Quick Tyranny Summary

So let’s sum up the Obama Administration’s scandals so far:

Of course, there are a number of liberals who are trying to defend the president and his administration (such as Jeffrey Toobin from the New Yorker), but for once it seems that the cloak has come off and the emperor has no clothes. Everywhere people are outraged over this.

What will happen? I don’t know. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is a fairly tyrannical administration. I wasn’t alive during Nixon so I can’t compare. But it seems awful. And it’s about the same as George W. Bush.

I hope this finally leads to some improvement. The dark times we’re facing now may be a forge through which we will tempered into something much greater. I can hope, at any rate. Even if all it does is make the American public more skeptical of the government, more distrustful of it, that will be a fantastic first step.

Bookmark and Share

Why mainstream news is dying–and good riddance

I don’t normally go on rants about the liberal media bias we’re always told about, but he’s a great example of why so many Americans think it exists:

Who's tweeting about Benghazi? Rich, middle-aged men and Chick-fil-A lovers http://t.co/voXoD4lsWY
@washingtonpost
Washington Post

That’s just wrong, and WaPo knows it. Saying that only “Rich, middle-aged men” and people who eat at Chick-Fil-A care about four dead foreign service officers is just disgraceful. There are tons of Americans out there who care that the government let four diplomats die for what seem to be purely political reasons…and instead of honing in on that, the Washington Post is disgracefully putting up flak.

That’s not to say there isn’t BS on both sides of the aisle:

60 embassy officials were killed during Bush administration and not one of these GOP fools even issued a statement.
@MJayRosenberg
MJ Rosenberg

But holy crap, WaPo, was that a BS tweet.

And folks wonder why the Washington Post Company is losing money hand over fist. Gee, it couldn’t be that you’re a bunch of morons giving cover to government evil, could it?

Bookmark and Share

Sorority Girl Email: How We Laud & Coddle Bullies And Forget The Bullied

Last week, an email from a sorority girl in Maryland went viral, thanks to Gawker, and–to use the vocabulary of its author–it’s fucking horrible. I was going to write about this last week, but I didn’t; however, the issue has recently “concluded.” Let’s go over the letter itself, then focus on the reactions, which I find to be more important.

It is 882 words long. 41 of those words are the F-bomb. (According to one comment, that is. I’m not going to waste my time counting the figures myself.) It is full of ENTIRELY CAPITALIZED SENTENCES. It is a brazen, unmitigated attack at sorority members, an attack that has no decency and even threatens violence in the form of “cunt punts” against other members.

What shocks me more than this, though, are the comments from the Gawker article. Here are a few:

“This girl will be the president of a company some day. We are kidding ourselves if we think this letter didn’t bring RESULTS.”

“Me too–she’s a great writer.”

“Mistake? That email is going to launch her career.”

Really? If she is seriously going to become the CEO of a major corporation because of this email, then I don’t want to be on this planet anymore.

I do not–repeat, DO NOT–understand people who think that being an asshole to others is somehow worthy of praise, emulation, or promotion. To me, anyone who thinks that way is a psychopath or a politician–but I repeat myself. And maybe that’s where the problem is with our current culture: we have psychopaths running both our major corporations and the federal/state government.

But I digress. The thing is, if you would “laugh” at this, I think really think you need your head examined. Being downright mean to other people like this is acceptable in an emergency situation, when time is of the essence and no one can be coddled, but not otherwise. You can make your point without entirely relying upon vulgarity, attacks, and threats of violence. And I would like to think that such writing would be utterly unacceptable in a business situation, as it would be completely and totally unprofessional.

Not sure about that, though. Some places might do that. They might even find it fine. In which case, those places are hellholes.

I also wonder why this comment is buried so low. Maybe the truth stings?

