*Please... Cut the Crap

Good Law Isn't Based on Emotion

If a society is going to solve a problem, it has to set priorities, and it has to at least be able to put emotion aside and tackle the problem logically. The problem with attempting to attack political problems with emotion is that almost everything you do, politically, has to be adjusted, and emotions make it difficult to make the adjustments you need. Issues are emotional. Political solutions simply can't be. 

You can see this when you look at the silliness of the "Drug War." With most drugs, we lost that war a long time ago, because we approached it from an emotional angle. Like Prohibition before it, we went after the problem using emotion, and absolutely no logic.  There is little difference, really, between "Drugs are killing people, so they should be illegal" and "Abortion is murder, so it should be illegal." Neither is a rational basis for creating a law or a legal construct. As was the case with Prohibition, such laws are destined for failure. 

The solution to the drug problem, from a legal and legislative standpoint, is actually quite basic, although not simple. Legalize, regulate and tax, just as we do with alcohol. The amount of regulation will vary, of  course, depending on the drug.

Chick-fil-A; It's Not About Free Speech, Its About the Bigotry!

First, they complained about the StopRush movement, which seeks to inform advertisers as to what their advertising money is actually going to when it supported the Rush Limbaugh Daily Crap-athon. There’s never been an overt attempt to get Limbaugh off the air; all anyone seeks to do is to allow advertisers and their customers to have all information necessary to make an informed
choice.

That’s not a free speech issue. To claim that Rush Limbaugh has the right to free speech is accurate. He does have the right to say what he wants on his radio program. If anyone were actually trying to take that away, I would be first in line to defend him. But his right to free speech does not entitle him or anyone connected to him to make money, and there is especially no right to make money from those who object to the content of his free speech.

Separation of Church/State IS Absolute, Santorum

It’s weird how many so-called “strict constitutionalists” don’t seem to have read the Constitution. If they have read it, they don’t understand what they read. While there are some on the left who don’t seem to understand it much, either (you can’t simply round up “banksters” and throw them in jail because something happened that caused the economy to collapse, for example; you need a specific broken law and enough evidence to convict in a court of law), the far right wing simply has no clue what any of it means, including the Second Amendment. 

It’s bad enough that the average Republican voter doesn’t seem to get the Constitution at all. But their candidates don’t understand it at all, and that is inexcusable. How can you take an oath to uphold something you don’t even understand in the first place.

Yesterday’s edition of "This Week" on ABC featured an exchange between George Stephanopoulos and Rick Santorum (Google it!), during which they discussed John F Kennedy’s September 1960 speech before Baptist ministers, in which he assured them he believed the separation between church and state was absolute. Here is that exchange. I placed a link to the transcript of the speech where it says “Begin Video Clip.”

The REAL "Gay Agenda": Equal Rights for All!

These United States were founded on the concept that all (people) are created equal. Even many of the slave owners among the Founding Fathers envisioned a day in which all (people) really are treated equally. It's supposed to be a major goal as we work toward "a more perfect union." 

So, why does it always seem necessary for a significant number of Americans (neocons, mostly, but there are other self-righteous prigs out there, too) to designate a group of people to be denied the rights that everyone else is entitled to? More importantly, why do so many people try to rationalize or justify it? Denying anyone their basic civil rights is wrong, period. 

One of these days, this "land of the free" might just figure out that the proper line to draw when it comes to rights is no line at all, at least among law-abiding citizens. The only actions we should outlaw are those which negatively affect the rights of others and/or cause serious risk to public safety. For example, I don’t want to outlaw tobacco products. If you want to sit in your own home and chain smoke to your heart’s content, have at it. But I should also have a right to go into public buildings without having to endure your chosen habit. Also, the cost of each pack of smokes should reflect the amount the rest of us are going to have to pay when your silly ass ends up in the hospital because you were too dumb to heed the warnings that are available everywhere.

But I digress.

Pro-Choice is the Essence of Liberty

I just heard someone whose opinions I generally admire say they thought both terms used in the abortion debate to describe the two distinct ideologies that make up the "debate," such as it is, "pro-life" and "pro-choice," tend to divide us. I agree wholeheartedly in regard to the term "pro-life," which is why I use the term "anti-choice." But I don't agree with "pro-choice." The essence of liberty is the ability to choose the course of your life. "Pro-choice" can apply to many things, not just reproduction. 

