The Quote Heard Round the World

 Gay marriage now just one vote shy of becoming law in New York despite Archbishop Dolan's objections

[NY] Sen. Roy McDonald (R-Saratoga) - in a dramatic reversal from his earlier opposition - became the second GOPer in as many days to give his blessing to same-sex nuptials, bringing Senate support to 31 votes.

"I'm tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I'm trying to do the right thing, and that's where I'm going with this."

and in the same story, here's the quote that probably pissed him off enough to take such a stand.

McDonald's change of heart came hours after Archbishop Timothy Dolan led a band of religious groups hustling to halt the momentum.

"The stampede is on," Dolan wrote in a blog post. "Our elected senators who have stood courageous in their refusal to capitulate on the state's presumption to redefine marriage are reporting unrelenting pressure to cave in."

Dolan equated the move to allow same-sex marriage to life in China or North Korea, where "government presumes daily to 'redefine' rights, relationships, values and natural law."

"Please, not here!," Dolan wrote. "We cherish true freedom, not as the license to do whatever we want, but the liberty to do what we ought."

Yeah, that scores about 9.5 on the Orwell scale, doesn't it?
If "true freedom" means living the way people such as Dolan (or indeed, people such as myself) think we ought, perhaps we shoud worry less about the definition of marriage and more about the definition of Freedom. And Liberty. And the Pursuit of Happiness. 



Perhaps other citizens should also consider what other words are being "redefined."

Rule of Law, for example. It does not mean "the laws we write to rule you." 


"Freedom of Religion," for another. Freedom of religion means just that. It doesn't mean YOUR freedom to impose conditions upon me that make your religiously mandated sacrifices less painful. If you think you will go to hell for wanting a same-sex relationship - well, fine. But like living a Kosher life, it's harder for some than others and you don't get a vote on whether I get bacon with my eggs.

Frankly, it reveals to me a desperate confusion between "faith" and "conformity."

And if this threatens society as you know it - well, you know, I've lived in this society, I know it too.  Frankly, the worst parts of it are composed of the people that worry the most about that. In my humble opinion. And frankly, I'd like a little less comfort for people who would drag people I like more behind their pickups, if they thought they could get away with it.

More pointedly, if your current heterosexual marrage would be threatened by the possibility of same sex marriage - maybe you should just give up pretending. Take your "handball buddy" on a little trip to Canada after the least awkward no-fault divorce you can manage.  ProTip: A same sex marriage from Canada is legal in all fifty states. 

Glenn Greenwald brings the Cranky.

Glenn Greenwald is suffering the effects of a very severe moral wedgie. Like many, and I include myself, he suffers from deep, impotent outrage toward the moral failure of the Obama Administration; it's abandonment of it's clear, legal duty to prosecute war crimes committed under the aegis of the Bushistas.

He waxes sarcastic and wroth, no doubt in part due to the fact that he is being studiously ignored by those who have the manifest duty to act.

"Criminals"?  "Prosecutions"?  "Obliged to open a case"?  "Violations of human rights"?  Just because they maintained a few secret prisons in violation of domestic and international law?  What kind of crazy, purist, Far Leftist utopians are running that place?  They need a heavy dose of pragmatism so they can understand all the reasons why so-called "crimes" like this can be overlooked -- just blissfully forgotten like a bad dream.  Even worse, with intemperate and shrill language of the type they're throwing around, it's seems clear that the Lithuanian press is sorely in need of some David Broders, Fred Hiatts, and David Ignatiuses to explain to them that subjecting law-breaking political officials to "investigations" and "prosecutions" is quite disruptive and unpleasant when those crimes involve matters other than consensual sex between adults.
Even more alarming, this "rule of law" and "human rights" fetish seems to be spreading: "In neighboring Poland, prosecutors in the capital of Warsaw have opened a criminal probe into reports that the CIA operated a prison for al-Qaeda suspects near a former military air base."  Last month, an Italian court convicted 22 CIA agents of the so-called "crime" of kidnapping someone off their street and sending him to Egypt to be tortured.  And the British High Court this week released its written Opinion -- over the objections of British and American officials -- ordering the release of details of Binyam Mohamed's torture at the hands of U.S. agents.

Thankfully, the U.S. remains a bastion of pragmatic sanity in this rising sea of accountability extremism.

Glenn, here's the thing. Things are worse than you suspect. You see, Lithuania is not acting idealistically, or in accordance with law through some triumph of principle over pragmatism. The rule of law is the most stunningly pragmatic concept ever developed by mankind. It precludes all sorts of problems. It's civilization's way of saying "RTFM" to the offensively and dangerously stupid. Those who will not read and abide by the manual are invited to explore the diversions provided by The Impartial Bug-Zapper of the Law.

The rule of law is preferable to the law of man because it insulates leaders from the need to make impossible political calculations between right action and personal survival. But certain sorts of men (it's almost always men) much prefer to be in personal charge and to be able to act with impunity.

People like George Bush, Don Rumsfeld and espectially Dark Lord Cheney are exemplars of this sort of man. They are sociopaths and worse, entirely indifferent to the consequences others suffer for their ambitions. And when they are permitted to flourish, they corrupt everything they touch, to the point that even the most honest and pure will be required to use corrupt and incompetent men to serve at his will.

Now Obama comes from Chicago. He may be a good man, but I doubt that "pure" or "idealistic" are words we should apply to him.

But he has a severe problem. If he prosecutes the Bushistas - as international law and Constitution alike agree is is his duty, to kick the matters raised into a Court in order to determine the outcome as matters of fact and law - there is a significant possibility that he will be faced with some sort of military/institutional revolt.

That is to say, Glenn - you are justly outraged. So am I. But since I wish to live in a society in which the Rule of Law has not been suborned, I returned to Canada. As a dual citizen, I had the right to choose - and strongly felt a substantial duty to make such a choice.

If you wish to live in such a society as a natural-born citizen, realize that it currently does not exist and has NOT existed for a substantial period of time. Not in MY lifetime, Sir.  Consider that advancements in civil rights during the last fifty years  have often come at the cost of cracked skulls inflicted by the supposed agents of the theoretical rule of law. Law that only protects some, in accordance to their utility to the State, is not law at all.


Glenn, here's the thing. It's a very depressing insight, but as near as I can tell, you can either choose to move to a country where the rule of law exists, or you can choose to fight for it's re-imposition upon at least some of territories of the former United States.  

I observe the current situation is increasingly intolerable, both for large numbers of US citizens and the world in general. Either the US behaves as befits a member of the community of civilized nations, or it will be chastised in increasingly firm and embarrassing ways until it reforms itself or collapses under the weight of it's cognitive dissonances.

President Obama may well be cast in the role of overseeing the dissolution of the United States as we have known it. But whether he is to be seen in hindsight as the caretaker of the process of dissolution in as peaceful a way as possible - the Gorbechev role - or as the exemplar of a renewed vision and a newly vital nation is still largely up to him and, of course, the strings he can haul upon and the people he can call on. People... well, people such as YOU, Glen. Do not ask what your country can do for you, Glenn. What the fuck are you gonna do for your country?

For myself, I could not continue to live within the boundaries of a nation that would not apply it's own laws to itself, one that will abandon it's fundamental principles when slightly startled. And in fact, is all  9/11 was, on the scale of events that happen within the US every single year. I came to the conclusion that the US didn't lose it's brains that day - it simply and collectively dropped the pretense of being a civilized nation of laws even unto itself.

So Al-Queda won without need to even try firing one more shot. After all, what need? Your own C-Street Taliban was more than happy to continue the fight on their behalf, seeking every single social outcome BinLadin would.

But Glenn, you are starting to become shrill - and it's a sure sign that you risk your health continuing in this vein. Granted, the path that those in power OUGHT to follow, under the terms of concience and law, is clear.

It's equally clear that there are those in power that will oppose that to the last ditch. That will commit acts of violence to prevent it happening. That will sabotage it in every way possible. And yet, you think law will prevail? 