Nice they are talking about my old shitty frat. Honestly after reading it I can’t blame those girls, in all seriousness they should want to hang out with other better frats. Sigma Nu sucks. I remember the social would always plan evens with the worst sororities because nobody else wanted to. DG, Zeta, and sig kap…. it was like a rotation. most people dropped out after they could get into the bars. It was mostly full of rapists, dealers, or social ackward vigins. I was neither just a frisbee playing hippie:) I dropped out after the exec bored wouldn’t investigate the rape of an unconcius girl in the house, even tho it was video taped. It makes that stubenville ohio rape case look not so bad. There is literally or atleast was a rape room set up in the basement of that frat house. I know of 3 or 4 rapes that were swept under the rug. I really can’t fault those girls for not wanted to talk to that frat definately safer to hang out with other frats. Anyhow man I love social media

 

And when you read the email, especially about the part about the other sorority girls being “FUCKING boring,” it seems to me the whole thing is a complaint about sorority girls not putting out for a bunch of guys. And to me, that is just gross and even barbaric.

Fortunately, the sorority took the right action and recently accepted the young woman’s resignation. That was the smart, professional thing to do. Already, though, some are wondering “I hope this woman’s life isn’t ruined because of this email.”

Oh, FFS, this woman got kicked out of a sorority. As @stressnstrain noted, “Have some perspective.” It is hardly the end of the world. Many productive people are not members of a fraternity or a sorority, and you know what? That’s a good thing. Everything I saw from my college career was that frats & sororities were nothing more than extended exercises in binge drinking, sex, and following utterly ridiculous rules meant to destroy your life and your individuality. In fact, leaving the sorority may be a good thing.

Another commenter on the FB page says:

I understand that this young lady made a mistake and did not uphold the ideals that we all expect as a Delta Gamma. But I also feel compassion for her and would have hoped that Delta Gamma could have reached out to her with some sort of guidance and counseling rather than just accepting her resignation. I’m sure she feels alone and humiliated at this moment. I hope that she has others to turn to because it appears Delta Gamma has abandoned her and I don’t believe that was the correct course of action.

Sorority girl feels alone & humiliated? GOOD
PLEASE. She “feels alone and humiliated”? That’s the point. She should feel humiliated over this. Boohoo–this sort of whining is the same sort of thing as when adults start “feeling bad” for the bully on the playground when he’s told off for being a bully. It’s sick and makes me want to throw up all over my shoes. That commenter should be utterly ashamed of herself.

The basic thing to take away from this is that all these people are horribly, horribly sick. They’re messed up. And while I previously laid the blame for most of our problems on the baby boomer generation, I think it might just be all these folks who somehow want to coddle bullies and jerks. Maybe they’re the problem. I don’t know. But what they’re saying goes against all norms of behavior and is completely unnatural.

I will say one thing, though, and that is I kind of agree with this PolicyMic article posted by Laura Donovan. Donovan writes:

I’m the first to admit the email was horrendous, not to mention further confirmation that I made the right move to opt out of Greek life in college despite the fact that practically everyone in my immediate family was in a frat or sorority, but it’s my hope that Martinson’s whole life isn’t destroyed by this single email.

For those of you who are out of college, think about this: did you ever do anything stupid during your undergrad days? Something shameful that you’re not proud of? At the beginning of my junior year, I found myself in a grouchy mood and wrote an article for my college publication that offended so many people, some called for my resignation. I received email threats and was harassed and publicly shamed even by fellow staff members. It was tough, worst of all because I didn’t feel everything I said I felt in my column. I remember thinking I was going to be punished forever for an article I wasn’t particularly proud of, and that no one wanted to see me other than the girl who’d upset some folks with my 600-word article. None of the good work or highly lauded columns I’d produced mattered to anyone. A single article made them want to demonize me forever and be their punching bag anytime they needed someone to direct their anger at.

That was almost five years ago, but earlier this month, a colleague brought up the article I spent my final years of college trying to forget, as he’d heard about it from a mutual friend who’d been joking that I’ve been a huge firebrand since college. My demeanor immediately changed. I reacted with hostility and began to cry. Why did this single thing I did as a 20-year-old continue to follow me? I’d worked so hard to put it behind me, and others were still mocking me for it.