On the other hand, the term "pro-life" is offensive. The recent mess over the Susan G Komen Foundation pulling funding from Planned Parenthood because of pressure by the "pro-life" movement makes that perfectly clear. How can you claim to be "pro-life" and also be in favor of denying funds for up to 170,000 breast exams? The answer is, you can't. 

I wrote this a while ago, and I'm presenting it once again, because I think it's evn more appropos. 

"Good Christians™": Stop Using "the Bible" to Deny Gay Rights.

A while back, I met with an old friend from high school; someone I hadn't seen in at least 30 years. It was mostly fun, until we were about 45 minutes into our lunch.

We were at a local pizza joint, enjoying the best cheese steaks on the East Coast, when a couple of women walked in, holding hands. While they stood in line, one woman must have said something funny, because the other one giggled, leaned over and kissed the funny one squarely on the mouth. It wasn't a tongue kiss, or a long, slow romantic kiss, or any sort of "inappropriate" public display of affection, but the kiss revealed their level of intimacy just the same.

My old friend saw the kiss and immediately said, "Oh, my God!" with shock and surprise, and when he saw that they were holding hands and had no intention of letting go, he apparently felt the need to add, "that's disgusting." As I hadn't seen him in many years, and figured I probably wouldn't see him again anytime soon, I bit my tongue, until he decided to add to the commentary by saying, "But at least it's not two guys! That would be REALLY disgusting!"

I could no longer hold my tongue.

"It gets Better" Has to be More Than a Slogan -- We Have to be Better

There’s a lot of talk about bullying these days, and I say it’s way past time for that; we should have done this years ago. A certain meanness has been far too ingrained in our society for far too long. Things have gotten better, in many ways, but if we are to become truly great as a nation and as a people, we have to take a different attitude. Even though bigotry has become less acceptable in recent years, there is still too much of an accepting attitude when it comes to meanness toward others, for a variety of reasons.

No doubt you’ve heard a lot about bullying in recent weeks; it’s hard to avoid it. This recent spate of stories is due to what seems to be a saddening trend, in which young people are increasingly committing suicide because they are gay, and they are made to feel like outcasts. And why wouldn’t they? They see judgment all around them, and a lot of it’s negative. They may hear about places like San Francisco, West Hollywood or Greenwich Village, where they can be who they are and live freely, but to a teenager living in the self-righteous “Bible Belt,” those places may as well be Mars. And that should be shameful to the people who live in those places.

We will never be a truly free country until every person under our auspices is treated with the respect and dignity due them as human beings. We are who we are; we should all be left alone to our own lives. No one, and I mean no one, should be subjected to negative treatment because of any singular aspect of who he or she is, unless they are hurting others with their actions. Who a person is sexually attracted to is not the totality of who they are, and frankly, that aspect of anyone’s life is none of your business, in any case. I mean, if they’re having sex in the middle of the street, of course you have a right to object, but other than that, it’s simply no one’s business. And I think we would all agree that we would have the same reaction even if it was a man and a woman.

Sometimes, Free Speech is Painful: The Supremes Consider Phelps v. Snyder

Okay, folks, this should be a no-brainer for those of us who actually care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know I’m going to take some flak for this one…

The Supreme Court is hearing the case of Phelps v. Snyder, which is a case involving the Reverend Fred Phelps and his disgusting inbred church. Here's the beginning of an article from www.washingtonpost.com:

The Supreme Court seemed to have trouble putting aside the ugliness of the message to focus on the rights of the messenger Wednesday, as justices tried to balance free speech against the privacy owed a grieving family burying a son.

With protesters on the marble plaza outside a packed courtroom, the justices considered the case of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., whose anti-gay demonstrations have targeted the military funerals of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The church - which is made up almost entirely of the family members of its founder, the Rev. Fred W. Phelps - contends that the deaths are God's revenge for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. Albert Snyder - the father of Matthew Snyder, 20, a Marine whose funeral was one of hundreds the group picketed - sued.

Most First Amendment experts said before the argument that they expected the court to make a straightforward, if distasteful, ruling that even vile public speech is protected by the First Amendment. If that is what the justices decide, though, it appeared from the oral arguments that it would not come without some angst.

Sean E. Summers, who represents Snyder, set the tone with his first words to the justices.

"We're talking about a funeral," he said. "If context is ever going to matter, it has to matter in the context of a funeral. Mr. Snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner."

