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. 

Andrew Shirvell interview provokes many questions.

Many of the questions are really quite obvious, such as, how is this man not fired yet?  Here's the story link.

"Welcome to 'Chris Armstrong Watch,'" Shirvell wrote in his inaugural blog post. "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

Among other things, Shirvell has published blog posts that accuse Armstrong of going back on a campaign promise he made to minority students; engaging in "flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda;" hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.' "

Cooper was rather gentle with the poor, deluded fellow, when I'm sure that in the back of his mind he just wants to grab him by the tie and drag him out of the closet, kicking and screaming.


Because, Andrew, darling... the MOST obvious question is this - are you in conscious denial that you are gay for various pragmatic, political and social reasons, or is it more of a delusion?

There are many excuses for being this obsessed about a dimpled cutie like this.

Goodness, dear, the photos you took of him - you never once show an unflattering photo. He's got big ears, a bit of a tummy and doesn't spend enough time on his hair,  but your photography belongs in a shrine, the graffitti notwithstanding. 

But, well, that's really just "first amendment protected speculation" of the sort Shirviell indulged in on his blog, before he made it "invitation only." A bit late, that...

One wonders what close circle of jerks are welcomed there, and one does hope that at least one is aware of what the terms "actionable statements," "bringing the profession into disrepute," and a few others. One DOES hope that at least one person reviewing the blog and other public statements made by Shirviell are by an experienced lawyer actually qualified to practice before the Michigan bar. The first rule of patronage appointees, Sir; strive NEVER to embarrass your patron.

It's not that you are a prig and something of a prick, Mr. Shirviell. It's not that you are something of a judgmental tool. It's not your moralism or your homophobia. The issues are, sadly, more foundational than that.

 The important questions are the ones that Shirviell should have asked and answered for himself before well, certainly before trying to defend himself in the court of public opinion.

Like, say, how will this reflect on me and my elected boss?

There are some private opinions one may hold as a public official that, well, if they cease to be private, raise questions about your understanding of what your public duty is.

Cooper underlined this painfully by simply asking  the assistant Attorney General of Michigan, an officer of the Court and one generally expected to have a broad familiarity with the state of civil and criminal law in his jurisdiction, whether or not his blog met the criteria for cyberbullying as defined by the State of Michigan.

His answer - or rather, his non-answer - was not so much an attempt to dodge a concern he was aware of, it was a revelation that it had never occurred to him. Clearly in his mind there is a "queer-bashing" exception to that definition.

Now, that speaks to him as a rather small and not terribly intelligent person, and he's certainly an embarrassment to people of the faith he claims to share, but that's really not the problem. As an assistant attorney general, one might reasonably expect him to find himself dealing with civil rights cases, harassment and bullying cases and, well, employing "Prosecutorial Discretion."

When you get destroyed on cross by a journalist - well, there are many people that reflects on, whether or not you "choose to comment on matters related to my employment." Any lawyer should realize that a refusal to comment IS a comment. Cooper surely does.

And that comment reflects on those, sir, who thought you were qualified to have a law degree, it reflects on your Church, it reflects on other, less rabid homophobes family values advocates; it reflects upon your boss, the office of the Attorney general, it affects the chances of your boss being re-elected and any ambitions in that direction you might have had. It raises the question as to whether your particular brand of social conservatism respectable or appropriate in a public official.



Oh, and one final note:

After allegedly stalking and harassing Armstrong outside his home, Shirvell, a University of Michigan graduate who cited pride in his alma mater among the reasons for attacking the student body president, was banned from the Michigan campus on Sept. 14 by the University's Department of Public Safety.

There's a bullet point for the resume, Andy me lad.

Perps And Consequences

The war on drugs has to be one of the single stupidest policies ever devised.



Via: Medical Coding Certification


Even if every single thing D.A.R.E. and the various "drug warriors" said about slippery slopes and inappropriateness for medical use were factual (a matter of some considerable dispute between those who care more than I, one way or the other), the unregulated consequences predicted by the pearl-clutching nannies would still be less severe than the current state of affairs.


This is leaving aside the entire question as to whether people should be "permitted" to use drugs - since it's clearly failed to change drug usage in any detectable way, it's my presumption that the war is exactly what it seems to be - an ongoing war against people, and that the violence and repression is not a means to an end, it is the entire point. 