Someone has to enforce the law. That implies the willingness to step up and do it. If those charged with that task refuse, they must not merely be nobly and peacefully protested. They must be replaced by those who will - and they must be made to understand that it is not a negotiable choice. By peaceful means, by political pressure, by force of public outrage if possible - but the continuing abuses of power must end and those who have abused it held to account, that this is not a matter of political will or calculation.

Unless it becomes quite clear that the danger to the administration from the left is just as grave as the danger from the right, and by "danger" I mean a very literal potential danger, there will be no progress. It's not about Left and right, it is about Lawful and Unlawful, a choice between the Rule of Law and the rule of unworthy, corrupt, unaccountable sociopaths. Such people will not simply admit defeat. The only "dirty bomb plot" EVER proven to be greatly advanced past the wishful thinking stage was by a Nazi-identified Maine Millionaire.

And it was apparently aimed at the Obama Inaguaral.

It's not cynical to say that might makes right - for no right has ever been established in the face of superior might. So progressives should start thinking as to whether their convictions carry with them the courage to fight, at need. For that need may well come, and weak Reids will not serve you well.

Look at the numbers. Given courage and determination, Glenn - which side has more Divisions? Assembled into serried and courageous ranks, with rotund tummies sucked in, by the numbers sir, by the logistics, sir, by the accounts of who has the ports, the people and the expertise, who wins, if they have the will?

Obama still seems to think this is a question that has a political resolution - but he is opposed by those who will not abide by the results of an honest political process - should it actually occur despite their best efforts.

Therefore, the left (and by "Left", I mean "not batshit crazy") needs to comprehend that this is not a debate.  It is a choice between competing powers and competing visions - and one side is stupid, crazy, dangerous, and a lot smaller. They are quite aware that if they are to gain power over you, it must be through confusion and terror, by threats and by the use of examples of extreme violence.

That is to say, Dick Cheney and his ilk, these people are terrorists, traitors and worse. They must be dealt with as such. Indeed, they will leave you no choice but to deal with them, now, tomorrow, next year. And that is not at all a matter of debate. The only question is, will they prevail over you before being dealt with by the rest of the world?  

Debates occur between peers. Persons deserving of equal respect. People of sound moral and mental character. People willing to admit fact, reason and a decent consideration of the feelings and ambitions of all parties in the public square. This is not the case, nor has it been the case for at least a decade. Nor has the situation been particularly changed by an apparent change in power. Power, sir, must be used and used well in order to have meaning.

Take compromise off the table. One does not compromise with those who's most fundamental belief is that you deserve death, or worse.

Stop pretending that they don't really mean that, or that they have a higher nature to appeal to. Their choice is as stark as that they would impose. They may submit to a reconstituted, civilized national culture, and live, or they may choose to dash themselves against the reality they reject. The process may be unpleasant - exactly how unpleasant depends in part on how long those who know what must happen resist an unpleasant chore. But the outcome is not even slightly in doubt.

The rest of the world would be perfectly happy to see the United States disintigrate into a collection of smaller, competing states. It would simplify matters enormously, since the US is certainly no longer seen as a stablizing power, much less a force for good or even an economic engine. Nobody is interested particularly in helping the US save face - and certainly not at the expense of their vital trade relations or their own ideals.

Glenn, what are you going to do about it? I think we both know how much reasonable speech has achieved. It's now time to apply pressure. Start thinking of yourself as the leader of a First Amendment Militia - for if the first is not applied hard, true and well, the exercise of the Second may well be required.

First Amendment Militia by webcarve
Canada Above the Fray Rondel by EhCanada

Oh, Texas. Now What Have You Done?

I'm on my usual winter hiatus, but I still watch Stewart and Colbert. Colbert pointed this out last night and The Daily Beast gave me the specifics.

Did Texas Outlaw Marriage?

Texas may have become the largest singles meet in the nation—without anyone realizing it. Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a clause in the 2005 constitutional amendment banning gay marriage may have, in fact, banned all marriage. Subsection of B of the amendment reads, "this state or political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage," the wording of which, Radnofsky argues, "eliminates marriage in Texas." Current Attorney General Greg Abbott's spokesman said that the amendment is "entirely constitutional," and Radnofsky admits that it's unlikely that marriages will be disassembled based on the clause. But she still believes the wording is a "huge mistake." "Whoever vetted the language in B must have been asleep at the wheel," she said.

Read it at McClatchy

Steven Colbert failed to addressed this because he was too busy pointing and laughing (as well we should) to note the cognitive problem that lead to such a ridiculous, if "entirely constitutional" outcome.

Whoever vetted and/or wrote the language in Subsection B has a problem. The problem is that they believe that Marriage is a state of union defined by God, and the State has no business intruding into it. Now, I would concur; I don't happen to believe that Marriage - or any contract or agreement between free citizens is the business of government to let or hinder. The Courts exist to determine whether such contracts are fair and uncoerced, to determine the facts of disputes under the terms of the contract, but not to judge whether free persons have a right to negotiate whatever contractual relationship they choose. That is the heart and soul of contract law, as I understand it, and one of the very most basic reasons for the development of government and law.

What is assumed and unsaid here is that there is A Higher Law that Transcends The Laws Of Man, which properly binds everyone regardless of man's law or individual will. Now, while that assumption has obvious problems with the Establishment Clause and the concept of the separation of Church and State, it's not the truly fundamental problem. It's not even that this amendment is intended to achieve the effect of establishing a moral diktat regarding marriage, which is no doubt the way most people think of it, regardless of their position on the matter.

The real problem is that the people who did this simply took that assumption as a fact, as a law of nature, something that does not need to be thought about, considered or even acknowledged by the human law they were fiddling about with. This was not the result of religiously mandated thought. This was the result of a religious presupposition preventing thought in a way that produced a result that is quite predictable to anyone who didn't have that particular mental block. That is the problem - and a very widespread problem - illustrated by this particular example in an amusingly clear and obvious way.

This is  what happens when theocratic authoritarians are allowed into public office and are permitted domination over those who do not bow the knee and drop five dollars in the collection plate. 

The thought processes and assumptions of those who think of themselves as blessed with greater vision by a higher power don't well apply to the practical details of our messy consensus reality, which must be governed upon the basis of what real people wish and need to do; how they will behave in their great masses, regardless of any particular view of how they ought to behave.  Indeed, there is no singular vision about the various oughts and shouds. Human law has always had to settle for defining the sorts of behavior that will not be tolerated, regardless of cause or justification. Higher Law - let us presume such a thing for the moment for the sake of honoring the sincerity of those who champion it - must be seen as a higher standard than the common run, a thing that society does well to encourage, to applaud, even to celebrate in it's diversity when it is positively manifested in the exeptional examples that inspire us all.


Maintaining the clear distinction beteween "ought" and "is" is to the benefit and advantage of both church and state, for when one becomes the agent of the other, the purpose of neither is advanced. Examine history for examples, should you care to. For myself, I suggest that Marxism, Calvinism, various Islamic Fundamentalisms and the entire, checquered history of Catholocism, which has been variously Church and/or State at various times and various places to be remarkably instructive of the wisdom of keeping the realms separate.

A mindset that dictates to a person with their hands upon the levers of power how people ought to behave in the service of a cause or a faith there is no right nor reason to believe to be universally shared cannot even fathom nor anticipate the damage they do in the name of their cause.

I say this without judgment of the supposed cause or the need to judge it's merits, for the results are clear, and should be an illustration to all of the price paid when people of faith think it to be a good thing to impose their faith on others. The result is never that which the teachings of those faith would point out as a good result, to the benefit of faith or humankind, and really tells us very little about the merits of that faith or system.

But it tells us a good deal about human nature and the danger of attempting to serve two masters.

This time, the outcome is merely absurd. This time, nobody died. This time, no families have been ripped apart. This time, no-one was imprisoned for the gratification of moralists, in the name of some form of social hygene.

But all these things have been done, and many such efforts are championed by the same sorts of people - people who are literally blind to the damage they do.

Those who seek the comforts of a church, the sure answers to a complex world surely deserve the companionship and council of the like minded, for their mutual improvement. Nor should those who do not feel that need take their own somewhat stridently moralistic urges further than a firm, imperative "no."