There is actually something comforting about the statement, “The Supreme Court seemed to have trouble putting aside the ugliness of the message to focus on the rights of the messenger.” That’s what they should do.

This is such an emotional issue. The Fred Phelps family and their disgusting church are about as un-Christian as it gets. Frankly, they’d better hope there is no God and there is no Hell, because if there is, He is sure to put them there for eternity for the things they have done. They are immoral douchebags, and frankly, picketing a serviceman’s funeral is about as un-American as it gets.

But the greatest test of free speech comes not when someone says, “God bless America,” but when someone says “God Damn America.”

The proper response to assholes like Fred Phelps and his disgusting kin, who make up pretty much the entire congregation of Westboro Baptist Church, is to ignore them. To even acknowledge them feeds on their egos, and actually makes them stronger.

There is something about this case that has always bothered me, and it’s been the claim of a “right to privacy” here.

Yes, contrary to what a lot of right wingers believe, there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. But how does it apply here? The Phelpsians weren’t inside the church, and they weren’t in the private cemetery. They were standing on a public street, hundreds of feet from the church entrance and a long way from the cemetery, where Matthew Snyder was buried. How is it possible to have an expectation of privacy along a public street? And if we grant this family that sort of “zone of privacy,” how far do we take that? if there is a strip club on the route between the church and the cemetery, should it be forced to shut down, so that the family doesn’t have to see it on their “private” drive to bury their son?

I would be on the other side, if Phelps and his inbred family went inside the church and held signs and chanted, or they had followed the family into the cemetery. If they had even dogged the cars in the funeral procession, or shouted hatred into the cars, the Snyder family should own them. But in the end, they were on a public street, and they have that right, no matter what we think about them or their message. There is a right to roll the windows up and keep your head down and not listen to or read anything they have to say; you do not have the right to punish them for public speech on a public sidewalk, as long as no other laws were being broken.

This is a hard case to analyze. My visceral reaction is that the Snyders should get everything they’re asking for. If morality were the only barometer available here, I would suggest throwing the book at Westboro Baptist Church. I have all the sympathy in the world for the Snyder family, and as much contempt as I can muster for the Phelps family of creeps. But if we are going to uphold concepts of free speech, we have to do so for everyone, including the scumbags. Absent an issue of public safety, I don’t see how the Supreme Court can side with the Snyder family against free speech. If we allow Fred Phelps’ free speech rights to be abrogated, we don’t honor what Matthew Snyder fought for. He fought for Fred Phelps’ right to be an asshole.

It’s a tough subject, I know, but the right thing isn’t always the easiest or the best thing.

A Suicide in New Jersey; Will Our Society EVER Grow Up?

Not everything can be fixed with a law, and sometimes it doesn't even make sense to try. We have a much deeper problem in this country, and we need to address it, not create another law to paper it over. 

One of the more tragic news stories in recent memory occurred this week, when 18-year-old Rutgers student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, an apparent suicide that was apparently caused when Tyler's roommate and a female co-conspirator set up a video camera and posted the live feed on the Internet, as Tyler made out with his boyfriend. According to reports thus far, it would seem that Tyler wasn't quite "out" yet, and the "outing" sent him over the edge.

The state of New Jersey wants to throw the book at the two "pranksters" who committed this act. They've already been charged with 'invasion of privacy;" now the state wants to charge them with hate crimes, apparently so they can throw these two teenagers in jail for a long time and  "send a message," or some other such nonsense. Basically, the state wants to cover its political ass, and ruin two other young lives in addition to Tyler's life, which was taken so senselessly. Of course, as is usually the case with grandstanding politicians, it won't even come close to solving the problem. 

Here's the first question to ask yourself; if Tyler had not committed suicide, would the actions of these two pranksters be okay? 

Burning the Koran? They'd Better Hope There's No Such Thing as Karma, Huh?

(You might want to read this whole thing, because there's a great video at the end...)

If you haven’t heard, a so-called Christian “Reverend” named Terry Jones plans to hold a Koran burning this coming Saturday in Gainesville, Florida, to commemorate the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans. 

Right wingers are either silent or, in a few cases, actually praising this disgusting display, and a number are defending this action as an example of his right to “free expression.”

Also, over the last several weeks, right wingers all over the country have been tied up in knots over the prospect that someone may build an Islamic Cultural Center on a lot not too far from the spot where the World Trade Center once stood. They have characterized such a building as a “slap in the face” and blamed the ENTIRE RELIGION for the actions of the people who hijacked those planes, knocked down those buildings and killed all of those people.