I refer to it as the "Bigger Hammer" theory of governance. If things don't go as you desire, if people don't behave as you think they should, pull out your biggest hammer and hit them as hard as you can. I'm quite certain I've referred to it as the Gallagher School of Public Policy. I had no actual idea at the time that it is also Gallagher's idea of Public Policy. Go figure. 


So like I said above, the whole point is to smash shit. That's the whole act. Smash shit, say something viciously stupid, and the audience laughs nervously. Confuse that with approval, and carry on.


Speaking of assholes who smash people when they don't behave as he thinks they should; Mel Gibson is selling his property and returning to Australia. It seems hardly worth commenting about - but that certainly didn't stop people. Eww. I do so enjoy seeing all the upstanding people crawl out from under their rocks to assure us all that it's all the victim's fault for making the perp angry enough to beat her up.

If I need to explain why this is so very wrong to you - well, I doubt I can. But you should probably seek help.

This cycle has both personal and political relevance - and I wryly observe that my advice to Democrats would be to take out a restraining order against the radical right, rather than to attempt to reason with their perps; advice that is even more relevant to the serial abuse victims of the Moderate Right.


Without in any way trying to discount the personal impact on people who are victimized personally by real abuse and sexual violence, it's worth observing that it is not a separate thing; moreover, it's most likely a public expression of much worse private behaviours. 


Not that it will stop the shouting of abusive, hateful perps that I'm an evil abusive perp. Here's the tactics directed at the NAACP with professional and amateur variations.








Um. There IS a racist element. I wouldn't say it's the only questionable thread, it's one of many sorts of grouchy, mean spirited, simple-minded and ugly messages to be found.



They should be condemned, if for no other reason than to keep the Tea Party on point. When you accuse critics of being racists for having noticed not even subtle racism, it makes people watching wonder if your stated politics is just another Jim Crow Shuck and Jive.

Rebuttal to Bill O'Reilly's Opposing Gay Marriage by Ishtarmuz shows the technique of fisking to good advantage. But to be quite fair, it was aiming plunging fire a great big fat soft target. 

Shame, blame and patronizing dismissals of the validity of the person and their plaints are, of course the very first response to anyone who dares to "whine" about ill treatment within such a dynamic, at least, before the tapes are released to the press.

For the coverage of this particular weeks events - hell, these cartoons tell you all you need to know. The difference between an ethicist, a comedian and a clown? Comedians are funny.  

That's because they tell the truth, regardless of consequences. Clowns, on the other hand... clowns exist to enforce social norms and, just for extra fun, scare the crap out of children. This usually happens because children have a far better grasp of the difference between "normal and to be expected" and "justice." 

There are lessons from history to be studied, lest we all find ourselves living in times even more interesting than our current state of disarray. This history of the troubles supported and encouraged in Argentina by Authoritarian Catholic Fanatics who failed to pacify Algeria and failed to assassinate France's Charles De Gaulle. More than 30,000 "disappeared". In the end, such a revulsion was bred toward the Catholic Church that one of their worst nightmares came true, aside from the consequential fact that barely a quarter of the population are practicing Catholic. It does not seem from this remove that the proponents are a much better class of leader - it was that such self-inflicted karmic wounds tend to attract predators. The issue of same-sex marriage was an opportunity to split an opposition coalition - and it seems to have worked quite well.

Examples of the obliviousness to the consequences of the authoritarian mindset abound. The ACLU, in speaking of Yet Another Ham-Fisted Backdoor Ban on Abortion, quotes the legal decision, and of course mentions the impact upon persons such a law would have.

The idea of providing patients with thousands of scientific studies dating back as much as 100 years would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. A woman's health and well-being are best supported when she can trust that her doctor will provide medical information that is accurate and unbiased. Rather than ensuring that a woman's choice to end her pregnancy is meaningful and informed, this law forces her doctor to provide her false and misleading information, undermining the trust between a woman and her doctor.

Fortunately, Judge Laurie Smith Camp found that compliance with the law "would be impossible or nearly impossible," and would likely deter physicians from providing abortion care in the first place. Additionally, Judge Camp determined that "no such legislative concern for the health of women, or of men, has given rise to any remotely similar informed-consent statutes applicable to other medical procedure."

Both the court and the ACLU seem to have missed the larger point, save in the title itself. "Respecting Women's Decisions." 