In a civil and civilized society, we should all be free to say "yes" or "no," according to our own needs as best we understand them, with the greatest possible range of advice and viewpoint that a civil society is naturally equipped to provide, without the need to feel any obligation to explain why, so long is there is no breach of the peace.

Meanwhile, a public official must be accountable to all their constituents; not merely those who claim the same faith. Indeed, a public official is just as accountable to the coke-addled whore as to the pillar of the community, for in this world, in these Constitutional Republics, there is no Morals Clause. Nor - as Conservatives of all sorts are prone to say when the point serves them - are there any real "democracies" where "the will of the people" in it's transient passions are allowed to hold sway. 

That is because the mob is easily led by demagogues and fools and civilizations that persist do a great deal to discourage their formation. And that is why, in this season of my somewhat sour discontent, I hold out little hope that the current rampaging mob will leave much in it's wake, save, perhaps, a salient lesson to the rest of humanity regarding the triumph of politics over common sense and common decency - and why both of those values need to become far more common.

Once the rubble - metaphorical or literal - stops bouncing, perhaps it will.
---
I delayed posting this while I read this paper. It's dense, but thought provoking and while it did not provide me any convenient sound-bites, it's probably going to fuel a lot of thought in the future.

Who shall guard the Guardians

I can only speak for myself, to be sure, but it seems to me that anyone with any sense of history and the slightest degree of rational paranoia felt a distinct chill when Bush announced the formation of The Department of Homeland Security, with it's eerie resonance to the Fascist "Fatherland" and the Stalinist "Motherland."

Note that both Stalinist and Fascist states have one thing in common - a certain disdain for human rights and dignity when any particular person or idea is thought to be a threat to the state, for whatever reason, by whatever pinhead happens to be wearing the jackboots.

It was no real surprise to me that the response of Homeland Security was lackadaisical in response to Hurricane Katrina, or that in absorbing FEMA (which was arguably one of the two most competent agencies involved), they had effectively short-circuited it, in favor of not helping non-white and therefore non-deserving people.

But if you want, there are more recent examples of what the real meaning of "homeland security" is, in the words and deeds of those on the ground, wearing the jackboots. I've never been much of a believer in fine words when there are actual deeds to be seen and performance metrics to be evaluated.

It's even more telling that this story comes to us via the New York Times.

After federal border agents detained several Mexican immigrants in western New York in June, an article about the incident in a local newspaper drew an onslaught of vitriolic postings on its Web site. Some were racist. Others attacked farmers in the region, an apple-growing area east of Rochester, accusing them of harboring illegal workers. Still others made personal attacks about the reporter who wrote the article.

Most of the posts were made anonymously. But in reviewing the logs of its Internet server, the paper, The Wayne County Star in Wolcott, traced three of them to Internet protocol addresses at the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees border protection.

Homeland Security started an investigation into the posts this month, according to the reporter, Louise Hoffman-Broach, and Richard M. Healy, the Wayne County district attorney. A spokeswoman for the federal agency’s inspector general said she could neither confirm nor deny an investigation; department rules prohibit the use of office equipment for the personal transmission of material that could offend fellow employees or the public.

Coming on the eve of the apple harvest season, the Web posts and the investigation — first reported this week on The Star’s Web site — have ratcheted up longstanding tensions in Wayne County, where farmers and laborers have accused immigration officials of using heavy-handed tactics like racial profiling and arbitrary or unjustified detentions.

Such tactics, the farmers say, have scared Hispanic farm workers from the region just as growers are preparing for the harvest.

Representative Dan Maffei, who represents the area in Congress, said the allegations of overaggressive immigration enforcement, coming from a wide range of constituents, were “of extreme concern.”

Of course, the thugs that landowners employ to keep the workforces in line and content with whatever pittance they are given have, historically never been quite so tolerant of nuance as their employers. They aren't breaking heads in order to secure labor at an acceptable price, they are doing so because they hate Mexicans. They took the job because it would permit them to abuse "Illegals" with impunity - and as the article goes on to observe, they have a tendency to presume that even documented Mexicans are presumed illegal until long after they are abused, detained and no doubt subjected to whatever amuses such racist fuckheads.

But here's the bottom line, America. You have the cheapest food supply in the world PRECISELY because so much of the labor involved is performed by "illegals." So, put up or shut up. Pay producers enough so that they can afford LEGAL wages - and yeah, it's a fact of life that a farm that employs legals and pays union wages CANNOT compete with a farm that does not. That, or accept that you are willing and indeed cheerful eating burgers produced by slave labor kept docile by the friendly folks at ICE. Because, that's exactly what it is, why it's their and the end to which Bush and agrabiz agreed it to be.

All the talk about curbing "illegal" immigration was ginned up to gain support for the existence of said jackbooted thugs stomping around and "defending the nation." Selectively. When the occasion warrants. Say, when a farmer or a rancher says something deemed "inappropriate" by the local Rotary Club leadership.

You see, ICE only has about a thousand field agents. That's a ridiculously low number to deal with the actual problem that we are told exists. But it's just the right size for a flying goon squad. More than enough to turn a town or small city upside down. It's just the right size to punish the fuck out of people. Of course, to confirm your suspicion, you would also look to the institutional culture. What does the group itself think it's actual mandate is, whatever it's fine-sounding mission statement might be?

And for that - well, we have the words of the jackbooted thugs themselves.

The article about the arrests, posted on June 16, led to a torrent of angry Web postings. One, sent from a fake e-mail address, said, “watcha doing to mi wifey, no checky her papeles. she no legal, but she havey benifit card.”

A response, which carried a Homeland Security Internet protocol address, read: “That sounds like my boyfriend. Leave him alones and get your own. My boyfriend works sometimes but he is really good at getting FREE benefits from the Federal and State government.”

Another post, apparently sent from a separate computer linked to Homeland Security, read in part: “These farmers have a problem because the gravy train that they were riding for soooooo long is being brought to light.”

The newspaper removed the posts. It also reported that it had discovered others, dating to last year, that appeared to have come from computers affiliated with Homeland Security.

Who will guard you from such Guardians, eh? Can you PROVE your papers are not fake? Hell, I go by Papa Heinlein's dictate - whenever a government starts requiring you to carry identity papers, it's time to leave. This sort of thing, and the implicit threat that it makes against anyone, was one of my personal decision points. I did leave, so for me the answer is "The Crown, in the form of Canadian Customs and Immigration." But then, I'm a lucky sod. I was born here, so my support, as a dual citizen of the US constitution was always a matter of choice.

The Sin of Sodomy: AFA Morals v.s. Biblical Ethics

Bump and Update:

Google has been referring people to this post in response to questions about "sodomy," and re-reading it, it's also the perfect answer to the various trolls who seem to have no better use of their time than to further offend the sensiblities of honorable people and real Christians by defending the abominable abuse of process and principle that is California's Proposition 8.

As it happens, I'd been casting around for a good response to link to in comments myself; I'd forgotten that I'd already written one.

The key point here is that over the years, people just like "The American Family Association," the Mormon Heirarchy and the Catholic Church have all carefully steered us away from a proper understanding of the term "sodomy" - one that originally had nothing whatsoever to do with "unnatural sex" and everything to do with "thinking as did the people of Sodom."

The original (3/31/06) starts here.

It's instructive to look at what "Pro-family" folks like the American Family Association say about the "decline" of moral values, and the moral force of their arguments.

I believe a brisk Fisking is in order.

American Family Association - AgapePress news

Let us suppose for a moment that homosexual marriage does become legal. It is closer to becoming a reality than many believe. The world is changing around us, and we go merrily on our way pretending that such a change will not affect us or our children.

I don't know about others; but I'm doing it FOR the children. And affecting your children as early as possible by exposing them to healthy, ethical families of choice is one of the best ways to go about it. In this way, we follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who advised folks to preach first by example.

"Doesn't affect me. I don't want to marry someone of my sex, but I don't care if someone else wants to marry a person of the same sex. If two people are in love, they should be allowed to marry." So goes the thinking. The problem is that this thinking doesn't go far enough. If two people of the same sex can marry, then why can't three people of the same sex be legally married?

Indeed: why not? EXPLAIN to me in simple words why what was commonplace in the Bible would now suddenly be wrong? Or are only certain moral truths immutable and unchanging?