I have a few questions for those on the far right;

Does the United States believe in freedom of religion, or doesn’t it?

Senators Who Should Be Ousted -- A Miranda Warning Warning

Let’s talk about Miranda Warnings, shall we?

First of all, Miranda warnings do not grant rights. A lot of times, when the media talks about them, it almost sounds as if police are giving suspects rights or something, but the fact of the matters is, everyone has the right to due process, and the right to not be compelled to incriminate himself, simply by being present in United States jurisdiction. In short, when the government accuses someone of a crime, the government has to prove the crime occurred and that you were responsible; you do not have to prove you didn't do it. Got that? Everyone has the same rights, regardless, in order to protect you from government tyranny.

What does the right wing have against the Constitution? Except for the Second Amendment, which they hold as truly sacred, they seem to simply disregard the rest of it, when upholding it becomes “inconvenient.”

Limbaugh Finally Admits It: Civil Rights No Big Deal to the Far Right...

You know, sometimes you see something that just makes your jaw come apart and fall to the ground.

I had always suspected that the right wing didn't care about an individuals; not really, anyway. Oh, sure, they don't want anyone to mess with their guns. Of course, they don't want women to have abortions (none of us do, really, but for some reason, they think their opposition is special). And they really don't want to pay any taxes. But other than that, what do they believe in?

In a discussion on his radio hatefest today, Limbaugh actually tried to defend the new Arizona law that mirrors Nazi Germany more than it mirrors anything that's happened in the United States since we rounded up Japanese Americans and locked them in internment camps.

The following is courtesy of Media Matters:

Arizona's Racist Immigration Law Must Go!

In the interest of full disclosure, I have lived in Arizona for a fairly significant period of my life, and I understand the frustration many Arizonans  feel, in that the federal government has largely dropped the ball on the problem of illegal immigration, at least from some perspectives.

But to pass a racist and pointless law in response is simply not the way to go about fixing such a problem. In fact, it’s absolutely the opposite approach from one that makes sense.

Like I said, the SB 1070 is a racist law, certainly not worthy of most Arizonans. The entire premise of the law is based on the concept that it’s possible to look at someone and determine that they are in this country illegally, which is a ridiculous concept on its face. It’s based on two concepts that are classically racist; the first is that all criminals stick out like a sore thumb, and that all Latinos look alike.

If it’s really that easy to spot “them,” then why aren’t the people in favor of this law rounding up all these people themselves and turning them in to the Border Patrol? And if they’re not doing that because, well, it’s the job of police, well then, I have another question for you – how much time do you think a typical police officer has, to go chasing after Latinos? If they already know who’s who, what’s preventing them from calling ICE now?

Before Singing Kumbaya at Happy Hour, Consider The Power of Police

I have to do this now because after today, everything about the Henry Louis Gates fiasco will be forgotten. Pictures of Smiling Barack, Smiling Skip and Smiling Sgt. Crowley all holding beers and possibly singing Kumbaya will be all over the news, and everything will change. After today, the cause of race relations will be one step closer to being solved forever.  Hallelujah!

 

And while I think the president's idea to bring everyone together for a beer is a clever way to defuse this, there is an aspect of this discussion that is far too important to let go completely.

The Gates Fiasco is Not About Racism; It's Worse.

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates was not arrested because he was black, and the police officer who arrested him is not a racist.

 

I actually think it's worse than that. I think this is about something that has been developing over the last 30 years, in which we have become a de facto police state of sorts, in various towns and cities across the country. And it's partly our fault. For some reason, we have decided that police officers are entitled to a level of deference that goes well beyond simple respect.

 

For those of you living under a rock the last few weeks, Professor Gates came home from a trip to China a couple of weeks ago. After what one would assume was a long flight across many time zones, he arrived home without his key, which forced him and his driver  to break into his home. As the two men worked at the door, they were spotted by a neighbor, who apparently didn't recognize Gates, despite the fact that it was the middle of the day. So she called the police to report a possible burglary.

Stop Blaming Blacks For Proposition 8!

Look folks, you really have to stop blaming black people for the demise of Proposition 8. There were a lot of reasons why it failed, but it wasn't the perceived "betrayal" of African-Americans, and such a characterization is unfair and untrue.

