Is A Racial Slur OK If the Slur-er "Meant No Disrespect?"

Alaska Congressman Don Young yesterday referred to migrant farm workers as "wet backs." Today, in lieu of an actual apology, he has explained that the term was commonly used when he was growing up in California and he didn't mean any disrespect.

If he had referred to black people by invoking the N-word, his excuse that he used that word all the time when he was growing up would be fuel to the fire, not a mitigating factor. (I grew up in Alabama, and I go back to visit, and I can tell you that people still use that really offensive slur referring to African Americans. It's just they have the sense to not say it on the radio or while being a US Congressman. People say it in front of me and they think I'm OK with it because I'm white and from Alabama. I tell them NOT to use that word in my presence. Neither that term, nor any racial slur, has ever been "harmless.")

Don Young doesn't get it. The fact that he referred to an entire group of Hispanic people as "wet-backs" without realizing he was insulting them is not a mitigating factor. It is the sign of a much bigger problem. He doesn't even realize he's a racist. And it reminds me of the fellow at CPAC who snarkily suggested that Fredrick Douglas' letter to his former owners should have thanked them for providing him with food and shelter. 

It is equally offensive when men refer to women as objects to be worshiped. When people explain that women cannot have priestly positions in church, or get that big promotion at work, but have the "highest calling"  or "hardest job in the world" because they can can be mothers, it makes me grind my teeth. That's saying that a woman's value is her uterus and milk-producing ability. How demeaning. Women are not brood mares or cows.

And likewise, the current issue dominating the news: marriage equality. Many people have no ill will towards gay people, they just want to deprive them of the right to get married. It's another form of objectification and subjugation of someone who is not the white, male ideal. It's a way of keeping someone seen as being "less than" from acting like an equal.

As a practical matter, I'll take this ignorance over violence, but all of these indignities, to me, represent the most sinister form of racism: the idea that "they treat their Negroes/"wet-backs"/women/gays very well" so they don't mean any harm. It makes me nauseous. I had a hard time even typing it out. It is the sickest form of white, male supremacy clothed in benevolence. It is perhaps more insulting than outright hate. At least hatred would be a form of respect.

Congressman Young has not said he regrets using the words, or apologized, or done any kind of mea culpa. He seems to believe that the fact that he has referred to Hispanic people as wet-backs since he was a young man makes it OK. It doesn't.

Get Above Your Raisin', Congressman and acknowledge that you have a lot of wrong ideas to overcome from your youth. Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

POSTSCRIPT: Since I posted this blog, Congressman Young has issued a statement that is more of an apology. It can be found here.

Freedom to Do the Right Thing

A Polygamist with his wives and progeny.

 This was previously written as a Note on my Facebook. I thought it would make an interesting blog.

The really nice thing about living in a free society? If there is some activity I find immoral, I can choose not to engage in it. We are not a lawless society. We prohibit some things we agree about in overwhelming numbers: murder, robbery, etc. But on the whole, if conduct is a matter of debate, or is between consenting adults, we are free (or should be free IMO) to act or abstain according to our own guidelines.

• If you think abortion is murder, that human life begins at conception, then you can choose not to have an abortion.
• If you think engaging in sex outside of marriage, or non-procreative sex, is immoral, you can choose to abstain.
• If you think drinking alcohol or eating pork is a sin, you can stick with iced tea and mutton.
• If you think homosexuality is "unnatural" you can choose not to engage in homosexual conduct.

BUT WHY WOULD ANYONE'S BELIEFS NECESSITATE PASSING LAWS - OR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS - TO POLICE OTHER PEOPLE'S MORAL CONDUCT?

If everyone behaved like the Christian Fundamentalists, we would have Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists campaigning to outlaw blood transfusions and organ transplants. How many lives would be lost? Yet their belief is quite sincere.

If orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims joined together, they could mount a serious movement to outlaw pork. This might render me suicidal!

If the FLDS folks in Colorado City were larger in numbers, they could start a Polygamy Party that advocates plural marriage and the marriage of 16-year-olds to their uncles. They believe God has instructed them to do these things. (FYI this IS illegal since 16-year-olds are minors.)

My point is this: just because someone believe something with great fervor and conviction does not mean he/she have the right to impose that belief on everyone else. No one wants to be told what he/she can and cannot do!

In principle many Americans would agree with me. In practice, many of those seemingly reasonable Americans vote to impose their personal moral views on all Americans in every election. In recent months I've seen some support for laws that would declare a fertilized egg a person, thereby making the use of "The Pill" a homicide since it prevents pregnancy after fertilization.

My question is, "Why?"

According to philosopher John Locke, the natural state of man is to be free to act as each person sees fit within the bounds of Reason (Yes, with a capital R). Part of the failing in this philosophy in human society IMO is the conflict between Reason and Theology. There are religious people who are reasonable. There are also religious people who are not reasonable.

In my opinion, contending that a fertilized egg is a "person" defies Reason. Many churches do not even contend this. It is as extreme and irrational as tying rocks to witches to see if they will float in the river. That is not to say that I think all people who find abortion immoral are silly or ignorant. I don't. Thinking abortion is immoral is not the same as thinking a fertilized egg is a "person."  I do think making your entire political life about policing other people's reproductive choices is creepy and self-righteous. I also think judging women who have abortions is directly in conflict with the lesson to cast stones only if we are without sin ourselves.