Those who demand respect for their authority without respecting those they are given authority over deserve neither respect, nor deference, nor obedience, particularly when they abuse the law and society and the intelligence of critics and courts in so doing.

This is something that is intuitively understood by the least and youngest among us. Bullies may steal your lunch money but it's no great achievement; they deserve no respect, no allegiance, nothing but contempt.

When those in power conspire to use the law against the helpless, seemingly just because they can, and when the authoritarian fringes cry out in protest against entirely basic human rights being asserted in court, it's clearly time to sharply curb the presumptuous bumpkins and abusive toads who seem to think that power only exists to be flaunted and abused. A general disrepect for the values and visions of the Authoritarian of the Moment emerges. Resistance and evasion emerges quickly, more and sharper oppressions follow, derision and disrespect ensues, until you find yourself in something that might be called a "Cold Civil War."

Well, it's really no wonder there's such fear and loathing and suspicion of authorities, government, media and law enforcement. For, all too often, it's seen as a means to an end, which is quite at odds with any piously stated ideals. 

The way we avoid that is that we adhere to the ethical prime directive, which is to live your life while avoiding harm to others; a concept that scales perfectly well to churches, governments and corporations. Why? Well, because! 

Because when you don't - this is your legacy.

The Man

The Mess

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.

Aide: Holder Has Made No Decisions On Prosecuting Bush Officials

Another instance of what's becoming a habit of mine - reactions to the reactions; in this case to the Huffpo story about what, precisely Eric Holder means to do regarding various allegations of criminal actions by the Bush Administration, such as torture, political firings, blowing an entire intelligence network, election rigging... oh, it's a target-rich environment.

And the howls of outrage are hitting a fever pitch.

pepperdude says in comments:


"No TO INVESTIGATIONS, NO TO PROSECUTIONS. A WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY AND A CRIMINALIZING OF POLICY ACTIONS."

Hm. So, it would be legitimate for me to establish a policy of, say, tasering all republicans in the genitals whenever they act out in public? Or what if I were simply to require them to register and wear an armband, so I could round them up should there be "civil unrest?" What if I simply read all their mail, tap their phones and use that information to selectively prosecute people that may be potential political threats or effective critics?

Would that be correct for me as an individual? What if I were a mayor? What if I were a State Governor? What if I were Obama?

See where this argument goes? It doesn't MATTER if torture or illegal detention was a "Policy Action." Obviously, it was. But it cannot be allowed to become a standard policy. That is why we consider it a crime - because of what happens when it DOES become a policy and is accepted as a legitimate tool of the state to be employed against enemies of the state.

There can be no better use of taxpayer money than re-establishing and UNDERLINING the rule of law. All who are not criminally culpable have a common interest in making sure this precedence is erased. With all due deliberation and without prejudice.

Tempting, and satisfying though a little sauce for the gander would be.

About Eric Holder
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama for the cause of Law and Order

Auburn McCanta: Arizona Officer Supports Obama for the cause of Law and Order:

"We don't discuss politics at work," Lt. Cable explains. "It's paramount for police officers to maintain an aura of neutrality, which means discussions of politics are off-limits. Even in our private lives, we keep our politics close to the vest. Every police officer's primary function is to maintain or reestablish the status quo during any given situation. That's our role. As cops, we hold and preserve a conservative stance in dealing with the public because it serves to settle things. Even our private lives, we're a pretty conservative bunch. By default, then, most cops are conservative by nature and practice. Like the military, we pretty much tend to vote Republican."

But he's going to vote - conservatively - for Obama. He has several compelling reasons; I'm going to pick just this one. (You really need to read the article itself. )

Lt. Cable discussed the way each campaign has conducted itself from a standpoint of crowd control. To him, the Obama rallies seem organized and enthusiastic, but nevertheless, respectful. From a police view, there's vigilance for the occasional rabble-rouser, but there's not chaos or disruption. Detractors are tolerated, yet carefully monitored and controlled.

On the other hand, the McCain and Palin gatherings "seem to be trouble from the start." As the good Lieutenant puts it, "I'm responsible for my officers in the field. I believe policy is set at the top, so if I allow an anything-goes atmosphere, my officers are going to be confused. If, however, I set an example of proper conduct, everyone below me will know what's expected. What I hear from McCain and Palin is mean-spirited confusion and that translates to the crowd in those explosive responses we've heard like, 'terrorist' and 'kill him.' From a police viewpoint, that's a crowd control nightmare. You've got to wonder what McCain ... as a military man ... is thinking and why he would allow that kind of atmosphere."