Part of that is, unfortunately, the price for writing stupid stuff in the Internet age. To deal with it, you grow a thick skin and get over it. You may also say, “Yes, what I wrote back then was wrong, and I know it.” Admitting it is the first step to fixing your problem, and I think once you do that, it should be like a reputational bankruptcy case–you lose a lot of credibility for the original stupidity, but you wipe your slate clean and start over again. It should not be allowed to dog her life forever. A year or two, maybe, but people do need to recognize that people change and must drop the subject sooner or later–preferably sooner. If I was hiring her 10-15 years from now, we might joke about it, but I wouldn’t let it guide my actions. Nobody is defined by a single moment, no matter how hard authors and politicians try to make it so. That isn’t fair or just.

However, Donovan also writes (emphasis added):

What I wrote was nothing like Martinson’s email, which is most certainly unacceptable to send to anyone, let alone sorority sisters you supposedly love like family. Martinson should have known better than to talk like that and use slurs, but I don’t think it was right of the internet to shame her in the way that it did, and I don’t want her to think the rest of her life has to be defined by this single email. If anything, she knows to be more careful with the way she presents herself on social media and online, and hopefully she realizes there’s more to life than a poorly executed Greek event.

She left the sorority, and she’s doing the right thing by going dark. Once the dust settles, she should release a statement of apology, and hopefully she will be able to rebuild from there. You may not like her (she doesn’t sound like someone I’d want to hang out with, and I’m certain I’m too “f-cking AWKWARD and boring” for her), but I don’t think she should be punished forever for this, at least if she shows some remorse once the interwebs is finished chucking stones at her.

Au contraire.

It is absolutely right for the Internet to mock her and shame her for what she did. And contra commenter Michelle Adams, we should condemn her for her actions. Again, how else does one learn what is right and what is wrong? It’s a corrective mechanism, and it works pretty damn well. Sure, not all mocking and shaming and condemnation is right–I mean, if a Nazi guy tried to “mock” me for being friends with Jews, for example–but for the most part, when someone goes really out of line, it is absolutely correct for other individuals to mock them for it. Would you not punish your children if they did something wrong? (If you genuinely say “I wouldn’t” to that question, then tell me how are they going to become good, upstanding adults instead of degenerate assholes who use everyone else as tools to meet their own inner desires?)

This lauding and coddling of bullies makes me want to vomit, as I’ve said before. And as I’ve said before, this is unnatural. This is not how things are supposed to work. Or at least, not in the past. I guess the new standard now is for people who are mean assholes who use others will be praised and supported, while those who are nice, hard-working people will be denigrated and left in the cold.

If that’s the vision of the world these people want, then I want no part of it.

Bookmark and Share

In Which I Blame Everything On The Baby Boomers

When you look around today, you see mountains after mountains of problems. We have the US government debt, whose numbers have left the realm of sane discourse long ago and trended into the land of absurdity, at $16.7 trillion dollars. We have the incredible unfunded liabilities gap for our entitlement programs, which blew past the land of absurdity on an express train to Lovecraftian insanity like Spaceball One going at ludicrous speed with a total shortfall of $119.5 trillion dollars. We’re embroiled in wars across the globe, so fearful of attacks from Islamic terrorists we’re willing to let government employees molest us in airports, or allow our president to kill us with robot death kites without any restraint or oversight whatsoever. We’re still fighting a pointless “War on Drugs” that the government lost decades ago, but they still wage in order to kill more innocents every year. We’re panicking over guns in schools, pastries that look like guns, and all the myriad ways teenagers get drunk. We have an unemployment rate that is still chilling out at almost 8% (and that’s just the bland figure; the real unemployment rate is closer to 15%) and a labor participation rate that has dropped three points since 2007–which equals hundreds of thousands of Americans who have just given up looking for work. And just this past week, we had an epic meltdown over a $44 billion cut to the federal budget, a federal budget that’s over $3.6 trillion and suffers a $1.3 trillion deficit.

