I don’t have the time I’d like to properly comment on this story, but it makes me sick. What sort of compromise can we hope to achieve when one side will tear apart one of their own for calmly and rationally expressing a viewpoint that deviates even slightly from the extreme?
The one thing I will point out is this response from a gun rights advocate:
I’m going to stop there. Anyone who says “I believe in the Second Amendment but–” does not believe in the Second Amendment. They are not friends, they are not frenemies, they are enemies of The People of the Gun.
More than that, whether or not these nominal gun rights supporters (e.g., President Obama, Senator Charles Schumer) “believe” in the Second Amendment is irrelevant. As stated above, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, stemming from our natural right of self-defense. It doesn’t require belief, faith or political justification.
“The People of the Gun”? It’s like a religious fanaticism, and it’s nearly impossible to reason with religious fanatics; rational thought doesn’t enter the picture. There’s more to pick apart in this statement, but I really do need to get back to work, so I’ll let you read the full piece for now, and try to post more later.
It is for people like this that the phrase “scum of the earth” was coined. You’d be hard pressed to find worse people who openly extol their wretchedness and who aren’t already behind bars or on a “Most Wanted” list.
“Peter,” Scarborough said, “the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit. I just wonder if you’ve explored that, talked to anyone about it. Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer. And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that. Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?”
OK, I am legitimately curious as to who this lawsuit would be against? Of course, Peter [LaBarbera] likes the idea, responding “Yeah I think that’s great. I would love to see it.”
And then:
LaBarbera went on to say, “We always wanted to see one of the kids in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV.”
Yeah, he said they “always wanted to see” a high school kid get HIV. I mean, really? These people profess to be Christian? Disgusting.
Vokhtah may be hard to spell, but it’s both easy and a pleasure to read. I found this book to be a refreshing change of pace from a lot of scifi I’ve read.
The author’s impressive imagination has created a very alien world populated by very alien species. The Vokh, despite being the dominant species on this planet, are almost animalistic. The iVokh are a lesser, subservient species that does most of the work on Vokhtah. The Vokh seem to be divided by numeric levels (almost like video game characters), while the iVokh are separated into societies and roles within those societies that are very secretive and distrustful of one another.
As the book progresses, these secrets start to come out. One of the things I like about this book is how the author mostly reveals information to us organically as the story progresses, with minimal expository “information dumps” that distract from the story. Other readers may be bothered by this, as you can be left feeling confused and in the dark at times. But I prefer this style.
One particular strength is how the author makes you care about the characters, despite the fact that they don’t look, talk or even think much like humans. They still experience emotions we can identify with.
Given how different this world and its denizens are from our own, I would have liked some more physical descriptions. I still don’t have a very good idea of what either the Vokh or iVokh look like, for example.
Overall the story is compelling and well-told. At times it was even a real page-turner. It left me wanting to know what happens next, so I look forward to the next installment in this promising series.
Last Wednesday, starting at 10am Eastern, I was participating in a remote training session at work. This was also about the time that the Supreme Court announced their rulings on the two big same-sex marriage cases they had heard earlier in the year. Needless to say, I wasn’t paying much attention to the training.
The rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 were momentous. The highest court in the land declaring (even if by a shamefully thin margin) that gays are people too, and deserving of equal protection under the law is probably the biggest single step forward I’ve witnessed so far in my life. And I think everyone felt it.
I ventured out that night, in New York City, and the street was blocked off in front of the Stonewall Inn, the place where the gay rights movement began. And the street was full of people, celebrating! There were some news crews around, and every once in awhile you’d hear the sound of a bottle of champagne being uncorked and a spontaneous cheer would rise up from the crowd. The Stonewall itself was packed and the atmosphere was festive. I overheard a bar back tell some people they were running low on vodka!
The war for full equality rages on, and the enemies of progress and equality are going to be digging themselves some deep trenches. But we won a major battle with these rulings–particularly on DOMA. The winds of change are blowing in the right direction. But we can’t get complacent and assume everything will work itself out. It hasn’t been that long since a number of gay men were attacked right in Manhattan–including one who was shot to death. Many states do still not allow same-sex marriage and in some, people can still lose their jobs for being gay. We should absolutely celebrate this win and enjoy the feeling, but we must also stay vigilant.
I’ve been neglecting blogging lately, both reading and writing. Trying to get back into it. But I’m still around, more or less, and don’t plan on going anywhere.
Never forget! I’m not speaking of the terrible bombings and ensuing chaos (and death of a police officer) in Boston last week. That’s not something anyone in America will soon be forgetting about. No reminder is needed.
