzy amongst the socially-conservative minority who already thinks that gay marriage will bring an end to humanity.  Their only motives here are hatred and money.  They're not victims, and deep down, they know they're not victims, but they also know that they can make mountains of money off of this situation in neo-conservative circles, from giving speeches at events to making appearances on Fox News... maybe even "writing" a book (by which I mean they'll spew their nonsense and someone will write it down in a somewhat literate fashion).

And you neocons are eating it up like a fat kid eats cake.  I would know.  I was a fat kid.

Oh, and by the way, don't kid yourself: the "National Organization for Marriage" and the "Alliance Defending Freedom" (sarcasm quotes in full effect there) are in this purely for the money, themselves.  The ADF is representing these two jackballs in court, and both they and NOM are 1000% (not a typo) guaranteed to use this whole manufactured controversy as fundraising material.  They know a moneymaking scam when they see one.

In other words: this is not the outrage you're making it out to be, and by fanning the flames, you're only further proving to the world what imbeciles you are.

And On A Similar Note...

This.  I don't need to say anything about it, because it's just right the way it is.  It is mandatory reading.  And if that didn't bring you to tears...

At What Point Can The Southern Baptist Convention Be Charged With First-Degree Murder In Transgender Youth Suicides?

I have never been more proud in my life to no longer be a member of a Southern Baptist church.  It's been almost fifteen years since I last set foot in one, I've never once considered doing so again, and I've never once regretted either of those two facts.  Why would I when the church leadership keeps spewing vile shit?

Hey, you have to ask yourself (as I did): what can you really expect from a denomination that was founded by racists to uphold slavery on Biblical grounds?  No, really: what can you expect from such an organization?  A church that didn't even acknowledge or renounce their own roots in racism and slavery until 1995; how can you expect them to catch up to modern times?

I mean, let's ignore the fact that every single valid scientific study on the physiology of transgender people has shown that gender identity is an inborn biological trait with actual physical differences in the brain.

Let's ignore the fact that the psychiatric, medical and social work communities have completely blown away the notion that "nurture" has anything to do with gender identity.

Let's ignore the fact that transgender people -- specifically transgender children -- are at substantially higher risk for suicide directly in relation to their parents, family and social circle's lack of acceptance.

Oh.  ...Well, given the facts, science and statistics that are stacked entirely against their position, I guess you can expect better of them.  Much better.

I've made this point countless times before, but it bears repeating: science trumps dogma.  God gave us the ability to study His creation for a reason: to use it and learn more about Him.  Every so often, He uses the scientific process to tell us things.  I like to think of it as Him calmly leaning against the doorway of a pastor's office, saying "hey, you know that thing that you keep saying I said?  Yeah, well, uh... My creation doesn't reflect that at all, and I don't make mistakes, so... yeah, this one's all on you guys."

And yet, even when presented with all of this evidence, the SBC still rejects transgender people, particularly transgender youth at this event, and they encourage parents of transgender children to utilize the extremely dangerous quackery known as "reparative therapy" (which has rightly been made illegal in several states) and in all other conceivable ways psychologically torture their children in an effort to change their physiologically unchangeable gender identity.  Which, as the evidence cannot possibly make more obvious, more often than not leads those children to kill themselves.

This is first-degree murder.  There is no getting around that fact.  It is an act (or, in this case, a series of acts) with malice aforethought and prior planning that directly results in the death of the victim.  That is the very definition of first-degree murder.  The Southern Baptist Convention is not only encouraging it, they are engaging in it.  Blood is on their hands, and they revel in that fact.  In any other setting, we'd be frying them by now.

So what is it going to take before we can start locking them in prison for life without parole?  Because that's what they deserve.  Nothing short of the next to maximum penalty -- because death would be too good for these sick fucks.

We need to be demanding that they face the punishment for their crimes.  That they're committing them in God's name should be even more of a reason to bring them to justice, not an excuse for them to hide behind.

Also In Church News...

This happened.  It leaves about as many questions unanswered as it does... well, no, it doesn't really answer anything, it just raises more questions.  But Mark Driscoll has stepped down at Mars Hill, and the world is a slightly better place for it.  Let's hope and pray that God guides the church back to the right path.

And Finally Tonight, A Water-Skiing Squirrel

A state rep in Pennsylvania put his concealed carry permit to use while standing up to some thugs who tried to mug him and one of his colleagues.  And he's a Democrat.  No, they're not all anti-gun whackjobs.