Finally, I want to share the epiphany I had recently. The debate over marriage equality is not about opponents protecting the "sanctity of marriage" as was made very clear this week when proponents of Prop H8 and DOMA could not articulate how same sex marriage has any impact on heterosexual relationships. Moreover, as individual couples, many marriages are very sacred, some not so much. The real issue, IMO. is this: legalizing marriage for same sex couples would make their relationships credible, acceptable, legitimate.

Whether you like "the gay" or not, it is credible, acceptable and legitimate. Some homophobe's (or mild-mannered conservative's) problems with gay people have no bearing on this, and in fact is just a demonstration of their own hang-ups. Opposition to marriage equality is just another expression of bigotry that will give rise to regret in the future.In addition, opposition to gay couples marrying is no different from the opposition in the 1960s to interracial marriage.

I would ask these folks - like the ones who rallied for their view of what marriage should be in Utah yesterday - what if you were the minority instead of the majority? What if Warren Jeffs FLDS polygamists were the majority, and you had to marry whomever Prophet Jeffs told you to? What if you had to marry 4 people he told you to? You would hate that, right? You want to be free to choose whom you marry and build a life with, don't you? Don't you think everyone else wants the right to do that too?

And no, "But it's just wrong," is not an acceptable response, nor is "God says it's wrong." YOU think it's wrong because of YOUR beliefs. Someone else thinks your use of birth control is wrong. Someone else thinks your eating bacon with breakfast is wrong. Someone else thinks your consumption of coffee is wrong. Someone else thinks the organ transplant you got to save your life was wrong.

Not everyone agrees with me or with you. But the best part for all of us? None of us has to do any of the things you think are "wrong"  and we can do all the other things. And everyone else gets to refrain from what they think is "wrong" and do all the "not wrong" things they want to as well. That's what it means to be free. When we can all get Above Our Raisin', we can all truly be free to live our lives doing the right things as we each see it.

It's a Sign!

There are churches of all varieties, denominations, and cultures in every corner of America. And a lot of them have lighted signs in front to speak to you as you drive by. What messages are they sending?

Some are intended to get you in the door on Sunday, even if their messages sometimes have double meanings.

Accidentally pornographic Baptists   ^

SEXY   ^

^   And SEXY Catholics, too!

I love sarcasm!

Some are shaking an angry fist at the world! (As if some righteous indignation on a sign is going to change people's behavior!)

^  Dude! These are the FUN people! Count me in! (Vegetarians?)

Shouldn't faith make you a kind person? ^^ Why all the FEAR MONGERING?!

^ I agree with the "HA HA HA" part. ^

 Some take a softer, more humorous approach.

^  AMEN!  ^

Is this the modern "opiate of the masses?" ^

Nice! Some Methodists get it! ^

G R A C E = 5 letters, Lutherans. ^

 And some have particular issues that MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A LIGHTED SIGN SO EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE WWWWRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGGG!

I now have to Google "surgically augmented genitals." ^

Tsk Tsk Tsk Church of Godders. Politics is a no-no. ^

Does this even make sense? ^^ It's like they changed half the sign.

So, kissing is a mortal sin now? ^^ I'm guessing this church has no children. Yikes!

Maybe they are dyslexic and don't believe in Dog? ^

Churches are congregations of people. Some are good and some are not so good. Some are educated and enlightened, and some are Pat Robertson-esque. Some will lift you up. And some will tear you down. This blog isn't particularly deep or meaningful. I just saw an internet post with a sign and thought, "What a weird thing to post in front of a church!" So I found some more and voila, blog post.

I was raised in the Assemblies of God denomination. You know, the one with the "WHY ARE YOU LEADING YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL?" sign. You can understand why I had to get Above My Raisin'.

Minnesota Man Decries Dangers of Butt Enzymes

I am all for freedom of speech. I genuinely believe we should let people talk and talk and talk until they have fully explained exactly whatever crazy-ass beliefs and misunderstandings of the real world to which they cling. This story is an illustration why we should allow everyone to have his or her say. It's how we know who the idiots are.

Remember Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" comments about how a woman's body can "shut down" to prevent pregnancy? A great example of letting the stupids talk to we can weed out the intolerables.

Here's another one. This Minnesota man, Mike Fry, "testified" before a legislative committee in Minnesota in opposition to the proposed same sex marriage bill.

Part one of his premise is that same sex marriage should not be allowed because married people have sex, and allowing gay people to marry each other will mean that they will engage in sodomy. Well, color me shocked! I hadn't realized that gays in states that do not license same sex marriage are all celibate. Who'd a thunk it?! Apparently gays and lesbians are all getting by on heavy petting and "self gratification" waiting for the law-makers to give them the go-ahead to consummate their relationships. Poor souls.