We can’t seem to get anywhere with our many modern crises. Everywhere we turn there is fear, danger, and financial ruin. Many have stepped up to lay the blame of these catastrophes on the feet of many different things. Some blame capitalism. Others blame government intervention and crony socialism. Still more blame the media for distorting the facts of incidents. Others blame foreigners, particularly the Chinese and the Russians (and Mexicans, and Middle Easterners, and Greeks, and Europeans, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the Indians….) In the spirit of blaming and finger-pointing, I would like to offer my idea of who is to blame for all of our problems today.

I blame the Baby Boomers.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share

Boston

I’m an igtheist, or an ignostic atheist. I can’t pray. I just can’t. For once, I envy the religious for their prayer. Because there is nothing else I can do. I can’t pray for the victims. They are definitely in my thoughts, but what will that do?

All I can do is say the following: we don’t really know what happened, so be careful what you see and retweet. Be very skeptical of what you hear or read.

Secondly, no politics. Do not politicize this. Not today. Maybe tomorrow.

Third, if you even THINK about declaring this a “false flag” operation, you should be ashamed of yourself. As terrible as our government is, as bad as Obama and his administration are, they would not bomb American citizens. Nobody in our government is that depraved. While things have been getting worse, we are nowhere near the Middle East or third world countries.

So stop. Just effing STOP.

That’s all I got for today.

Bookmark and Share

North Carolina: Theocracy in Action

Lawmakers in North Carolina want to make it a Christian theocracy:

Raleigh, N.C. — A bill filed by Republican lawmakers would allow North Carolina to declare an official religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and seeks to nullify any federal ruling against Christian prayer by public bodies statewide.

The legislation grew out of a dispute between the American Civil Liberties Union against the Rowan County Board of Commissioners. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, the ACLU says the board has opened 97 percent of its meetings since 2007 with explicitly Christian prayers.

Overtly Christian prayers at government meetings are not rare in North Carolina. Since the Republican takeover in 2011, the state Senate chaplain has offered an explicitly Christian invocation virtually every day of session, despite the fact that some senators are not Christian.

That they’re having religious prayers of any kind in a government body is odious to begin with, but Republican theoconservatives have really gone over the deep end with this one:

House Bill 494, a resolution filed by Republican Rowan County Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford, would refuse to acknowledge the force of any judicial ruling on prayer in North Carolina – or indeed on any Constitutional topic:

“The Constitution of the United States does not grant the federal government and does not grant the federal courts the power to determine what is or is not constitutional; therefore, by virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the power to determine constitutionality and the proper interpretation and proper application of the Constitution is reserved to the states and to the people,” the bill states. “Each state in the union is sovereign and may independently determine how that state may make laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

Clearly, someone did not read their constitution. Yes, Mr. Warren and Ms. Ford, the Constitution does give the power to the federal courts to decide what is and isn’t unconstitutional. They’ve been doing this for centuries.

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states, and the 9th Amendment states that powers that neither the federal government nor the state government have is reserved to the people. Deciding what religion you’re going to be is most certainly a power reserved to the people.

It makes me shake my head when I see stories like this. Is this what libertarianism “fusionism” with the “Right,” with theoconservatives, has gotten us? This is terrible. This is not the America our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is not the America that will prosper and go on for a long time defending individual liberty.

I know I have mocked other atheist groups for doing rather silly things, but that’s because they’re taking attention away from things that are genuinely important. LIKE THIS. This is where people should be devoting their effort and energy, to combat idiocy of this nature that seeks to impose itself upon all of us, and that will actually have a powerful effect, not something that means nothing. A state that goes against the Constitution to willfully trample over religious liberty and individual freedom of conscience cannot be tolerated.

North Carolinians should call their state reps, tell them to vote against this bill, and then tell everyone else that fought so hard against the contraceptive mandate on religious liberty grounds this is the same thing. They should also tell that to anti-gay marriage people who used the religious liberty argument. They can’t have it both ways.