Are You Done Now?

Yep.  I'll try not to let so much content stack up before I write next time.

Dr. Phil Speaks Out?

Let me begin this installment of Uncommon Sense by pointing out that I have two issues with Phil Morgan's February 26th diatribe on "traditional family values" in the Hillsdale Daily News.

The first is as a media-type person, and as a media-type person, I couldn't care less what his opinion is.  What I care about more, as a media-type person, is the fact that Morgan, the sports editor, was allowed to share this opinion in the newspaper as an editorial.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sports editors.  I'm a sports-type person myself, as well.  But a responsible news organization does not mix sports and politics.  You don't let the sports guy comment on social issues outside the realm of the sports world.  You don't let the weather guy give his opinion on the latest election.  You don't let an arts writer take potshots at a local bar for no justifiable reason.  The list of no-no's goes on.

The point is that the responsibility for social editorials falls strictly to the editor in chief.  If the sports editor wants to share his opinion on same-sex marriage with the rest of the world, there are other venues for that purpose, and using them instead of his employer as an outlet is necessary to protect not only himself, but his employer, as well.

Make no mistake about it, this piece will only generate negative publicity for the Daily News and anyone who publicly agrees with Phil Morgan's opinion (as some already have).

These are all signs of a severe lack of editorial oversight, and in this particular case, it's a sign of the complete disaster that has befallen the Daily News on account of twenty years of varied ownership which, like most other old media, stubbornly refused to adapt to new technology, so as their bottom line got smaller and smaller, so did the staff.  Each new owner slashed and slashed and slashed away until the sports editor and minimal sales staff are all that's left.

Consequently, I didn't even know this article existed until yesterday when a friend pointed it out to me, because I -- like most other Hillsdale County residents -- don't read the Hillsdale Daily News anymore, and haven't for many years.  It is now an irrelevant publication and has been for quite some time.  This is merely proof of that fact.

The second issue I have with the article is as a person, regardless of whatever type I assign to myself (or anyone else assigns to me, for that matter), and as a person, I find everything in the world wrong with Morgan's opinion.  Roger Corman's movies have fewer plot holes than this masterpiece of illogical reasoning.  So, as is the case from time to time, I find it necessary to respond to the article word-for-word, in responsive format, because it's just that ridiculous.  So let's jump right into it, shall we?

We often hear that the gay rights movement is a continuation of, or at least similar to, the civil rights movement of the early 1960s and that people who insist that traditional lifestyles are best for their communities, businesses, schools and families are akin to the Ku Klux Klan.

First of all, anyone referring to this as the "gay rights movement" has automatically lost.  This is not a movement to bestow any special rights or privileges upon LGBT individuals, it's a demand that government-sanctioned inequal application of the law be put to an end.  This is the ultimate conservative value: no one can tell anyone else what they can and cannot do unless it brings harm to other people.  It's called the Harm Principle, and no one under the LGBT banner is causing anyone else any harm by demanding that the law be equally applied to them, as is their God-given right according to the Fourteenth Amendment.  Advocating anything less is allowing violation of inherent human rights, and if you allow a violation of human rights to occur without at the very least speaking out against it, you're complicit in that violation.

Secondly, what defines "traditional lifestyles" to you, Phil?  I have friends and family who happen to be gay and live more traditional lifestyles than many heterosexual couples and individuals do.  Which says to me that your language is meant to imply that anything other than heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" and a "choice," to which I demand you provide substantial evidence to back up that claim.  While you're doing your research, here's some proof that such an idea is flat-out incorrect.

In 2006, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers jointly filed a brief with the California Supreme Court that stated:

"Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual."

And in 2007, the Royal College of Psychiatrists contributed to a listening exercise (or request for information) from the Church of England on human sexuality.  Their submission took a much more conclusive tone:

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."

Care to debate this further, Phil?  I've got more.  You're only going to be wasting your time.

We are told that the future will judge us harshly for promoting the belief that a man, a woman and their children are the foundation of a healthy society.

I don't know what you're afraid of, Phil.  The present judges you harshly for it already.

I am not sure when protecting traditional family values became weird. It could only be recently, for the perpetuity of humankind is enough evidence to suggest man and woman making children is the natural order.

I refer you, once again, to science: female embryonic stem cells, in 2008, were used to create sperm cells, which could one day lead to children born of two women.  And in 2013, scientists were able to use primordial germ cells from a male mouse to create a female egg cell, and the same type of cells from a female mouse to create male sperm cells.