Part two of his premise is that AIDS results from butt enzymes being transferred into the colon by ejaculation during anal sex. (Sorry to be so explicit, but I only wrote this in my blog for 8 people to read. Mike is on YouTube saying it!) OMG, all this time we thought AIDS was a disease resulting from HIV! Why didn't Mike say something sooner? If we had known that AIDS was caused by butt enzymes, think how many lives we could have saved!

End of sarcasm/beginning of  rant. I have several points. I think I'll number them.

(1) People who are not married have sex. And some people who are married have sex with people to whom they are not married. Mike lives in Puritanicalfantasyland.

(2) I do not want to call what this man said "testimony." He is a lying, bigoted, busybody, IMO. What he said is either utterly irrational or patently false. And what business is it of his who marries whom and what they do in bed, either before or after the ceremony?

(3) So, no problems with lesbians marrying, then, since no one is ejaculating into anyone's colon?

(4) If I never type the phrase "ejaculating into anyone's colon" again it will be too soon.

(5) AIDS is not caused by sperm or butt enzymes or gay sex, but by a virus we have identified. Women get it, children get it, straight people get it. Mike makes Jerry Falwell (wherever he is) seem rational.

(6) How does a literate, American adult in 2013 believe the stupidity spewed by Mike Fry?  It cannot be just FoxNews. To think as Mike does, you just have to choose to ignore information, science, news, and common sense. Or maybe he just like to say crap that makes gay people look dirty/evil/sinful/weird, like an internet troll.

(7) The committee he "testified" before voted in favor of the bill anyway.

(8) What about married heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? Shouldn't we ban all marriage to prevent them from spreading butt enzyme AIDS?


(9) On general principal, I'd say Mike shouldn't knock anything until he's tried it. Prudishness is not sexy.

(10) It really isn't funny (although I treated it like it is) that he defends and disseminates this bigoted misinformation. People have died of AIDS. People have died just for being gay. To have this sort of false witness in a legislative process is offensive. But it does tell us clearly who has yet to get Above Their Raisin'.

The Marijuana Boondoggle

If you pay attention at all, you know that Colorado and Washington (state) legalized recreational marijuana in the November, 2012 election. So, given all the scary, horrible things we hear about pot, I thought I'd write a wee blog highlighting the content of this article at Toke Signals. 

I've been hearing scary things about pot since Michelle Summers' mom (a cop) came to my class in school and showed us how to recognize drugs and explained why they are all dangerous. I was a kid. It would have been dangerous.  Anyway, she also told us how bad cigarettes and alcohol are, so YAY for Michelle's Mom! But there are things we've all been told about marijuana use that are not true (although I cannot recall if any of these untruths came from Michelle's Mom).

There are a lot of myths about grass. Despite the panic-mongering, it becomes more popular and more widely used every year. Here's a summary:

1  Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. It's been studied. A lot. For a long time. It does not cause lung cancer.

2  Legalized medical marijuana has not been a huge logistical or administrative problem. In LA, it has, because LA didn't deal with their crap. Everywhere else, it's been pretty smooth (excluding federal enforcement efforts).

3  Legalizing marijuana is no more a "slippery slope" than any other law. The "slippery slope" argument is the last trench in a losing battle. Suggesting that legalizing pot will lead to legalizing heroin is like suggesting that allowing 16-year-olds to drive will lead to 10-year-olds driving. That would be stupid. We, as a society, know the difference between pot and heroin just like we know that a 16-year-old is different from a 10-year-old. FYI always reject the "slippery slope" argument. It's always lame.

4  Legalizing pot will not result is serious DUI problems and carnage on the roads. There is simply no evidence to suggest this. Given the pervasive use of pot NOW, do you ever wonder why we never (or rarely) see new articles about a stoner driving into oncoming traffic? Because it just is not happening all that often, if at all. Pot does not impair motor function the way alcohol does. But whatever the reason, we are not experiencing pervasive Driving While High accidents.

5  We are not all going to become potheads. There are HUGE numbers of people who refrain from smoking and/or drinking alcohol despite their being legal. We are not all lemmings.

I understand the change in law in Colorado will result in 10,000 fewer incarcerations in that state. Way to go, Colorado and Washington. Way to get Above Your Raisin' and make decisions based on fact and common sense. 'Ere's to you!

If You're Feeling Rand-y ...

I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I've even read Anthem and I bet many of you have never even heard of that one. And I cannot figure out how some people took those books to mean "rich" = "maker" and "poor" = "taker." That is not at all what I took from Ayn Rand's novels.

I understand some of her articles, essays and interviews were more pointedly anti-welfare and anti-regulation. I really haven't paid a lot of attention to those. But I find her novels fascinating.

I read The Fountainhead on the recommendation of Professor Brooke Overby at Tulane Law School back in the day. She was a supporter of President Clinton (as was I). I had no idea that these rather preachy novels by an avowed atheist were the intellectual foundation on which the conservatives in this country were building a campaign against the poor. Moreover, being that Brooke was one of the smartest people I knew, and the professor I worked for as a research assistant, I went to the bookstore and bought the paperback.