If this is going to become the future of the United States, then we have a serious problem. Best to nip it in the bud today.

Bookmark and Share

The one kind of person who shouldn’t vote

There are many people out there who say we should restrict universal suffrage, that certain classes of individuals shouldn’t vote. There are those who think people on welfare shouldn’t vote. Or college students. Or women. I am always against these arguments. I think that the moment we restrict suffrage from anybody, we seriously weaken and damage democracy.

But today, I’m going to say something different. I am going to say that there is one sort of individual who should be prohibited, barred, and rendered ineligible to vote.

Those are the people who bring forth an argument, and then demand other people go find the evidence to back up their argument. This is known as failing the burden of proof. I see it almost every day. Thousands of people put forward arguments based on intuition and evidence they heard about, but never really saw for themselves, and thus never really grappled with the argument they are actually asserting. The problem is that is a total abdication of critical thinking, which is precisely the thing you must be utilizing when going to the polling booth.

As philosopher Jason Brennan notes, voting in an election has enormous consequences on hundreds of millions of Americans. He writes in his book, The Ethics of Voting:

Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. So, in this book, I argue that we have moral obligations concerning how we should vote. Not just any vote is morally acceptable.

He’s absolutely right. Just read the sample chapter in the second link. Voting has consequences. Voting is not just a political right in a democracy, but it is also a responsibility. If you’re going to exercise that responsibility, you damn well better be thinking critically and using your noggin to explore what options are before you and make the right choice. When you’re in that poll booth, it’s your vote. You can’t delegate that vote to anybody. It’s your responsibility, so when you make your choice, you better be the one doing the thinking.

This is not a call to, say, ban all liberals from voting. It is not what you think that pisses me off (although that does too, just not in this context), it’s how you think–or don’t think, really. Someone can be a socialist and as long as they evidence for their position, can credibly argue for said position, and actually go through and grapple with the consequences of their position, then that’s okay. Said socialist can vote. But if one can’t, if one can only spout talking points but refuse to actually do any actual thinking, you should probably be barred from entering the voting booth. You can’t be trusted with such a duty.

A great example of this was found on Twitter, when back in January I got into something approximating a debate with a liberal over welfare and job requirements. She made the assertion that all welfare has work requirements. I asked her to provide evidence of this assertion. This is sort of how it went*:

becca_a

jeremy_2becca_b

jeremy_1

becca_3

jeremy_5becca_1

jeremy_7

After this, she just failed to do any sort of debating at all, and just started calling me names and said I was “prejudiced”.

This is not the way you debate policy, or even think. She very clearly abdicated her role, and failed to defend her position whatsoever. And she’s not the only one. I see this almost every day. Not just on Twitter or the rest of the Internet, but in daily life. People get crazy ideas into their heads, back them up by saying “Well they say so” (who the hell are they?) and when evidence is demanded, they order the other side to do their research for them.

A person who “thinks” in this manner is clearly not thinking at all. They are not doing the research on their positions or anyone else’s. They are not coming to terms with the consequences of a policy. And considering what a vote entails, how it will affect millions of people in a democracy, a person who fails to do this critical thinking and understand consequences should not be voting. Period.

Of course, there is always the counter-argument that people don’t do their research on politicians because they don’t have the time to. It’s rational self-ignorance. They need to devote their resources to doing other things. That’s all well and good…except in this era of information technology, it’s crap. You can easily learn economics for free. Watch some videos from LearnLiberty or the Economic Freedom Project. Get a free copy of Frederic Bastiat’s The Law [PDF] (as well as his essay The Petition of the Candlemakers, which is just hilarious; doubly so since it was written in the mid-19th century.) And you can easily look up a candidate’s website, find his or her positions, then type that issue into a Google News search and find dozens of opinion pieces on either side. (As a general note, always read stuff from the Cato Institute. They know what they’re talking about.) I’m not saying voters have to be policy experts; far from it. But it’s not hard to get a more-than-cursory understanding of the issues at hand and the kind of person you’d be voting for. If you’re not able to do that, then don’t bother going to the voting booth at all.