"Marriage" is a legal construct with the primary intention of codifying certain rules of inheritance and responsibility. Is there some reason why my preferences in this regard are any of your business?

Or four? Or two men and three women? Or any combination you desire to choose?

Well, I can give you all sorts of "why nots" based on practical experience, but mileage varies, people differ and culture matters. Marriage - as a legal institution - should ideally make it possible for the majority of people to determine matters of vital importance to them personally and not place restrictions upon them that arise from the superstitions of people they may radically disagree with.

Marriage - as a religious institution - is a matter for each religion to determine, and those unaffiliated with any particular religious group to determine for themselves, without let or hindrance.

Why can't a man who loves his daughter marry her?

Ah, I discern your point. Well, Sir, when all Dominionist daddies can assure me that they have never fiddled with their sons and daughters, your tender concern about legitimizing incestuous relationships might have more force. However, were you really sincere about the ethics underling this question, perhaps there would be fewer efforts from social conservatives to discredit the testimonials of women who grew up in the sorts of families you advocate while being sexually exploited.

Perhaps more evidence of personal responsibility in this regard might go towards credibility.

However, in a legal sense, a marriage contract is not required to define the family in this case, so from the viewpoint of the law, the idea is moot.

Indeed, so long as no-one brings forward complaint and birth control works, sexual behavior is legally, if not morally moot.

Our system of justice depends on being able to prove a harm.

Aside from that, daughters and sons, are family and need no particular additional legal recognition. Being family, they are also forbidden under existing law from engaging in either sex or marriage with their daddies and mummies. Or more to the Point, given how the law exists and how it is applied - they are forbidden to speak of it.

So this prong of your argument is - what's the word I'm looking for? Stupid? A straw man? Dishonest?

Yes, I believe all of those apply.

If you allow two men to be married, then you have no reason to forbid any couples or groups from being married.

I - and many other libertarians - would point to the fact that the very concept of Marriage licenses is an insult perpetuated by racists who instituted it in order to prevent racially mixed marriages. The idea that the state had a right, or indeed, any interest at all in the matter was entirely novel and is still, IMHO, decidedly dubious from a constitutional perspective.

Hence the push for an Amendment to the Constitution, in order to prevent the terrible consequences of Gay People having their illicit sexual practices legitimized. There never was any concern about white folks screwing black folks, or males screwing males - so long as they knew that they were being Disapproved Of and could be lynched if the local bigots weren't too drunk.

All of this, of course, goes back to the standard on which a person (or a nation) chooses to base the concept of good and evil, right and wrong.

It actually goes to the question of who should be able to impose their standard of "good and evil" and "right and wrong" on others, without any demonstration of "compelling state interest" or regard to the natural, individual liberties of persons.

If we have the right to free association - which we do - this very idea of there being conditions on the nature of that association is a violation of that most fundamental right.

There is truth, and there is relativism. Truth is constant. Relativism is something subject to change as the latest fad comes along.

No, sir. There are ethics, - laws, in the same sense as Ohm's Law, or the Law of Thermodynamics - which are expressions of the immutable laws of Reality. They are universally recognized and variously expressed in every single religion, philosophy and creed, worldwide. Even Satanists honor them in the breech. Secular Humanists have codified them as well - with no reference to Divine Authority.

One may or may not accept the existence of God, for instance, but the cause and effect reality of violating the principles set down in the Ten Commandments will occur nonetheless.

They are not "laws" in the human sense of simply pulling a "thou shalt not" out of nowhere; they are direct statements of things that will consistently and predictably result in Bad Things Happening.

They are immutable, but society is not. And therefore, we have evolved morals, which vary from place to place and time to time, in order for most of us to know, most of the time, the right course of action.

Morality has to be grounded in these ethical principles.

When your moral code can be used to justify doing direct and significant harm on others then it is wrong. Your beliefs, your faith, superstitions, bigotries or claimed affiliations with Divine Pesonages will not change that in violating these laws, you WILL pay.

You know, I bet you guys say that sort of thing a lot. How's it look from the other end?

Judge not, lest ye be judged also! It's not a law, it's a proverb and an observation. When you get up on your high horse, it's a lot easier to notice if you've waded through the mud to get there. If you make judgments about others that are based in your moral code and your reading of scripture, then responsible people must judge whether your codes and your understanding of scripture qualify you to make such a judgment.

Let me point out one of those ten Commandments that apples here with painful appropriateness.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

This isn't saying "don't lie" - but it does say do not lie about your neighbor in order to influence others against him. Not in court, not under oath, not in a back ally, not in confidence with their friends, not to his wife, his cook or his colleagues.

It is a completely unambiguous statement. You do not say, upon your honor, that someone is doing something they are not doing, believing something they do not believe or saying things they have not and never would. Any time you say something about someone else that is false, and knowably so that could harm their credibility, reputation, their relationships; even their legitimate ambitions, you are bearing false witness.

Believe it or not, there are actually high-level officials in many denominations who are supporting the change to allow two men or two women to be married. Have they not read the Bible? Of course they have read it. They simply don't believe it.

This is verifiably false to fact. There are many, hundreds, if not thousands of powerfully grounded, well cited and biblically sound arguments that disagree with AFA theology on this point. It's been a hotly contended, divisive issue and as such has had people agonizing over it and digging deeply into scripture to see what it actually says.

Accessing other biblical passages to understand Genesis 19:

The interpretation of Genesis 19 as referring to a homosexual sin appears to have been created in the 11th century by the Italian ascetic St. Peter Damian. ₇ Christian theologians generally accepted this explanation until recently. In fact, the English word sodomy, which popularly means either homosexual or heterosexual anal intercourse, was derived from the name of the city. The term "sodomy" is also used in some ancient laws to refer to a variety of sexual behaviors in addition to heterosexual intercourse. Some of these laws are still on the books although the U.S. Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 2003-JUN. Opinion among most liberal and mainline Christian and Jewish theologians has now reverted to the original Christian belief that Genesis 19 refers to a lack of charity and to ill treatment of strangers. Consider:

	In ancient Jewish literature, such as the Ethics of the Fathers and the Talmud, there are many references to Sodom. The phrase "middat Sdom" was used. It may be translated as "the way the people of Sodom thought". It meant a lack of charity and hospitality towards others; ignoring the needs of the poor, etc. In the Middle East, a person's survival could depend upon the charity of strangers. To help strangers was a solemn religious duty of paramount importance. See Leviticus 19:33-34 and Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.
	Isaiah 1; The entire first chapter is an utter condemnation of Judah. They are repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorra in their evildoing and depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or to any other sexual activities at all.
	Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.
	Ezekeiel 16:49-50:"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." God states clearly that he destroyed Sodom's sins because of their pride, their excess of food while the poor and needy suffered; sexual activity is not even mentioned.
	Matthew 10:14-15: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable to strangers.
	Luke 10:7-16: This is parallel passage to the verses from Matthew.
	2 Peter 6-8: Peter mentions that God destroyed the adults and children of Sodom because the former were ungodly, unprincipled and lawless.
	Jude, Verse 7: Jude disagreed with Jesus and Ezekeiel; he wrote that Sodom's sins were sexual in nature. Various biblical translations of this passage in Jude describe the sin as: fornication, going after strange flesh, sexual immorality, perverted sensuality, homosexuality, lust of every kind, immoral acts and unnatural lust. It looks as if the translators were unclear of the meaning of the verse in its original Greek, and simply selected their favorite sin to attack. The original Greek is transliterated as: "sarkos heteras." This can be translated as "other flesh". Ironically, our English word "heterosexual" comes from "heteras." A likely interpretation is that the author of Jude 8 criticized the men of Sodom for wanting to engage in sexual activities with angels. Angels are considered to be a species of created beings who were different from homo sapiens. The sin of the people of Sodom would be that of bestiality. Another possibility is that the "other flesh" refers to cannibalism, which was a practice associated with early Canaanite culture.

AFA theologians - and indeed, the writer of this article - cannot honestly be unaware of those arguments. Therefore, the above statement is a conscious lie, intended to influence readers against those who can, have, and do find different truths in the Bible.