I had already had my liberal awakening by the time I read The Fountainhead, and I read them feeling genuine anger at the rich, unworthy users taking advantage of Roark. (Though I have to say he became a lot less sympathetic when he raped a woman, but that's probably a topic for another blog entry.) Roark is an insightful, genius architect, highly educated, hard working, who designs brilliant structures based on modern engineering.  The industry is controlled by talentless sycophants who use modern materials to build structures that look like monstrous atrocities merging classic, gothic and other outdated styles. Everyone loves his buildings, but no one knows who designed them, the establishment will not let him succeed. Others take credit for what he does, and when he gets a contract, it gets sabotaged. It is infuriating to see Roark's talents being abused.

I read Atlas Shrugged later. Do you remember the scene in Dirty Dancing (the original one, the classic) when rich douchebag Robby is waiving around a copy of Atlas Shrugged at Baby? He says, referring to the book, "Some people matter, some people don't." I did not get that lesson from the book.

The lesson I got was, "the world is full of people looking to succeed by stepping on you on the way up." I remember people who wanted my notes in school because I did the work and they didn't. Brooke told me about her time clerking for a federal judge and the other clerk, a man, just started dumping his notes on her expecting her to type them for him because she had ovaries. As you're reading this, you are remembering people from your life who have tried to take advantage of you for their own advancement.

If you've read these books, you know the characters and plot-lines are rather extreme, like a comic book. In the real world, few people are completely worthless and few people earn everything they get. But in these books, that's what we get. Do you remember who the villains are? It's been years since I read the books, but I recall that the villains in both books are not slothful people on welfare, but wealthy, powerful people who have not earned what they have. 

How does one even extrapolate the Robby lesson? Are the people who get stepped on the ones who don't matter? Because if that is the lesson, then aren't the "takers" being made into heroes? Or flip it: are the people using the smart, talented others for their own advancement the ones who don't count? Because I think we all know the world does NOT work that way. Nor is this lesson the one being advocated by conservatives today.

In my opinion, a real-life example of a Rand villain would be someone like George W. Bush: the son of a former Senator, CIA chief, and President, who had mediocre grades, went AWOL for a year in the Air National Guard, had a drug habit during the 1980s, never owned a profitable business, and ascended to be a two-term President. Everything W has - his money, his resume, his influence - is the result of nepotism and money his family accumulated. He made nothing on his own, but rode the shoulders of others. This experience does not make him stupid or lazy or evil, but it does make him a "taker" in the truest sense of the word.

To be fair, no one makes it purely on his or her own. But when I see people like Paul Ryan - who was born into a family with a successful business, who used his father's social security death benefits to pay for college - rave about how the "takers" in our society are too big a burden, I alternatively roll my eyes and shake my fist at the TV. It is the definition of hypocrisy for him to vilify others for doing what he did. He didn't earn everything he has. Part of what he has was earned by his father, another part of what he has resulted from tax dollars, and he has worked to add to it.

The modern corruption of Ayn Rand used by people like Paul Ryan seems to be that if you are rich, you are deserving, and that if you are poor, you are undeserving. That is neither what Rand taught, nor rational. The GOP's version of Ayn Rand's lessons are not the lessons I learned. Nor are they the lesson I think she was trying to teach. The lesson I think she was trying to teach is that hard work, creativity, innovation, productivity should be rewarded, that people should be self-sufficient and not parasites on the productivity of others. 

My way of applying this lesson is to try to create a system where everyone (or as many people as possible) can be self-sufficient and productive. That means public schools, health care, and a fair marketplace are necessary so that people born in different circumstances have a chance to be "rugged individualists." In contrast, the GOP application of the lesson is to ignore people's circumstances - whether you are Donald Trump born to a multi-millionaire or a kid born to a poor family in a crime-ridden area of a big city - and pretend they both have the same chance of being self-reliant and productive. It's delusional to think this, and it is cruel to advocate policies based on this delusion.

I'm not suggesting that Ayn Rand would agree with my application of her writings. In fact, I concede that she might not since she was ardently against all public programs. But the fact that she signed up for and took Medicare and Social Security in her old age illustrates how truly irrational and cruel her lessons are when taken to the extreme.

Apparently No One Told Joshua Boston that "Semper Fi" Means "Always Faithful"

This week a former Marine named Joshua Boston wrote a public letter to Senator Diane Feinstein objecting to her proposed bill to restrict access to assault-type rifles and limit magazine sizes. Here's a portion of his letter:

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

He also decries her proposal, claiming he is not her servant or a peasant.

Aside from the clear misogyny in this machofesto - indicating that he will not be told what to do "by some woman" - Mr. Boston is myopic to the point of being scary.  (I wonder if Mr. Boston had trouble following the orders of higher ranked female Marines.)

In the first instance, the government (state, local and federal) tracks all kinds of things we own: guns, boats, cars, certain prescription narcotics, even ibuprofen. Why? Partly because of taxation issues. And partly because of safety and liability concerns. Some things are dangerous and we need to keep track of them. Is a gun less dangerous that ibuprofen? 

The mere fact that the government knows you have a gun is not a threat to you unless you intend to use that gun against that government. Is Mr. Boston planning a coup?