I have no idea how one would test for this inadequacy and render such people ineligible. I just don’t. But I think it would be optimal. How many times have we gotten really awful politicians because our electorate is just uneducated and–I hate to say it but it’s true–just stupid? How on Earth did George W. Bush, of all people, get elected to not one, but two terms? Did we just not do the research?

I agree with Brennan. Voting is a mammoth responsibility. If you’re not willing to do the basic thinking required to make such a decision, then don’t bother at all.

Bookmark and Share

The #headdesk Files: Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Silly Lawsuit

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is back on my radar, again, this time for launching another lawsuit against the government’s cozy relationship with religion. I think the general idea is sound, and I support it–there needs to be a stronger sense of laïcité in America, and there is still a too close relationship between church and state.

But some lawsuits are just dumb. Like this one:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, along with 19 other plaintiffs, is suing the U.S. Treasury for stamping “In God We Trust” on currency. Honorary FFRF board member Mike Newdow is acting as legal counsel in the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 1.

The complaint alleges that the religious verbiage is proselytizing, discriminatory and a per se establishment of monotheism in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The complaint, a tour de force of historical research, unequivocally shows that there was a purely religious purpose and intent behind putting God on our coinage. Newdow quotes representatives who voted for the addition as seeking to use the money to proselytize around the world. Rep. Herman P. Eberharter (PA) said: “[T]he American dollar travels all over the world, into every country of the world, and frequently gets behind the Iron Curtain, and if it carries this message in that way I think it would be very good. I think that is one of the most compelling reasons why we should put it on our currency. … the principles laid down by God and the teachings of our way of life should be kept alive in the hearts and minds of our friends enslaved behind the Iron Curtain.”

Plaintiffs are forced to proselytize — by an Act of Congress — for a deity they don’t believe in whenever they handle money.

Really, now? Let’s break this down.

First, the “per se establishment of monotheism in violation of the Establishment Clause.” Well, what does the Establishment Clause actually say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

Okay then, what religion is the text “In God We Trust” establishing? Judaism? Islam? Pantheism? Rastafarianism? Christianity? Oh, well then what sort of Christianity? Catholicism? Baptism? Lutheranism? Methodism? Mormonism? Seven-Day Adventism? Ad nausea.

Monotheism, as the Foundation is focusing on, is not a religion in and of itself. It just isn’t. What monotheism is is more of a vague belief, a “philosophical position,” as I would say, on deities. There is no doctrine of monotheism, no specific church, no dogma, no holy text. There are many different montheistic religions, just putting “God” on a piece of paper doesn’t make it one.

And then there comes the question of “What God are we talking about?” I’m sure the Representative they quoted is some form of Christian, and was referring to the Christian god. But is that the god everyone is talking about? I don’t know. If you were to line up 100 different people and ask them what they thought god was, you would get 100 different answers. The fact remains that the word “god” is meaningless, so malleable it has no form and can be twisted to mean anything. No other word in the English language in the modern age has quite the same level of malleability.

Let’s get to the second part of their complaint, that it is “discriminatory.” I genuinely sympathize with this, but let’s be honest, how is it really discriminating against anyone who isn’t a believer? Are we losing our jobs? Our property? Our lives? Uh, no, we’re just exchanging money and getting some food.

And then there’s the third point: that we’re “proselytizing” against our will. This is just so ungodly stupid (if I may be granted a pun pass.) Does anyone really take a look at the dollar bill and go “Wow! There’s god on here! Using this money means I trust in god! Maybe I should go home and rethink my life and become a monk!” Seriously? Do people pay attention to that line of text at all? Most don’t even notice it, and I would suspect a vast number of Americans don’t even know it’s there. So congrats, FFRF guys, you just drew everybody’s attention to that.