I’m speaking of the people who took this opportunity to reveal how terrible or stupid (or both) they are. Particularly those who would govern us (other than Mitch McConnel, whom I’ve already covered).
This is Arkansas State Rep. Nate Bell (@NateBell4AR). He tweeted that last Friday morning. In case that image goes away, let me transcribe the tweet for you:
I wonder how many Boston liberals spent the night cowering in their homes wishing they had an AR-15 with a hi-capacity magazine?
As predicted, Twitter blew up and many Bostonians responded with an answer to his question: None. Feeling a bit guilty, Mr. Bell apologized on the Facebooks (emphasis mine):
I would like to apologize to the people of Boston & Massachusetts for the poor timing of my tweet earlier this morning. As a staunch and unwavering supporter of the individual right to self defense, I expressed my point of view without thinking of its effect on those still in time of crisis. In hindsight, given the ongoing tragedy that is still unfolding, I regret the poor choice of timing. Please know that my thoughts and prayers were with the people of Boston overnight and will continue as they recover from this tragedy.
Nate Bell 4 Tool of the Year
He didn’t apologize for the asinine content of his tweet (which he apparently did delete), but for the timing of it. Because yeah, Nate, that’s what people had a problem with. And sadly, this post has nearly 2000 “likes” on it. Less sadly, most of the commenters seem to be more sensible.
Most, not all:
You apologies sound more like a wobbly Democrat pissing on himself as soon as his liberal pals start attacking him..I thought you were a conservative Republican..Represent Arkansans not the national left wing media and their mob..Your state district seat should have a man sitting in it.. not a fumbling, apologetic kid.
Quoth one Patrick DeMent. If I had more time, I’d love to hear more about Mr. DeMent’s ideas on manliness. Perhaps another day.
And then there’s The Donald. Here are just a few select tweets from Trump, the man who would (then wouldn’t, then would?) be President:
“Next time you are waiting in an emergency room remember the Boston killer was rushed to intensive care within minutes of capture.” (link)
“The Boston killer will soon be asking for a Presidential pardon—don’t give it to him, Mr. President—hang tough!” (link)
“What do you think of water boarding the Boston killer sometime prior to allowing our doctors to make him well? I suspect he may talk!” (link)
“Make the Boston killer talk before our doctors make him better. Once he is well he will say, “speak to my lawyers.”” (link)
“If the Boston killer applies for Obama Care the paperwork will be too complicated for him to understand!” (link)
“NO MERCY TO TERRORISTS you dumb bastards!” (link)
“I hate when the news media, so afraid to offend anyone, always refers to the BOSTON KILLER as “the suspect”.” (link)
And finally: “I know some of you may think l’m tough and harsh but actually I’m a very compassionate person (with a very high IQ) with strong common sense” (link)
All presented without comment, partially because they’re unworthy, and partially because ain’t nobody got time for that!
In the wake of the tragic bombings in Boston, it hasn’t taken our idiotic politicians long to start spewing total nonsense. Like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):
On 9/11 we forever disabused of the notion that attacks, like the one that rocked Boston yesterday ,only happen on the field of battle or in distant countries. With the passage of time, however, and the vigilant efforts of our military, intelligence and law enforcement professionals, I think it’s safe to say that for many, the complacency that prevailed prior to September 11th has actually returned. And so we are newly reminded that serious threats to our way of life remain. And today again we recommit ourselves to the fight against terrorism at home and abroad.
“Complacency”? Who exactly has grown complacent? Law enforcement, intelligence and counter-terrorism agencies? It’s difficult to interpret what you’re actually trying to say, but your statement seems to imply they have been “vigilant” so I can only assume you are referring to the American people. In which case, FUCK YOU, Mitch! To even hint that we have somehow brought this on ourselves by letting our guards down, by having the audacity to live our lives without constantly glancing over our shoulders or suspiciously watching our brown-skinned (or perhaps just odd) neighbors is despicable. Terrorists want us to live in fear and suspicion, and that seems to be exactly what you think we should be doing as well. If we do that (to use a cliche), the terrorists win!
Where are exactly you going with this? Do you want to enact more draconian privacy and freedom-limiting so-called “security measures”, like the knee-jerk USA PATRIOT Act that passed like lightning in the wake of 9/11? That’s not what we need.
Complacency is not the problem. The fact that it’s been more than 11 years since a serious attack has taken place on American soil should be proof of that. No matter how vigilant we all are, it will never be possible to prevent every single attack. The thing to concentrate on now is to find the culprit or culprits and make sure they can never do anything like this again. Blaming the victims? That accomplishes nothing, but making you look like a total fucking dick.