This brings me nicely to my second point: the futility of the pro-gun argument. The gun-toting Tea Party frequently claims its Constitutional right to bear arms is based in the Founding Fathers' mistrust of the federal government and the right of the citizenry to protect itself from the US government. This makes me laugh. This is why original intent is absurd. Please tell me which guns you could own that would prevent the United States government from taking you out if it wanted to. Please. Tell. Me. 

When the Second Amendment was written the weapons used were muskets, cannons, knives, and swords. It was actually possible in the late 1700s to own weapons that would help you hold your farmhouse should a federal military action be launched against you. Today? Satellites could find you in your backyard from space and a drone could take you out before you have a chance to say "Don't Tread on Me!" 

I find the handful of assassinations of US citizens that have been linked to terrorist activities offensive and I think those actions are probably illegal. (There should be trials.) But that limited, targeted activity is not a reason to think the US government is going to start taking out large numbers of Americans willy-nilly. (And if they did, there is little we could do.) But our government will not start sniping and locking up the average citizen without legal justification because for all the cynicism in our politics, almost all of us, politicians included, believe in our system. If this were not true, we would already be a military dictatorship. As would every other gun-regulating democracy with a large military (France, UK, Spain, Germany, pretty much all of Europe.) 

The idea of the US government squashing state and local governments and becoming a military tyrannical regime is nothing but a dark fantasy that scared people like to engage in while playing war games in the woods. (Ironically, many of these folks also favor a very strong military. Figure that out!) Fantasy is fine. Just keep it out of our policy.

The point I think that is utterly lost on Mr. Boston is that as a (former) Marine, he poses (or posed) a bigger threat to our freedom than Senator Feinstein ever could. If we pretend there could be a federal coup - the Dark Fantasy come true - it will certainly be imposed using military personnel and equipment. Whose side do you think Mr. Boston will be on? ("Once a Marine, always a Marine!")

This argument isn't about freedom or tyranny or even the Second Amendment. Not really. That's just the context. If the Constitution mattered that much to people, we would be rioting in the streets about the Patriot Act and warrantless wire-tapping. This debate is heated because people who like the thrill of firing a badass gun don't want to be told what to do. Sorry. I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour on the freeway, but that's not safe. And neither is unregistered ownership of assault rifles.

Finally, though not the real point of this blog, I have an additional point. Mr. Boston seems to think he is entitled to some type of reverence or deference because he was a Marine for 8 years.   No. It doesn't work that way. I respect his service to the country and I respect his right to have and express an opinion. But his opinions have no more or less value than mine or yours. And in my opinion, Mr. Boston is almost as scary as he is wrong.  He has vowed, publicly, to violate federal law (if the bill is passed and signed) to keep unregistered assault rifles.

Wasn't Tim McVeigh also a veteran?

Good Riddance, Lizard Brain

The tendency to occasionally succumb to our most basic emotional response is one we all share. We have stray thoughts. Sometimes we might even share our "lizard brain" desires with people most close to us who understand that we have no intention of going public. It can be cathartic. But this blog, written by the fellow pictured, which I have copied and pasted verbatim (with some editing of profanity) to avoid giving "hits" to this guy's site, is an example of lizard brain run amok.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2012

The end of liberty in America: Only course of action now is to fight back, electoral politics not working

Time to tell any Democrats you know to f*** off and die

by Eric Dondero

This may be my last post here at Libertarian Republican for quite some time, possibly forever. I had a long discussion with my friend Jim "Right Guy" Lagnese last night. He has agreed, tentatively to take over this website. I cannot think of a better person to run things. He has a good head on his shoulders. He has the absolute right ideology, a Ron Paul Constitutionalist who recognizes the evils of Islam, and supports a strong military, defense of America and of course, our personal rights to gun ownership. Please give Jim all your support in the coming weeks, months, and possibly years.

Dr. Clifford Thies will still be contributing of course. Jim will take great care to publish all his numerous articles, and witty commentary. I am deeply grateful to my dear friend Clifford for all he has done to assist me since I started this website 6 years ago.

Now, that said. Firstly, I was wrong. I let my optimism get the best of me. I even lashed out at Thomas L. Knapp a time or two, saying he was nuts for his predictions. Tom was right. I was fantastically wrong. We were crushed last night at all levels, most especially in the Senate races. There is virtually no good news from last night's results for the libertarian wing of the GOP. I apologize Tom. I hope you can see fit to accept my apology.

Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on electoral politics given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt. What do I mean by that?

Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures. Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel). Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule' the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.

Express your hatred, shame, and outright disgust with anyone you know who voted Democrat

However, for me, I'm choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job. Co-workers who voted for Obama. Simply don't talk to them in the workplace, unless your boss instructs you too for work-related only purposes. Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.

Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn. Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this. But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.

And start your boycott of your Democrat friends and family today. Like this morning. First thing you can do, very easy, is to un-friend all Democrats from your Facebook account.

Boycott Business who accept Welfare payments

Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Obama and Democrats in public places. To some extent I already do this. Example:  When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.

What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here." I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.

If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately. I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.

Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Democrats are Communist Pigs," or "Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans," "Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws" or "No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go F*** Yourselves."

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who voted for Obama to "f*** off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball mother f***ers." Wish me luck!