In my studies of these matters, it's more difficult to justify your interpretation than those who disagree. Moreover, in insisting that the sin IS homosexual behavior, you are insisting that the sin IS NOT "inhospitality to strangers." It is interesting to note how little Right-Wing Christians are concerned about the needs of anyone who is not a member of their own church.

This paragraph is saying that "anyone who has read the Bible" must be willfully rejecting "the truth" if they disagree. No, sir, they are not. They are honestly and reasonably rejecting your interpretations of the Bible. Tortured as they are, it is unsurprising that they do.

You are bearing false witness against your neighbor - and the consequences that come from this will affect you, and yours, "unto the seventh generation."

That's not a promise of divine retribution - that's a biblical observation of how these things work. Teaching your children to hate will bring bitter fruit to harvest - as a matter of fact. The consequences of their hatreds will affect their children, and their children's children in ways that cannot be predicted, but will be predictably harmful. So long as that hatred continues to be taught, so will that fallout continue - and indeed, for longer than that.

Our society has a new definition of God and love. In the past we saw truth in the definition that God is love. For centuries we have operated on that basis. But now, not satisfied with the restrictions that old definition imposes on us, we have turned the wording around. No longer is God love, but now love is god.

The final paragraph is really definitive about your understanding of "love."

It means sex. Who is permitted to have publicly sanctioned sex. For you guys, it's all about sex, all the time. Lord, you are a shallow people. There are many reasons for family and many sorts of bonds that may exist. Sex is one way to forge such bonds, but there are others - and sex itself is no guarantee that bonds will be forged well enough. Choice, also, is needed; a conscious choice to accept such bonds.

I've found that the more moralistic people are, the deeper their minds dive into the gutter in their assumptions about the motives of other folks. But then we always tend to project the worst in ourselves onto others.

The only way this moral position makes sense - and I'm open to argument on the topic - is if the word "love" is understood to be "Eros."

Well, marriage is not a fucking license. Indeed, if anything the bible takes a rather lazez-faire view towards extramarital recreational sex. But it's deadly serious about committed relationships - one of the Big Ten is about that.

Unfortunately, it says nothing that would limit the commission of adultery to a sexual act, or to the "splitting apart" of a man and a woman who were legally recognized as married.

It applies as strongly to buddy relationships as to married couples, and a mother in law who interferes is as much of a sinner as "that hussy" across the courtyard.

It does not condemn any act, it condemns a specific intent - to split apart relationships. Why? Because we are human beings and our relationships are critically important to us. To harm our relationships IS to harm us.

A crusade against any form of human relationship is then inherently wrong. Evil, if you will.

My understanding of love is more inclusive - especially the love of God. Or Goddess, However you see Them, which is an intensely personal matter and not subject to outside criticism, unless requested.

My idea of love includes Eros - erotic love. It also includes agape - selfless love. But it's more even than that.

God is love. And They are not obsessed with who is screwing who and why, nor issuing arbitrary punishments beyond the consequences of harming others would ordinarily bring.

My concept of God and how I'm supposed to relate to others is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I cannot imagine how anyone can rectify that simple instruction with the idea of a wholesale reordering of society to make it "safe" for small minds and fearful hearts. I also point out that as you do hateful things - and this entire site is a hateful thing - people will come to hate you and all you stand for.

If there is a "threat" to the survival of good, Christian values, gentles - it is you.

Bad News/Good News/Better News

Bad News: I missed an opportunity to club another "autistic advocacy" group over the head.

Good News: I wasn't missed.

WONDERFUL news: It WORKED!


The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) - Sections:

Victory! The End of the Ransom Notes Campaign

Hello everyone,

I am pleased to inform you that this afternoon the NYU Child Study Center announced that they will be ending the "Ransom Notes" ad campaign in response to widespread public pressure from the disability community. You can read that announcement here (at the NYU Child Study Center's website). The thousands of people with disabilities, family members, professionals and others who have written, called, e-mailed and signed our petition have been heard. Today is a historic day for the disability community. Furthermore, having spoken directly with Dr. Harold Koplewicz, Director of the NYU Child Study Center, I have obtained a commitment to pursue real dialogue in the creation of any further ad campaign depicting individuals with disabilities. We applaud the NYU Child Study Center for hearing the voice of the disability community and withdrawing the "Ransom Notes" ad campaign.

Twenty-two disability rights organizations came together to ensure the withdrawal of this advertising campaign. Our response to this campaign stretched continents, with e-mails, letters and phone calls coming from as far away as Israel, Britain and Australia. The disability community acted with a unity and decisiveness that has rarely been heard before and we are seeing the results of our strength today. Our success sends an inescapable message: if you wish to depict people with disabilities, you must consult us and seek our approval. Anything less will guarantee that we will make our voices heard. We are willing to help anyone and any group that seeks to raise awareness of disability issues, but those efforts must be done with us, not against us. This is a victory for inclusion, for respect and for the strength and unity of people with disabilities across the world. It is that message that has carried the day in our successful response to this campaign. Furthermore, we intend to build on this progress, not only by continuing a dialogue with the NYU Child Study Center and using this momentum to ensure self-advocate representation at other institutions as well, but also by building on the broad and powerful alliance that secured the withdrawal of these ads in the first place. We are strongest when we stand together, as a community, as a culture and as a people.

Thank you to all of you who have made this victory possible. Remember: "Nothing About Us, Without Us!"

Regards,
Ari Ne'eman
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, President
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org
info@autisticadvocacy.org
732.763.5530

When you think about it, "Nothing About Us, Without Us" is a pretty damn good slogan for anyone. In our particular socio-political context - well, the Democratic Party springs to mind. The whole idea of "superdelegates" who's entire role at the convention is to suppress any outbreak of democracy is endemic of an authoritarian mindset.

Or if you prefer an apt literary reference - "All pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others." I'd agree - if you are speaking of porcine volunteers for the role of luncheon meat. If I WERE a member of the Democratic Party - and I have a rather too much self-respect for that - my driving goal at the moment would be to purge the party of every authoritarian sonofabitch who thought it was a good idea to "organize" it in the same way the Republicans organized theirs.

Personally, whether it's Mommy or Daddy claiming to know best - well, I got fifty years of experience and a millennium of well-documented history that says they don't. Yes, folks, I did indeed start learning this lesson in infancy.

The sine qua non of American Authoritarianism at it's purest and most simple-minded is NeoConservatism. So, let us look back on how well the "Republican Revolution" worked. Taking a party from oblivion to domination to extinction in thirty years is definitely an achievement of significance - in the sense of "whom the Gods would destroy, they first make proud." It's not an example to emulate.

And it all comes out of listening to people who say "trust us, we know what we're doing."

This is why no advocacy group - and that's what political organizations of all sorts are, whatever the breadth of focus - should be allowed to forget "NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US."

Or the import of the Second Amendment.

When you think about it, it's the summation of the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, with the second amendment being the underline and "or else;" the final resort when the cluebat breaks.

You may well wonder why the hell in our culture, with an express written constitution that literally enshrines and makes sacred the right to use force against those who believe they "know better" than you and I that we still have to do things like this, that we need any "advocacy groups" other than our elected representatives. But the fact that we do need the constitution is exactly why we NEED various advocacy groups that have the express purpose of sneaking up on the powers that be with nail-studded cluebats.

Remember that Alexander Hamilton was pretty much saying "it's just a scrap of paper" before the ink was dry. There are many nations and cultures that do not need such explicit standards - because, well, they are more civilized than this nation made up of cowboys, pirates, remittance men, fugitives and grifters. Don't think I'm disparaging our heritage - but I'm not blind to it's implications, either.

The Constitution was written by a very cynical group of men - including Hamilton - and while no doubt many of the did indeed agree with Hamilton that they "knew better," they were mutually aware that their visions differed enough that some enforced guidelines of mutual toleration were required, and that if they did not agree on some set of rules that permitted them to differ without violence - violence and barbarism would ensue. (Or "greater barbarism," as any of King George's advisers would have said. I suspect Franklin would have cheerfully nodded and asked him to pass the wench.)