I am proud to be an American, where it takes me a full day to do my taxes, but at least I know I’m free to marry who I want–in a handful of states!
Speaking of marriage and taxes, it is actually a bit of a blessing at tax time to not be married, as married couples tend to pay more in tax than non-married couples. Some friends who are married in NY had to do a fake federal return as if they were married. Fake, because the federal government doesn’t recognize their marriage. And they had to do it because most states tax forms are dependent on the federal form. Anyway, had they been married their tax burden would have been $6000 higher! Talk about a marriage penalty!
So I’m not in any rush to get a ring on my finger, but I still believe I should have that right, and the ability to choose for myself if the tax penalty is worth it.
Anyway, hope all my fellow Yanks got their taxes done on time. I still have to go mail a couple of mine in (two states–I had to complete 3!). The good news is, thanks to my long period of being unemployed last year, I’m getting a lot back. Might be good to use for a vacation!
Within hours of clicking “Publish” on my last entry, SCOTUS + Marriage, in which I refer to only one GOP senator supporting marriage equality, this happened:
When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others.
Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back– government has no place in the middle.
For those who don’t know the context, Senator Kirk had a serious stroke, went through a grueling rehab and returned to work. It’s an inspiring story. Until I moved last year, Kirk was one of my senators.
He seems to be saying “Life’s too short to be a dick. Let’s live and let live.” A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.
With that short blog post, the number of Republican senators openly supporting marriage equality has doubled! To two. Progress is progress. I’ll take it.
I’ll also toss out this Onion piece, which I could only wish was real news. I particularly like this part:
Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be fucking kidding me,” under his breath.
Well, it’s finally here! Marriage equality is getting its day(s) in court! Of course it’s had those days before, but not in the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the highest court in the land, the one with the final say. The one with the power to help or harm the cause for a long time to come.
What’s going to happen? I wish I knew. From what I’ve read, the Prop 8 ruling is looking shaky. It will almost assuredly come down to Justice Kennedy. And based on his questions and comments thus far, at least one theorist thinks he’s leaning toward upholding it. DOMA is looking a little better though. Probably because it allows the Justices to strike it down in whole or in part based on the idea of States’ Rights, without needing to weigh in on same sex-marriage itself in any substantive way.
And then there’s this analysis, which is a bit hard to follow. I am not a lawyer, but I think both the author and some of the Justices are full of shit, in different ways.
Justice Alito looked for “data” on this “institution which is newer than cell phones.” Same-sex marriage, he said, might turn out to a “good thing”, or “not”, as Proposition 8 supporters “apparently believe.” Justice Scalia said that there is no “scientific answer” to the decisive “harm” question at this time.”…
These worries about inadequate “data” might lead the Court to decide one or both of the cases on jurisdictional grounds, including (in Windsor) federalism bases.
What “data”? What “harm question”? A “scientific answer”? What?! If you’re going to insist on data proving that something causes no harm, shouldn’t you have some hypothesis as to what that harm might be? At least some rational idea of what harm it could potentially cause? Oh, hold on.
[Cooper] succeeded in putting on offer (in my words) the following proposition: gendered marriage laws are justified by the fact – the moral reality – that marriage is gendered. Redefining marriage as genderless obviously changes the meaning of marriage across our society. The “harm” of doing that is just the harm that it does to people’s opportunities to know, understand, and to participate in marriage as the gendered relationship that it truly is.
Oh that harm! How did I miss that? [Insert eye roll here]. Fortunately “Cooper’s invitation to consider the moral reality of marriage had no takers.” But that leads me back to my original question. If the Justices didn’t buy this nonsense, what do they think the harm could possibly be? And why are they trying to use that basis in this case? For example, what data did they have telling them that considering corporations as people would not be harmful in Citizens United?
Justice Scalia jumped to a discussion about possible harms to children adopted by same-sex couples. The Chief Justice took over the theme.
I knew that was coming. Look, child rearing is a red herring, a straw man, a distraction. There is some room for a reasonable person to suspect that a child might be better off with a father and a mother than with two fathers or two mothers. The evidence I’ve seen suggests that isn’t the case, but I can’t say that it’s definitive. But it doesn’t matter either way! Same sex couples have kids now, even in states where they can’t marry or enter civil unions. And many opposite sex couples get married without procreating (and sometimes without any intention or even the possibility of doing so) or adopting. Single people have kids. Child-rearing and marriage are related, sure, but they are distinct issues and should be dealt with as such. Tying them so closely together now does nothing but appeal to the “Won’t someone please think of the children?!” set. This is one of the most pernicious arguments against same sex-marriage, because it’s both fallacious and effective.
Bruiser Blog 