In addition to same-sex families, you're also invalidating single-parent families, divorced and combined families, adoptive families and so forth.  These people are just as capable of raising children as a male-female couple.  How dare you take it upon yourself to dismiss them?

Unfortunately, the discretion necessary for good self-government is not just weird anymore, it is considered by some to be politically incorrect, bigoted and shameful.

What does the natural existence of homosexuality have to do with your self-government, Phil?  You have absolutely no rational justification to tell anyone that they cannot love who they love.  Yet you do so.  Screw political correctness, this has nothing to do with it.  But bigoted and shameful?  Refusing someone their rights on the basis of the way God created them?  Yeah, you bet that's bigoted and shameful.

Fearing how future generations will judge us is misguided, weak-minded and a careless approach to raising children. The problem with caring about what the future thinks is that in modern society the most "up-to-date" people throw the elders into nursing homes, revise history and sneer from their perches at the backwardness of the old ways.

Buried somewhere in that convoluted point is, I think, a commentary on society being ever-obsessed with what's new and flashy, but that has nothing to do with anything being discussed here, Phil.  No one is revising history.  In fact, if you look back into history, you'll find some rather shocking facts about countries and empires which did not collapse due in whole or in part to upholding equal rights for their non-heterosexual citizens.  Despite the fact that homosexuality has existed from damn near the very dawn of time, society -- modern or otherwise -- still somehow seems to march on and function just fine.

And that point about sneering at the backwardness of the old ways?  Have you never found yourself looking back at legalized slavery in this country and thinking, "what viciously horrid people could possibly justify this?"  Don't be a hypocrite, Phil.

Future generations might claim that three middle-aged women and a 15-year-old boy constitute a marriage and are a social unit fit for adopting and raising children.

Oh, here we go with the "slippery slope" argument again.  "Legalizing gay marriage will lead to bigamy, pedophilia and incest!  What's next, a man marrying his dog?!"  No one (except maybe some families in Utah) is arguing that marriage should be anything other than two consenting adults.  Though I would argue that you have no right to tell multiple consenting adults that they have no right to marry.  And given that the age of consent varies from state to state in this country, and that some states make exceptions to age of consent laws in certain circumstances, you also have no right to say that a legally-consenting 15-year-old cannot marry a consenting middle-aged woman.  Do you have to agree with it?  No.  Do you have the right to stop it?  No.

They would be wrong, of course.

According to you, Phil.  According to you.

Rather than fear how our children will judge us, we should fear how our forefathers are judging us. If we understood history, we would want to perpetuate the work of our best ancestors. Only from there can we focus on initiating the young into good traditions and the natural order.

The best work of our ancestors was ensuring that we live free to make our own decisions so that others cannot make them for us.  Good traditions follow organically from that freedom.  And if you say "natural order" one more time, I will be forced to explain to you just what that term means.  Do you understand how patently ignorant you are being, not to mention expressing hatefulness that borders on just this side of latency?

One of the many ironies of comparing the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement is that the civil rights movement was led by very religious people justified by the past. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister who defended his belief in inalienable human rights by studying the Bible, Plato’s Republic, the teachings of Ghandi and the Declaration of Independence.

Have you ever actually talked to a gay person, Phil?  Have you ever actually spent time around anyone involved in the "gay rights movement?"  There are LGBT individuals in churches all over the world.  There are LGBT activists who are profoundly faithful people.  Profoundly faithful people who also are justified by the past, and also find their justification for inalienable human (not gay, human) rights in the Bible, Plato's Republic, the teachings of Ghandi, the Declaration of Independence, and many other historical documents that have helped articulate and spread the ideals of individual liberty and civil rights.  If you think there's any lack of religion or historical context involved here, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. 

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence he wrote that nature’s God is the source of human rights. The moral absolutism of natural law became the rock upon which the Founding Fathers broke slavery in eight of 13 states in just 24 years and kept it out of the Northwest Territories.

Less than 100 years later abolitionists, also mostly Christians, led another charge for human rights that ended with the Civil War and emancipation.