And then there’s the one thing that blows this out of the water: most of our transactions aren’t cash-based. The vast majority of things we buy we buy with credit cards and online. In fact, cash accounts for only 29% of all transactions in the United States. That means in 71% of all transactions, nobody sees “In God We Trust” because they’re not using anything that has “In God We Trust” on it. Heck, they’re not using anythng that could even have anything on it because it’s intangible! (And in Sweden, cash transactions are down to 3% of their transactions. That’s it. Just 3%. That’s probably where we’re headed.)

There are things we should be focusing on in the struggle between religion and superstition and nonbelief and reason. This is not one of them. We should be going after creationism in the schools, kids being forced to pray against their will, people who are harassed or even murdered for not being believers (it has happened), and the insistence of our political leaders of bringing religious claptrap into every political decision and public policy argument. But to raise a stink about “In God We Trust” being printed on our currency? To me, that seems an epic waste of time, energy, and resources that could be devoted to other things. Nobody pays attention to it and nobody cares. People will look at this thing and go, “Really? You’re upset over that, of all things? That’s pathetic.” And where does that leave everyone who doesn’t believe? Right back where we started.

Pick your battles, guys. And sure as hell don’t pick stupid ones.

Bookmark and Share

Accuracy In Media Attacks Gays, Reason Why We Can’t Have Nice Things

Today, Cliff Kincaid of “Accuracy In Media” penned a truly vile piece attacking gay conservatives and imploring CPAC to hold panels on how homosexuals were dangerous, dangerous people who were bad for American and all communists.

It’s absolutely idiotic. Here’s why.

Kincaid begins with:

The term “gay conservative” is being used by some news outlets in connection with the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and whether certain homosexual groups should be invited to appear. There is no such thing as a “gay conservative,” unless the term “conservative” has lost all meaning.

Really, Cliff? You mean the word “conservative” didn’t lose its meaning after eight straight years of budget deficits and ever increasing government spending under George W. Bush? You mean it didn’t lose all meaning when Republicans had a chance to cut spending this past year but complained about it? You mean it didn’t lose all meaning when they decided the holy grail of conservatism, the Constitution, was trampled upon in their mad dash to sign the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA? It took the acts of GOProud, a group formed for the express purpose of spreading the message of limited government and free markets throughout the LGBT community, to make the word “conservative” lose all meaning?

WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN THE PAST DECADE?

But there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values.

Yes, GOProud is Marxist. Except…if I ever heard Chris R Barron utter anything about Marxism, it was always deprecating. Cliff, you haven’t talked to any gay conservatives, have you?

Two of this movement’s members, Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins, have recently been in the news. Manning betrayed his country in the WikiLeaks scandal, while Corkins has pleaded guilty to trying to kill conservative officials of the Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

Rather than debate whether “gay conservatives” exist or ought to have prominent speaking roles, CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.

Let’s get some things straight. First, two people does not serve as a representative sample of gays across America. You darn well shouldn’t be using this argument, since AIM has complained loudly about the media smearing the Tea Party movement as “racist.” Glass house rules, and all. Second, they are not part of the “homosexual movement.” Manning was a soldier who disagreed with what his country and his army was doing, and took matters into his own hands. Corkins was a crazy guy with a gun. It would be indicative of the “movement” if there were armies of gay people marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, shooting up the place while rainbow APCs disgorge bear troopers into the FRC’s headquarters. But…there aren’t. So your “argument” is without merit.

Gay people make up around 2-5% of the populace. If we’re going to talk about sexual orientations being “prone to violence, terror, and treason,” we could more easily talk about straights. Or are you going to invent the fiction that Benedict Arnold was gay, too?

But the fate of a political party is not only what is in jeopardy. Historian Paul Johnson knows something about why nations fail, and he says one reason is the acceptance of homosexuality.

Johnson’s book, The Quest for God, laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. He wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental—and to most of us horrifying—changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.

Right, gay people are a monster who want to…..get married.