So I suppose this is the real message. If you belong to ANY minority group - and you do - and it isn't soldered into unshakable connection with the Powers that Be - and trust me, it ISN'T quite proportionally to the degree you innocently assume it is - you need to support all us whining minority interests seeking our "special rights," as the social conservatives like to dismissively say.

There is no form of social conservatism and social conformity that can contain the range of people and the range of ideas needed to create and maintain a wealthy, expanding civilization. And more critically, there is no form of authoritarian, centralized government that can productively and usefully attend to our diverse and conflicting interests. Bluntly, a reliance on authorities - and particularly the sort of scum that rises to the top of OUR melting pot - is no substitute for individual self-governance and the excercise of one's rights in defense and advancement of one's individual rights both as an individual and as a collective of individuals with common interests.

This particular case illustrates that there is still a large gap in our culture between genuine disability and exclusion based on prejudice, for if it were not true, it would hardly be profitable to even consider pandering to prejudicial parental panic. And as such, it's a beautiful illustration of a particular instance of a deplorable degree of collective stupidity.

We are entirely too tolerant of routine intolerance, and far too forgiving of casual, institutional ignorance. Well-meaning ignorance is possibly the worst and most insidious form - and that's the sort that I'm sure this particular incident revolved around.

But the worst possible manifestation of such social norms is the panicked thought that it is somehow reasonable to attempt to camouflage or adapt children to the expectations of the stupid rather than expect other persons to live up to the minimal standards of mutual toleration and acceptance required of a diverse society.

To be especially blunt - this campaign assumed that parents of children with mental distictions should assume that their children would be brutalized unless they were somehow "cured" of being noticable.

I do have a very effective cure for that attitude myself. It's called "Martial Arts Classes."

Not only was the campaign appallingly offensive, but clearly, nobody involved in creating, deploying and funding the campaign noticed. That inevitably leads me to the assumption that they suffered from prejudice against the "differently abled" to a shocking degree themselves.

That sort of thing is bad enough when the folks involved are advocating against your interests, but when they are supposedly acting on your behalf - and sucking up money that damn well ought to be spend in your collective interests if it's going to be spent at all - it's not just offensive, it's injurious.

And whatever sort of minority you are, when the powers that be "act in your interest" in such a way - it's time to haul out the cluebat.

Attention, all minorities. Particularly Florida voters. Those who say "trust me, I know better" had best be required to prove it. And if they prove - spectacularly - that they do not, it's time to rid yourselves of them - or continue to suffer the price of their possibly well-meaning foolishness.

On Praising McCain with Fainter Damns...

A Litmus Test For Hard-Core Conservatives:

"Although it is not on the agenda and I suspect a goodly number of CPAC members would deny it, the biggest issue facing this crowd is whether to embrace McCain, who has been the subject of vitriolic attacks by Coulter, among other right-wing demagogues, over not being conservative enough.

As I have written early and often, as the presumptive nominee, McCain cannot win the November election without at least the tacit support of CPACers."

You know, I like to think of myself as a Conservative-ish sort of person - but apparently that particular C-Word has become as slimy, slippery and difficult to apply as that other Big Cee word (the one with the very same litmus tests, it seems); "Christian."

Now, there are ways in which I think McCain is far too willing to compromise Conservatism; but all my caviats have to do with intrusive big government and foreign warfare - aside from being more of a flip-flopper than Kerry ever was.

As far as I am concerned, it's the very antithesis of Conservatism to pee in a cup for ANYONE, much less kneel holding it before self-appointed arbiters of Conservatism, such as Coulter and Malkin to delicately taste.

The only proper response to such a request is to pee on their shoes. Getting elected at the price of the ability to do anything consistent with any identifiable set of values - much less personal honor or integrity - is a price no Real Conservative - or indeed, any person of conscience - will abide. Of course, this will not put you in a place of power - but if you HAD to sell your concience and your own freedom, you won't really be in a place of power. You will simply be a shill - and not even a well-paid shill by modern standards.

Coulter, for one, makes more money for far less effort than even George Bush gets by with.

As the contest comes down to sussing out which candidate of all presented on each side has the most ... erm ... flexibility; the most room for interpretation of intent in their rhetoric, the less interested I am in throwing away my vote by voting.

Increasingly, as the field narrows, excluding those with principle in favor of those with corporate support and not even particularly well-hidden sponsorships, I'm losing interest. Well, the only way to vote "none of the above" is to not vote at all. That is the only way to deny a plurality to everyone who participated.

As I'm on the topic of the meaningless of the duties of citizenship, let me advocate a constitutional amendment that would require that 25% of the affected population must vote with a minimum of 90% confidence in the accuracy of the tally for the election to be valid.

If elections fail three times - a constitutional convention is called and the federal government is put in abeyance.

Yeah, wishful thinking.

The Official Graphictruth Unendorsement of Ron Paul

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul: "The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

I think Ron Paul needs the blessing of being on the short end of those taught "morality and civility" by Christian churches. I grew up in a town where there were as many churches as taverns - and there were a LOT of taverns. If the one thing didn't justify a particular flavor of abusive crap, well, the other was there to fill in for it.

As much as I personally benefited from the civility that is undoubtedly well-taught by the Episcopal Church, "morality" and "conformity" were pretty much interchangeable concepts. While some in that church were unquestionably both moral and ethical persons, I would say that at least half were there because it was "the right church" to belong to, if you were "the right sort of person."

It was no different with the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans and the various Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

Later on, as I came to deal with multiples and abuse survivors and as everyone started comparing notes; there was hardly a one of us where religion had not played a huge role in our abuse - especially the "keeping silence" part. The worse the abuse, the more rigid the facade, the taller the "pillar of the community."

There is a certain sort of person that builds such a facade for the sole purpose of keeping their particular brand of evil out of the public eye, while maintaining a secure hold on their access to victims.

And then, of course, the scandals started to happen as one by one, abused persons gained courage from one another (via the Internet, I suspect) and started disclosing. The Catholic Church has been hit hardest, but none have been immune. And there is one common thread - the idea of unaccountable, unquestionable "moral" authority.

I'm sorry, but if you simply wish to shove government out of the way of theocratic dominion, you and I must have words, Sir, for I've seen to what degree these people can be trusted, these people who wish to rule without the inconvenience of laws and customs that would permit escape from their clutches.

We have only just managed to break their stranglehold of conformity and moralism, just managed to pry their fingers from our throats, and we have just now started to speak seriously of the damage that has been done and how to proceed from here. We continue to fight those who would brand our rebellion and our individuality as evil, we resist those who would cheerfully rally the mobs - and those who would gladly sacrifice their own children upon the altar of Church and Conformity.

I've come by my anti authoritarian views honestly and by a very hard row. I trust none who hold themselves unaccountable, and who rely on religious doctrine and custom to justify their desire to dominate, control and exploit others, while I hold those who bow to and blindly trust Authority as being superior to their own conscience and more reliable than their own eyes.

I have nothing against faith - my faith has kept me alive when by all rights I should not have survived. What I take issue with is social engineering and ritually enforced cultural conformity - and that is all that Christmas has been for the last hundred years or so in these United States; a pastiche of semi-religious, semi-pagan cultural myths which amount to a shared cultural tradition. It is not a matter of faith, or a matter of true religion - it's merely a way of governing the lives of others without being accountable to an electorate or subject to the strictures of Constitution or law. And if it's somewhat benign on the surface, and behind closed doors in many cases, possibly even most - for the sake of those whom the facade is a prison, it must become both optional and transparent.

You, Ron Paul, should damn well know better, working as you do in such a den of vipers, knowing full well the distinction between the substance and the facade it conceals. There's a reason why there IS a constitution - and it's to trump those who would rule by Church, by Fiat and by Tradition.

Up to now, you have said all the right things to impress me. But it seems that as I cast about, you say quite different things to different audiences - and the whole speaks to me of a man who confuses conformity to social norms with morality, and would might well pander to shibboleths, rather than dealing with the scientifically described reality that presidents must - lest they be compared to George Bush.

And it seems to me that when doing the right thing and deference to authority come into conflict, you disappoint me. The fact that you contradicted your own position on the need to impeach Cheney means I must question your motives and alliances. The Largest Minority asks "Why did Ron Paul vote against Impeachment?"