Fantasizing about doing these things for a few hours might be appealing when our side loses a big election. But writing it up in detail and publishing it on the internet? It doesn't make Eric look brave or strong, IMO. It makes him seem small, petty, angry and really immature.

We know Eric is capable of non-lizard-brain conduct. His apology at the top seems quite sincere. But he is advocating divorce (sanctity of marriage anyone?), family estrangement, and bullying in addition to secession from the country and violent revolution. (I pause to roll my eyes. Who would be the President of the Confederate States of Amur'ca? Newt?) 

I suppose Eric's lizard brain has not been allowed to control him completely. He is using his words, even if they are (1) hateful, (2) childish, and (3) meaningless. All he has done is show why a majority of the country rejected this redneck, "I'm right and you're a worthless, Godless, idiotic, mother f***er" (paraphrasing) attitude. Eric has not yet learned that people can have different beliefs and be passionate about them and not be divided between GOOD (Eric) and EVIL (people who disagree with Eric). 

I follow @kurteichenwald on Twitter. I learned about him during this election. I gather that he has a history with the GOP and considers himself more conservative that liberal, but I honestly haven't researched it that deeply. Anyway, here's a capture of some of his tweets today. He sums up my view as well. I recommend following him. He's rational, fact-based, and middle of the road as far as I can tell.

Until Eric puts on some big-boy pants, and can get Above His Raisin', I think a personal boycott might be best for everyone. I know that's what I prefer.

There Is No Depth To Which A Hypocrite Will Not Delve

Tennessee Congressman Scott DesJarlais (Republican), a physician, calls himself "pro-life" and wants to make abortion illegal. But that didn't stop him from pressuring his mistress (who was also his patient) into having an abortion to destroy the evidence of his hypocrisy.

To begin with, it is unethical for a physician to have a sexual relationship with a patient. So right off, I'm thinking this guy is a creep of the first order.

But more importantly, how can this hypocrite look all doe-eyed when discussing the "precious life" of a zygote in public, then treat the woman he slept with like a useless whore, and his "unborn child" like a disposable inconvenience, in private. Sickening.

Not sickening because he thought an abortion was appropriate in this situation. He was probably right about that. He had no intention of staying with that women, it was unplanned, he was trying to fix his marriage (as lame as that sounds).

It's sickening because he and his political party are trying to deprive women of the right to make decisions about their own bodies while he is secreting around pressuring the woman he unleashed his unsafe sexual practices on into having an abortion.

Congressman DesJarlais clearly does NOT think a fetus is a person. (If he does, then he is guilty of being an accomplice to murder according to his own moral construct.) Yet that is precisely what he and his cohorts argue to support their position that the government is the better choice for making a woman's health care decisions.

Here's what I think. I think Congressman DesJarlais and his judgmental/hypocritical colleagues are the ones who are not moral enough or smart enough to make these decisions. These decisions should be left to the women whose bodies are involved.

I don't know how Dr. DesJarlais can find away Above His Raisin'. Maybe just by keeping it either in his pants, or if he is incapable of that, thoroughly rubberized.

Throwing Shade on Arkansas

One of the things that I have always appreciated about human beings and human society is that, although it may take too long and require too much sacrifice, we are capable of moments of enlightenment through the intellectual exercise of reason.

Most human beings are taught a moral code based on religious doctrine. Writings considered by said humans to be sacred scriptures, and their interpretation, are used as the yard-stick for "right" and "wrong." Many of these moral standards are universal from one religion to another: Do not kill without certain, defined justifications. Do not have sex with those to whom you are not married. Do not steal. Do not cheat people out of money. You get what I mean. But every once in a while, we lowly humans decide - on our own - that there are moral principles NOT found in scripture.

For example, how a husband treats his wife. For many centuries, how a husband treated his wife was totally up to him. She was his. And if he decided she was disrespectful or - for whatever reason - he could beat her. (The saying "rule of thumb" comes from the English common law that a husband could only beat his wife with a stick as big around as his thumb.) And although you can probably quote some scripture that would suggest that God does not want a man to treat his wife this way, I bet you cannot find one that prohibits all physical punishment of a wife by her husband.

Or what about ending a marriage? The Bible says the only grounds for divorce is adultery. But very few people in our society would suggest making that our law. What if she refuses to ever have sex with him again? What if he takes all the money and loses it gambling? What if she beats the kids? What if he beats her? What if they just HATE EACH OTHERS' GUTS?

But the biggest and best example, IMO, is slavery. The Bible actually has rules on how a master is to treat his slaves, and rules for how slaves are to behave with respect to their masters.

5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah. 6 Do not do this only while you’re being watched in order to please them, but be like slaves of the Messiah, who are determined to obey God’s will. 7 Serve willingly, as if you were serving the Lord and not merely people, 8 because you know that everyone will receive a reward from the Lord for whatever good he has done, whether he is a slave or free.

9 Masters, treat your slaves the same way. Do not threaten them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Ephesians 6:5-9 So, on earth, slaves are to treat their masters like gods, but it'll all be OK when they get to Heaven because although the almighty is apparently OK with slavery on earth, we will all be equal in the afterlife.  Be a good slave and you'll get to go to Heaven! YAY!  (I'm being a little snarky, but really, isn't this offensive? It is to me.)