OH NOES! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Newsflash: Gay marriage has never brought down a civilization. It was not the cause of the fall of either ancient Greece or Rome, nor Byzantium, nor the Mongol hordes, nor any civilization. Grow up and deal with the facts.

I know something about this as well, since I spent several years in Scouting, became an Eagle Scout, and received merit badges in various skills. My wife and I became Scout leaders. Now, the homosexual movement is determined to overturn the ban on homosexual Scoutmasters and wants to teach young men in the Boy Scouts that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle.

Such a campaign is objectionable on its face because the Boy Scout oath commits a young man to being “morally straight.” That “morally straight” can be considered compatible with homosexuality is a complete perversion of the English language.

This is where I blew a gasket. Cliff, I served with Eagle Scouts. I am an Eagle Scout. Eagle Scouts were my friends. You, Cliff, are no Eagle Scout. And that you bizarrely conflate “morally straight” with heterosexuality just shows that you have learned nothing from either your English classes in school. “Morally straight” means the “straight and narrow,” not “morally heterosexual.” How can one be “morally heterosexual”? It’s absurd on it’s face.

You are not only a disgrace to the Eagle Scouts, by preaching hate and intolerance for others*, but you are also a colossal disgrace to the English language and English writers everywhere. You sir, should not be blogging, period.

The rest of the column is a long and confusing rant about how homosexuals are all Marxist communists in disguise. It’s really pathetic, seeking to pin everything on Harry Hay as the “founder” of the modern homosexual movement, as if someone just stepped up and said, “Hey, let’s be gay today.” Heck, Hay even had to resign from one of the original LGBT organizations because he was a communist. But Cliff won’t tell you about that, will he? No.

Cliff, just stop. You realize the reason why nobody votes for Republicans or free market conservatives anymore? Because of people like you. You don’t have an “argument,” you just have unveiled bigotry and hatred. And 21st century Americans are not fans of hatred or bigotry. They’re not going to vote for a party that embraces the free market if it simultaneously embraces bigotry, even bigotry against a small slice of the population.

Just come out and say it, Cliff. Just come out and say that you find gays “icky.” Fine. You find them icky. At least that’s valid, as it’s merely personal preference. Well, you know what, Cliff? Not a single gay person is going to come up and get gay with you. They’re not even going to want to be in the same room with you. So they can be gay, you can be lilly-white straight, and just not cross paths, and everyone will be happy.

Homosexuality is not an “unacceptable lifestyle.” It’s a sexual orientation. That’s it. I know libertarians and conservatives must work together to limit government, rebuild a free market economy, and promote individual liberty, but I am supremely frustrated with “conservatives” like Cliff who turn to us at every step and the liberty movement in the foot with a twelve-gauge shotgun. We don’t need this. What we need is to be expanding the movement and reaching out to people from all walks of life, to show them that free markets and limited government is the best thing they could possibly want. But people like Cliff cling to their old traditions, and abjectly refuse to build any bridges to new islands. At the same time, people are leaving the island he’s on in rafts made from whatever they can find.

You’re why we can’t have nice things, Cliff. You’re why Obama is president, the Democrats control the Senate, the government is spending at record levels, and we can’t even reduce the rate of increase in spending by 2% without everyone going ballistic. Just stop.

*I realize that the official position of the BSA is still no to gays, but since that is not courteous nor kind, it really goes against the Scout Law. Eagle Scouts should be speaking out against this, even though, as a private organization, the BSA does have the right to exclude gays. But just because it has the right to do so, doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

Bookmark and Share

My preliminary rant on the Baby Boomer generation

I was going to write a longish post on the issue, but that will take some time. In the meantime, enjoy this rant I had on Twitter today about the Baby Boomer generation and why I they frustrate me to no end. This is only a taste of the full post that will come.

Preliminary rant that will serve as the nucleus for a potential future post on the baby boomer generation and why I find them so goddamn frustrating.


Bookmark and Share