 

Let's start with the fact that, according to the Census Bureau, as of 2006, about 7.3% of California's population is black. Okay, so perhaps it's distressing on some level that, according to polls, around 70% of blacks voted for Prop. 8, but even if they turned out and voted in high numbers (just because a lot of them voted for Obama, doesn't mean they voted on Prop. 8 at all.  But even if they did, it's not possible to expect that 100% of them would vote against the proposition, so let's assume the percentages were roughly the same as whites or Hispanics. The end result would have been the same.

 

It's not the fault of blacks. The "Yes on 8" groups were fully funded, and had a major plan, and the "No on 8" people trusted too greatly in the goodness and rightness of their cause, and underestimated the underhanded determination of their opponents, and as a result, there seems to have been an underplanned and underfunded opposition.

 

But you know what? It doesn't matter. Naming scapegoats and assigning blame is for losers, and we're not losers. Losing on Proposition 8 could very well be the best thing that ever happened, because this was always going to have to be settled in the courts. (See my last post on this for details…)

 

Whatever happens, we are all in this together, and we are all going to have to win this together. Placing blame does no good, and it tends to put others on defense, at a time when you need their support and their assistance. Blacks can be made to understand this issue, but it will be necessary to reach out, not slap them away, especially when our assumptions are based on poll numbers that may or may not even be correct.

 

Keep your heads; everyone will have the same rights very soon. In the meantime, you enemies are the right wing self-righteous prigs, not the people who have struggled even longer and harder than you have for acceptance. They can be your best friends, but you have to talk to them.

Let's Cut The Crap: Civil Rights Can Never Be Decided by Majority Vote

You know, I'm sick of all of the lies, the subterfuge and outright fraud that accompanies the issue of whether or not gays get married. I'm tired of all of the referenda, and the democratic treatment of an issue that is a basic equal rights issue, and has nothing to do with democracy.

 

But most of all, I am sick to death of religion injecting itself into the political arena with impunity, and still being treated like some sort of sacred cow, so to speak.

 

If a man and a woman want to get married, they can get married.

 

If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman want to get married, and they can find someone to perform the ceremony, they can get married. Therefore, the issue is not gay marriage. Got it? Gay people already get married, and there is nothing any law can do to stop that.

 

The only issue -- and I mean the ONLY issue -- is the unequal treatment of different types of married couples, based on the bigotry of others.Why is it that certain segments of our society simply have to have someone to tread on -- someone who is different, and based on that difference, simply can't have the same rights as everyone else?

 

And don't pretend it's not bigotry, because it is. Black people who will read this, and then claim there is a major difference between the gay civil rights movement happening now and the black civil rights movement of 40 years ago simply don't get it. It doesn't matter whether or not you "approve" of a couple possibly being homosexual, anymore than it mattered before 1967, that many people didn't "approve" of mixed-race couples marrying.

NRA Sells Out: Endorses "One of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment”

Wow. I’m stunned. 

The National Rifle Association has endorsed John McCain. Not only that, but they have embarked on a $40 million ad buy, where they lie their asses off about Barack Obama, and his alleged desire to take away everyone’s guns.

Okay, let me dispatch the lies in the ads first.  

This is from The Wall Street Journal, and dated September 5, 2008 so you know it’s not coming from a “liberal” source:

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

So, there you are. We can start with the fact that the NRA is apparently a group of bald-faced liars.

Please Cut the Crap, Andrew Cuomo!

You know what? Censorship is forbidden by the US Constitution, and pretty much all state constitutions. So why is it that so many politicians think it's a fair trade to allow some censorship, in return for an illusion of a modicum of "safety"?

As some of you are aware, Andrew Cuomo is trying to rid the Internet of child pornography. Now, don't get me wrong; getting rid of these douchebags is a laudable goal. But Andrew's approach to eliminating it has effectively tread some very dangerous constitutional ground, and he needs to be reined in, and now.

You see, Andrew's quest came about because he found out that scumbags actually use the Internet to distribute child pornography, and one of the places they do so is via Usenet.

The problem is, Cuomo's "solution" is ham-handed and constitutionally repugnant. He has chosen to take the typical right wing approach to a problem, which is ironic, since he's not actually a right winger. Rather than actively  pursuing the perpetrators of child porn and shut down the distribution of child pornography on Usenet, or even to shut down individual newsgroups where such filth propogates, he's decided to force ISPs to sign an agreement that turns them into Internet police, and to bar access to any newsgroup that features child porn.