It is at this moment when you might think, "Well, yeah, but the Bible was written 2,000+ years ago when slavery was OK." To which I have 2 responses:

The first is: "EXACTLY! So stop freaking trying to impose its arcane moral code on modern people!! We have science now and we understand human beings down to their DNA molecules. We know that people born with epilepsy are neither "demon possessed" nor a "messenger from God." We know (at least those of us who believe in science know) that gay people are born gay. We know that rain is a result of atmospheric conditions, not dancing, praying, sacrificing goats or chanting. We know that men who beat their wives are douchebags. And we know that slavery is a horrific, evil thing. Stop ignoring the parts you have a problem with and enforcing the parts that make you feel holier than thou (or me). It only makes you look like a hypocrite."

The second is: "No, slavery has always been wrong, and the Bible's failure to say so is not a failure in us but a failure in the text."

Which brings me to the point of the blog (sorry it took so long). A man running for office in Arkansas thinks slavery is an OK thing because Jesus did not say otherwise. I don't mean a man who ran for office in Arkansas in 1857 thought this. I mean a mean running for office NOW thinks this.

I have to concede that this man's ignorance is an argument against evolution, but I suggest that not all members of a specie evolve at the same rate. This may be especially true of old, bearded white men in Arkansas. What's worse: there are actual GOP members and supporters who have endorsed him, including the NRA.

I know of no argument to persuade someone like Loy Mauch (R-AR) how wrong he is. I cannot use the Bible to persuade him, that's the book he's using to defend himself. And I sure as hell cannot rely on his own enlightenment. He is an embarrassment to Arkansas, to the US and to everyone who considers him/herself a Christian. All I can hope for, Arkansas voters, is that you will get Above Your Raisin' and vote against this racist, offensive man.

 

GOPAgain Island

In pursuit of the White House, the GOP again seeks to be the Captain and Crew of our national ship.

Comparisons of the Romneys to Thurston and Lovey Howell, and the Politico story about Gov. Romney referring to Paul Ryan as Gilligan, got me thinking. And playing with phot editing.

Hope you get a laugh. Also includes Ann Coulter as Ginger, Campaign Manager Fehrnstrom as Skipper, Michelle Malkin as Mary Ann, and Sean Hannity as the Professor.

My photo editing is weak, but you can at least tell what i was trying to do. HA!

Don't forget to register to vote. And steer clear of the SS Mittow!

Florida Man Shoots Own Penis

Photo is merely a photogrqaphic symbol of the Florida man's gun-shot-wounded penis. Not an actual penis.

While Florida tries to make people jump hurdles, pay fees, and figure out changing precinct hours and locations to exercise the right to vote, it allows any idiot to own a deadly weapon.

Like this Moron.

Get Above Your Raisin' Florida. Maybe a minimum "not a total freaking idiot" test prior to gun ownership?

And how about getting out of the way and letting people vote. It's not like that's going to hurt anyone's junk. Well, except for the  Florida Republican Party's.

Your Bigotry Is Showing, Salt Lake City

Boy am I glad I have the Mormon Church screening prime-time tv for me. Otherwise, I might think gay people were "OK" or "normal."

It has been reported that the LDS Church-owned KSL-TV (NBC affiliate) in Salt Lake City will not be airing NBC''s new sitcom, The New Normal this fall because the management found it unsuitable for family entertainment. Well, for whose family? And who are they to make that determination?

We have a whole federal agency assigned to rate and label shows to let viewers know what to expect. We don't need the owners of stations deciding what is suitable for us, do we?

The show is about a gay couple in LA who are using a surrogate to have a child. And the LDS Church-owned station KSL-TV thinks this is not OK for families to see.

I haven't seen the show. And since I live in Utah, I guess I won' get to. Because, you know, as a grown woman with a bachelor's and a law degree, I'm not capable of making that determination for myself.

Will & Grace was OK with KSL-TV, and anyone who saw it knows it was rife with sexual inuendo. My parents even commented at times that it was "raunchy" because of the lines Karen had. But both Jack and Will were mostly "safe" gays. They were single, alone, funny, and asexual. I'm guessing Mr. and Mr. Normal are going to have a NORMAL relationship. And that includes S - E - X.

I live here, and I have no particular problem with Mormons or any other person of any other faith so long as it is not being imposed on me.  In fact, when a recent incident occurred in Provo (a Dept of Transportation construction sign was altered to say "God Hates Gays) I did not make a stink or write a blog because there are idiots everywhere. I wrote an email to the state DOT about it and got a really nice response apologizing, explaining that the workers forgot to secure the sign and it was altered during the night, letting me know it was removed, and assuring me a police report was filed. I knew it would be handled that way. People here in Utah, as a rule, are respectful, kind, honest and caring, in part because of their faith. But what KSL-TV is doing is the very definition of imposition.