I would like to urge all first-time pro-Paul visitors to my leftist pinko blog to please save all reactionary hate mail until after you’ve actually read what I have to say. Paul’s vote to table the impeachment resolution, then to refer it to committee is especially troubling coming from a supposed consitutionalist. He voted with the Democratic leadership on both accounts.

...

Perhaps even more confusing is this interview from the far-right website InfoWars from March:

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

Opining that the U.S. had entered a period of “soft fascism,” Paul noted that the legacy of the Bush administration has been the total abandonment of Constitutional principles.

.. Ron Paul’s commitment to the constitution was tested yesterday, and it unfortunately fell short of our expectations. It’s contradictory to say there isn’t sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment against the very same people you say are violating the constitution. Impeachment isn’t just an option, it’s an obligation. There’s no glory in defending the indefensible, and Paul’s vote was just that. I urge his supporters to contact Paul about his vote. Tell him to vote in favor of impeachment the next time Kucinich brings it back to the floor. And liberals, don’t forget to do the same with your representatives.

I'm not going to bother doing that. I'll be voting for Kucinich. Whoever gets the official nod.

The Point to the Second Amendment.

It was the Founder's view that all governments - from the lowest, to the highest, should live in fear of the Citizen's displeasure, rather than the other way around. And to this end, they placed into the Constitution a Bill of Rights which granted no rights, but rather recognized several specific, inalienable rights and prohibiting several common restrictions upon them.

But the right to say "no" to a beneficent and helpful government who only wants "what's best" for it's people has never been popular with those in the business of governing, and far less so with those persons who think that having wealth enough to compromise the principles of individuals engaged in the excercise of government implies a legitimate interest in and ownership of that which does not belong to them.

Indeed, if there is a single issue of bipartisan agreement in Washington, Kennebunkport and The Hamptons, it's that ordinary Citizens should be allowed little or no meaningful say in their destinies beyond whatever cosmetic formalities are absolutely required to permit the current pretense of democracy to continue.

Here Come the Thought Police - CommonDreams.org: "

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

The bill defines “violent radicalization” as promoting an “extremist belief system.” But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical “belief systems” as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.

Examples of the resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot. Hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee for several decades during the Cold War and the solo hearings by a member of that committee’s Senate counterpart, Joseph McCarthy, demonstrate the dangers inherent in Ms. Harman’s legislation.

It was for just such purposes that the Second Amendment was written; to establish, the right of both singular and collective self defense against all those who would otherwise trample our liberties, steal our children and molest our cattle.

The idea was to create a government that governed by consent, not by force.

The Constitution does not "grant" the right to bear arms or any other right, rather, it recognizes rights that exist whether authorities like it or not and restricts the extent to which Government can request a delegation of those rights in return for better results than individuals could manage for themselves.

For instance, the right to self-defense is inherently limited by our need to sleep and the lack of eyes in the back of our heads. We do not give away our rights in this regard by chartering specialized militias - (police, fire, highly-trained and well-equipped rescue and emergency crews, armed forces, border patrols, etc;) - we are collectively empowering specialist militias who can give the problem their full attention and respond better and more effectively than any individual could, even if they could afford the equipment and the time. But we are delegating, not abandoning our responsibility in this regard. According to the philosophers who influenced the Founders, such as Locke, it was not really possible to abandon responsibility.

These are "inalienable rights," that is to say, rights that cannot actually be bought, sold, bartered or removed by fiat, for so long as someone can say "I would rather die than put up with this," there is always an absolute limit to power.

Allow me to point to a painfully current example. I'm quite sure it's illegal in Iraq to bear arms against the Iraqi Army and our own troops. And yet, clearly, many do. We respond with deadly force, reasonably enough under the circumstances, on the individual if not the strategic level.

So long as they are willing to bear that weight of fire, they have an inherent right to act as they will - not because they are correct in doing so, or have a moral high ground of any sort, but because "stop, don't do that" does not work unless people commonly consent to obey the law and act as civilized human beings. The right and obligation to create law and order is upon those who most desire to shape it's form and define it's nature, it's benefits must be persuasive to those it would govern, or they will not be governed by it.

Consider, if you will, the traditions and history of the Scottish Highlanders. It may be summed up as "Oh, yeah? You and what fucking army, English?"

The Iraqis have an inalienable right to defend their ideals, ideas, neighborhood and social ambitions with force, just as many of our intemperate and untamed ancestors did, people whom, truth be told, Afghan terrorists might well refer to as "savages." Did you know it was Scots immigrants who taught Indians to take scalps?

The Iraqis also have an inalienable right to be wrong about the legitimacy of their cause and the the means they choose to contest the issue. It is a most basic human right to spend our lives as we see fit, no matter what others may say about it or how arguably foolish our choices are. If you think my choices foolish, share your thoughts with me and convince me that viable alternates exist. Otherwise, your choice in regards to me is to either bugger off or brace for impact.

It's amazing to me that there many people who would never assert a "right" to back a rat into a corner and emerge unscathed who do presume they can and should expect a different outcome when treating human beings in the same way. That's appallingly stupid on an individual level; it's inexcusable on the part of an organization theoretically composed of the best and the brightest.

Our only legitimate response to those willing to resist our collective will expressed by force of arms is to either persuade them they are incorrect in the necessity to resort to force and providing a decent alternate to dying for their cause - or do them the courtesy of honoring their dedication with sustained and accurate fire in accordance with our own beliefs and principles. But when we go to this extent, we have the moral and ethical obligation to those we ask to fight on our behalf to be unassailable correct. Feral humans are ever so much more dangerous than rats. Even Rats Of Unusual Size.

If the ethics of this matter are unpersuasive to you who remain enamored of realpolitik , if you look at history and the accounts of wars, the degree to which fire is directed in accordance with beliefs and ideals has a great deal to do with how sustained and accurate it is.

When government forgets or ignores the fact that it's powers exist only to the extent they are delegated limited in exercise by the consent of the governed, resistance with the possibility of outright warfare becomes inevitable to the extent that government is able to put arrogance into practice.

That same equation tends to degrade the ability of the government to convince people to spend their lives on it's behalf.

In our Constitution, the inherent right to resist abusive rule is not just recognized as a fact, but sanctified by forbidding the government from even trying to remove the tools of armed resistance or by forbidding the formation of practiced militias to insist on the point in a collective and effective way. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms are all guaranteed, and with those guarantees come the obvious inability to forbid discussions of the necessity of forming resistance movements.

Indeed, the only legitimate response (and come to that, one of the few practical responses) is to govern in such a way that the issue does not come up, or if it does, show up at the conclave, apologize humbly and promise faithfully to try and do better.

The presumed end was that a government kept in check in such a way will not presume too much upon the liberties of the people, and limit it's ambitions to the things supported by broad consensus, not merely the loudest, the closest and the wealthiest.

But our self-appointed lords and masters have long forgotten this ideal - if it was ever generally honored. Nonetheless, it is a fact; a reality, a truth. I don't need permission or a licensed gun dealer to prepare myself against the use of force against me.

Simply by being prepared to say "no" and by believing that there is no right of government to initiate force against me or anyone else, I'm armed. It's not about the tools - it's a matter of will, and of "won't."

My weapon of choice is the pen, not the sword. But the government cannot outlaw physics, chemistry or kinesthetics, much less practically restrict the freedom of assembly. Careful and determined persons can become dangerously proficient opponents once there is general contempt for the law and it's agents. Indeed, most resistance forces rather welcome attempts to interfere with their efforts. It tends to underline the necessity of the enterprise.

If the law is, in general, respected only when agents of the law are present in force, there is no law, and, honestly, no moral obligation to respect it.

I personally prefer to exert the First Amendment. I'm still of the opinion that is the best use of my abilities, and I still hold out some hope that the great bulk of our government may be redeemed. But if I do want to become armed, and am willing to break the law, well - there's really nothing but sheer dumb luck on the part of the Government to prevent me from doing so.