Gee, if that moral absolutism based on natural law proved that the owning and withholding of rights from black people -- their pigmentation a natural, biological trait -- was clearly wrong, then that same moral absolutism based on natural law also proves that the withholding of rights from gay people -- their homosexuality a natural, biological trait -- is also clearly wrong.  You're operating strictly on dogma, Phil, and there is a maxim that I share specifically with people such as yourself: if science is one of God's ways of telling us who He is, then when science proves dogma incorrect, the dogma must be changed or eliminated.  Your dogma, Phil, must be changed.

The point is that when we look back and see the march of human rights we see Christian virtue, moral absolutism and people’s fear of a just creator.

All of which, as I pointed out to you above, we're also seeing today.

Dr. King said people should be judged based on choices, not on color. I doubt he would want his work compared to an anti-religious movement that says "whatever works for you."

The demand for equal application of the law is not anti-religious, nor does it say "whatever works for you."  Now you're just being deliberately inflammatory.

Interestingly, everyone’s ancestors through all of time, at least for one night, adhered to this suddenly weird idea that all life springs through the masculine, the feminine and the natural order. Every living person’s parents were, if only once, pro-heterosexuality and pro-life.

Firstly, you said "natural order" again, so here's your lesson: natural order is the relationship of one thing to others without any outside influence.  Since homosexuality exists in nature without outside influence (having been observed in many species, not only humanity, in the wild), it is part of the natural order of things.  Therefore, homosexuality does not violate natural law.  Your entire argument is, thus, invalid.

Secondly, only thanks to a society which has ignorantly demanded adherence to the male-female dichotomy has any LGBT individual been frustrated by their natural sexuality to the point of acting against it.  In fact, studies have shown that homosexuals raised by heterosexual couples who are loving and accepting of their homosexual child grow up to be very comfortable about their sexuality.  "Pro-heterosexuality?"  What the hell does that even mean, Phil?  No one is anti-heterosexuality.  What a ridiculous statement.

The nature of man and the nature of woman is visible in the soul and reflected in culture — the means by which truth passes downward. Moderns attempt to rewrite human nature and condescendingly send it backward, alas arriving in dystopian catastrophes.

And how many homosexuals' souls have you seen the nature of man and woman in, Phil?  The only modern attempt to rewrite human nature and condescendingly send it backward into a dystopian catastrophe is being carried out by people such as yourself.  If you seek to withhold the inherent human rights of anyone, be they gay, straight, transgender, cisgender, black, white, blue, neon green or born on Jupiter, you are creating exactly what you fear: a dystopian society in which one group of people who claim to have the moral authority are the only people granted full, uninhibited access to their God-given rights.

Once upon a time, village elders took the young men into the wilderness to teach them fundamental lessons of their humanity. Today understanding what it means to be a human is trampled by the whims of public education, public outcry and political correctness.

Also once upon a time, people died of the bubonic plague and blamed the alignment of the planets causing "bad air."  There are some old concepts that science has proven incorrect over time, Phil.  No whims of the public are necessary.

C.S Lewis called the old approach the Tao, or the way. People who believe in the Tao are not bigots; they are moral absolutists who believe in preserving the things they cherish most.

This position of yours is not the Tao, Phil.  What you're expressing in this piece is that age-old argument of fools: "that's the way it's always been, so that's the way it always should be."  It has nothing to do with morality, because morality would tell you to allow those with whom you disagree the freedom in which to find their errors and correct them.  That is, after all, the approach in keeping with Jesus' teachings.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

But that's just the problem, Phil: you know, deep down inside, that homosexuality is not an error.  You simply dislike it.  You dislike it, and you dislike the idea that non-heterosexual people have the same exact God-given rights as you do.  You're willing to violate the Constitution, natural law, and natural order -- and use them in a blatantly hateful attempt to justify their violation -- simply because that's the way it's always been.  Same-sex families raising children in no way hinders the preservation of the traditions you claim to cherish most.  In fact, your refusal to accept that same-sex couples have the same rights as yourself hinders their ability to preserve those traditions.  You're arguing against your own interest, Phil.

When we take bad episodes and then vilify the general past, we risk losing everything.

Bad episodes would be one thing, but we're not talking about bad episodes, we're talking about systemic and repeated violations of the inherent human rights of a certain group of people.  If you cannot see that, Phil, I have no choice but to refer to you as the fool which you have proven yourself to be.

All in all, what we have here is more of the same old ignorance and bigotry that has perpetuated inequal application of the law to one subset of society or another for far too long.  Pardon me for demanding that people be judged on the content of their character rather than the sex or gender of the people to whom they are naturally attracted.