Younger Mormons (and that includes some my age, too) are not as homophobic as the church leadership and some have expressed to me their embarrassment and/or confusion at the LDS Church's leadership's attitude towards gay people. There's even a gay student club at BYU (the club is "active" but the students, not so much). So, I expect the passing of time will bring change. But spending $20 million in California to make sure gay people cannot get married is more than a passing interest. It's a campaign. This censorship is another part of that campaign.

I grew up in the south attending a pentecostal church. Although it was before my time, white southern churches were pretty notorious for advocating segregation, a shameful mark against them looking back. The racists endorsing segregation were not afraid of black people. They were afraid that black people being elevated to equality would diminish them, remove their position of authority.

Likewise, it's not that the KSL guys (and the LDS church leadership) fear gay people, per se. They fear that society will start to view gay as "OK" or "normal," and as that happens, their position as a moral authority will be diminished.

Ironically, the thing that diminishes the moral authority of a church is not the embracing of those who are different by society, but the exclusion and demeaning of them by that church. You'd think, after so many lessons from history, these guys could Get Above Their Raisin' and actually be moral leaders instead of the guardians of bigotry.

Legitimate Apes

I wish I could accuse Rep. Akin of being "fringey" or out of step. But he's not. America and the Republican Party are full of people who "believe" the same way he does. They do not "think" the same way, because there is little or no "thinking" involved. Thinking requires use of a muscle that is sadly atrophied in this link in human evolution.

And then there's Rep. Akin's spiritual brother in Idaho, state Rep. Winder, who thinks women just aren't sure if they know when they are raped. And, he's got a bill that will apparently take care of that by forcing women who choose to have a legal abortion to undergo not ONE but TWO medically unnecessary ultrasounds.

I can't ID all the individuals. Let's cut to it: The GOP platform opposes abortion in every case, with no exceptions. It'll be voted on in a few days and it'll pass. It has every year since at least 1976.

Don't act shocked at their lack of information. They are not interested in information, especially information about (A) sex and/or (B) women. Science is a threat to their faith and sex is a dirty thing that slutty women tempt men with to steal their souls. (Until they get married, then sex is their right as husbands.)

Pregnancy is what women deserve for having sex, which is convenient because that also means they can oppose any insurance coverage for birth control. To these neanderthals, women aren't allowed to have sex unless they are making children, and a woman exercising sexual freedom is more offensive than a Mapplethorpe photo expo.

Have you ever noticed that condoms can be bought over the counter, but there is not one form of female birth control that is available without a prescription? Not one.

Their attitude toward women is steeped in the objectification and hatred of women that is more cultural than theological, but it is justified by scripture. Since those bearded guys put quill to paper and decided to blame the fall of man on that amoral sex-kitten Eve, it has been this way. Women are talked about and subjected to male authority as if they are morally weak, untrustworthy temptresses that are determined to ruin well-meaning men who are just trying to get through the day without slipping and having their sacred penises accidentally fall into some cleverly positioned whores.

When one of these low-brows gets married, his wife is elevated from slutty temptress to useful tool and vessel. She is sex, socks and succotash. A uterus (and a vagina) that does the laundry and cooks the food. "Thag hungry. Thag horny. Thag want sons." (No way these knuckle-draggers are getting Above their Raisin' in this lifetime.)

Am I being too personal in my criticism? Is name-calling childish? Maybe. But it's infuriating to be talked about like I'm not in the room by men who (1) are completely full of crap, (2) genuinely believe these idiotic, mythological things about lady-parts, and (3) are also convinced that they have the microphone in their hands (not a euphemism) because God put it there. They believe they have moral authority because God placed them in leadership.

If you are reading this and thinking that I've gone too far, ask yourself this: IF THESE MEN THINK THAT WOMEN ARE MORE THAN AMORAL, UNINTELLIGENT VESSELS FOR SEX AND BREEDING, THEN WHY CAN'T WE BE TRUSTED TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS ABOUT OUR OWN BODIES?

If you are reading this and you (mostly) agree with me, then get out and vote in November, and show these Legitimate Apes where government authority comes from in a free democratic republic. It's not from God. It's from the majority.

In this country, that's a 51% majority of really pissed off sluts!

PS Based on comments, let me clarify that I do not think all Rupublican men are equal to these bafoons featured in this article. I assumed people would realize that.  Not everyone did. Nevertheless, a patriarchal policy that demeans women by controlling their bodies? Kinda cavemanish IMO.

Mississippi Shame

The First Baptist Church in Crystal Springs, Mississippi refused to perform a wedding for a couple who regularly attend there because they are African American. What's more, they told the pastor if he performed the wedding, he would be voted out.

The Pastor says he went ahead and performed the wedding at a different location because he didn't want controversy to interfere with the wedding.  But I think the Pastor was wrong. He allowed a racist minority of that church to bring shame on that entire congregation. He should have stood up for what is right and told those members of his church that they were wrong.

Is he the shepherd or just another sheep? Why should be allow a few ignorant people - who are clearly wrong - to control the decision?

The church was founded in the late 1800s and has never performed a wedding for a black couple. This would have been a quiet and wonderful historical event for the congregation, a way to demonstrate its growth beyond antebellum racism. Instead, it is another mark of shame on the American south.

Congratulations Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson. I hope you find a loving new church that has grown Above Your Raisin'.