In point of fact, even in households where there currently are no weapons, the probability is very high that there are components to make weapons or devices effective enough to make at least one military grade weapon available. I mention this as a fact I hope responsible authorities are aware of, not as an encouragement or expression of intent.

That's not just butt coverage. I am still holding onto hope enough that I have not taken any steps beyond that required to prepare for any natural disaster or disturbance.

My intent is to die of old age in my sleep, many years from now with the reputation of having been an inaccurate and unduly pessimistic prophet, largely unrecognized by history, if at all.

But I fear greatly that I may well be forced to make some unpleasant choices, for if certain pissants get their way, I will be forced to operate within the tradition of the Samzidat. But it will be a Samzidat empowered by robust encryption and modern telecommunications, not old mimeograph machines hidden in attics, and it will be even more unstoppable and impenetrable by virtue of being illegal.

It would seem that Rep. Harman sees me and other Internet truth tellers as being a significant threat, one she's so worried will confuse constituents with facts that she's willing to traduce the Constitution to eliminate it. This is assuming she could, which she cannot. For myself, I can only say that any government official that sees me and other bloggers as "threats" is probably correct - so long as they are speaking of their own personal job security. If she's speaking of eminent dangers to The Republic, she need only seek out a mirror.

She can inconvenience truth telling and other forms of resistance to overweening authority - but history shows that no matter how high the stakes are raised in terms of personal risk, someone will step up to take that risk. Rep. Harman is on the wrong side of history as well as on the wrong side of her oath of office.

This and a long line of other such bills indicate to me that it is indeed the responsibility of all Citizens to consider how best to say "no" to such delusions and disturbances as may from time to time be issued from Washington, and consider how to enforce a "no" in a way that doesn't give them an excuse to have a tantrum at your expense.

I personally do not think that the personal handgun - the common symbol for the Second Amendment - is a particularly good tool for the job. I encourage free and frequent speech (regardless of whether it's considered to be "legal" speech by those who have lost any right to an opinion on Constitutional liberties), eloquent mockery and above all, a general and visible contempt and unwillingness to be intimidated by the sorts of pinheads who find Bushco's arguments persuasive. Force is an option only when force is initiated - and there is no other choice.

And remember - no one has the right to initiate force against you. Not even the police. They DO have the right to arrest you with probable cause, detain you long enough to establish whether or not circumstance warrant arrest, and they have the right to use force when and if you use force to resist or attempt to impede them. Making them carry you is not force.

But the most probable agents of authority will not be "official." they will be thugs who are either paid to use force against you - such as Blackwater mercenaries - or eager volunteers; brownshirt wannabees.

Argue as they will, rant as they wish; the moment they draw back a fist to strike you, you may act upon them in accordance to your own views of appropriate force. Or rather, there is no law that can possibly prevent you from doing so, much less enshrine the right of armed thugs to disturb the peace.

Of course, being justified won't keep them from stomping you into jelly.

So, if you KNOW someone will strike you if you appear to resist, if you know that that is indeed their entire job description, to intimidate you into abandoning your willingness to resist, unless you are choosing to make a point by allowing them to strike you, there's little point to being there when the fist strikes home. It's much more satisfying - to create a visceral analogy - to encourage them to punch a brick wall where they thought your head would be.

There are many alternatives to compliance with Washington's will. But the most basic is this: a loaded gun, a full tank of gas, a good pair of boots, at least a week's rations and the willingness to put liberty over security. In other words, be prepared to vote with your feet. You cannot be oppressed and forced to work for the benefits of would-be slave-masters if you cannot be found. And every troop, cop and thug looking for you is too busy to oppress anyone else.

If you have been paying attention the last few years, our Lords and Masters confuse the ability to use force with "winning." Indeed, they think that beating people up, torturing them, tasering them, imprisoning them without cause or due process is proof that they have "won," that they are in control, that they are Large and In Charge.

The reality is that the slightest evidence, the faintest trace of an argument for the necessity for any of these affronts to decent, civilized opinion is overwhelming evidence of the LOSS of effective control.

In fact they have already lost. When a government starts routinely using preemptive force against it's people, in order to forestall them from exercising their natural right to dismiss the existing government and create one more compliant with their desires, they lose the right to presume upon the consent of the governed.

As a practical matter, it's simply impossible for the Government to lock us all down to the degree that would be needed to prevent outbreaks of "domestic terrorism" - which is exactly how the government would view individuals and militias that took to the hills with their computers and stealthy internet access.

It is a complete waste of money and human resources for our government to be building domestic internment camps, if for no other reason than the fact that it shows that they don't have the skill or imagination to be quite sure that such things won't be needed. And yet they have. Rather a lot of them.

Preparing for a probable breakdown of civil authority is pretty much an admission that such authority is not doing it's job, whatever they might have to say about the whys and the wherefores.

In a practical sense and in the sense of truth Madison Avenue uses, it matters not what you say if nobody believes it.

Nixon had a credibility gap. That implies that there were areas of credibility on either side. I mean, if Nixon waxed eloquent about the need for an empowered executive and the right of that executive to ignore the law - that was met with justified hoots of derision and entirely justified outrage. But when he talked about China - we knew he was probably not talking out of his ass.

Unlike George Bush.

But as offensive and annoying as our government is, and as infuriating as it's presumption upon our rights is, as appalling as it's attempt to criminalize critical speech, it's practical ability to enforce it's will is open to question, as is the question as to what percentage of government agents and officials agree with the whims of our spuriously elected representatives.

Indeed, I think the fact that martial law has not yet been declared is compelling evidence that some sanity remains within various government agencies, at least below the level of political appointees.

Government exists only as a collection of individuals, has no reality or existence other than that and needs no greater authority than being a number of citizens who are good at a thing banding together to do that thing professionally for the benefit of their fellow citizens. As professionals, and as legitimate experts in their areas of competence, it must be even more galling for many of them to have to submit to the whims of the appointed delusional incompetents they serve than it is for us to endure the results at some distance, with the luxury of being able to ignore it for the most part.

As for the elected, civilian leadership that acts as a check on our professionals doing unto us what they think best despite our wishes, there is nothing inherent in the job that implies that one is better than one's fellows, certainly nothing that requires greater intelligence or higher moral authority. God KNOWS - and so does Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich and ... yes... Bill Clinton.

When government starts demanding respect and deference that it has not earned by it's actions; when it sees no obligation to be accountable for it's behavior or it's expenditures, when it's institutions and offices ooze disrespect for the citizens that it serves, at some point people will begin to question the utility of paying it much heed or letting it see much money.

This becomes true at a point far short of outright violence and if the government restricts it's posturing to within it's own buildings and ceremonial occasions, most likely it never will. There have been entire empires that existed only within a day's ride of it's capitals. But such empires stagnate at levels of industry far below our legitimate ambitions for ourselves. So, alas, we cannot abandon government to the cities and citizens that find it's wet diapering comfortable. In that direction lies ... Pakistan.

If people cheat to gain power over their fellows - as is provably the case in the 2000 and 2004 elections, or having won more or less honestly (as is the case for the Democrats in Congress) and yet fail to do the job they were elected to do, then there's absolutely no obligation for citizens to participate in an increasingly obvious charade, tolerate the results or sustain the expense.

The the birth and existence of the United States under the Constitution underlines the "or else" clause of good and effective governance. In all human events, beneath the polite veneer of civilization under the rule of law upheld by broad consent, there is always an "or else." Governments, kings, popes and other Authorities who have forgotten this tend to disappear from history. I could elaborate more, but the poet Shelly said it better:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.^[1]

The reason we suffer government at all; to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, is to secure our liberties for ourselves. When it presumes to take those liberties in order to appease it's own insecurities, it becomes less and less useful to the people, while becoming a greater and greater intrusion.

That may seem to some in authority like increasing control and security (no doubt it did to the fictional tyrant Ozymandias) - when in fact it's rushing toward a tipping point where widespread resistance, avoidance and outright armed hostility become inevitable - unless there is an alternate path. And there just may be one.

But that's another subject.

tag: antiauthoritarian, minarchy, infoarchy, tyrrany, opression, federal government, Individual Responsibility, Citizenship, United States, Patriotism, Libertarian Philosophy