"These guys are playing the ultimate 'bad cop' and it makes life miserable for those of us who are responsible then to clean up their mess."

This nutshells my own gut reaction, a reaction I've had since dubya got put into office. He and his sort are cocksure and contemptuous of actual common sense conservative values, such as expressed above. Here's a few more I live by.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

"Don't make a mess if you aren't willing to clean it up."

"Don't be a bully; nobody respects bullies."

"To complain is to volunteer."

"Be the neighbor you want to live next to."

"If you had to cheat, you didn't win."

"The 'easy way' isn't."

Now, being as I am now in Canada, the exercise is moot for me. I'm done with this; I've suffered through two stolen elections and a tidal wave of arrogance, stupidity and lies that is being passed off as a "cultural revolution" and "conservative leadership." Four words with not a lick of substantive reality to them.

I stopped calling myself a Christian a long time ago, not because I left the church, but because the church left me. And now, the same people have taken the Union and done what they did to a properly conservative Christianity - replaced substance with selected dogmas that mandate the most unpatriotic and antisocial behavior in the name of patriotism.

Well, Mah fellow Umurikins - I'm done. I'm Canadian. I'm a dual citizen, but I was born on this side of the line, and all my life-experience tells me that only a damn fool would choose to put up with such crap as trickles down upon the average US citizen, and what level of damn-fool ignorance is required to think that what trickles down hasn't passed through corporate kidneys first.

As a Canadian and as a small-c conservative in the Canadian sense of the word, I need not add conditional clauses. There is no "I'm Canadian, but..."

Obama is not merely the only rational choice, he's actually the conservative choice, because he's in favor of conserving the things that the vast majority of US citizens need conserved - their homes, their jobs, their well-being, their piece of mind and the lives and mental health of their daughters, sons, cousins and spouses in the armed forces.

To believe otherwise, in fact, to even confuse Obama with someone espousing anything resembling genuine Liberalism, requires that you believe all kinds of damn fool things about what "liberals" really want to do.

Just visit digg or any other such site to see what I mean.

Nobody's Life, Liberty or Property...

"...Is safe while congress is in session."

Forwarded to me with the request that I pass it on. Which I surely will do.

http://blog.absolutearts.com/

From: illustratorspartnership@cnymail.com
Subject: "Promoting" Orphan Works
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:28:51 -0400

FROM THE ILLUSTRATORS' PARTNERSHIP

Yesterday ( Thurs. Mar. 13, 08) the House subcommittee on Intellectual
Property held their first hearing on new Orphan Works legislation.
Note the title:

"Hearing on Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests
of Copyright Owners and Users"

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=427
Balance, however doesn't seem to be part of the Orphan Works
juggernaut. Indeed, after this hearing, we can no longer assume that
the U.S. Copyright Office is an advocate for the protection of
creators' rights. As they wrote on page 14 of their original Orphan
Works Report:

"If our recommendation resolves users' concerns in a satisfactory way,
it will likely be a comprehensive solution to the orphan works
situation." (our emphasis)

But how can any copyright law be "comprehensive" if it makes millions
of copyrights, no matter how valuable, available to users, no matter
how worthy, under a system that would introduce permanent uncertainty
into the business lives of creators?

Private Sector Registries

Since the last bill died in committee in 2006, the advocates of this
legislation have promoted the creation of private commercial
registries. On January 29, 2007, a lead attorney for the Copyright
Office warned us that under their plan any work not registered with a
private sector registry would be a potential orphan from the moment it
was created.

This means you would not only have to register your published work,
but also:

— Every sketch or note on every page of every sketchbook;
— Every sketch you send to every client;
— Every photograph you take anywhere, anytime, including family
photos, home videos, etc.;
— Every letter, email, etc., professional, personal or private.

This Would End Passive Copyright Protection: Under existing law the
total creative output of any "creator" receives passive copyright
protection from the moment you create it. This covers everything from
the published work of professional artists to the unpublished diaries,
letters and family photos of the average citizen.

But under the Orphan Works proposal, none of this material would be
covered unless the creator took active steps to register and maintain
coverage with a commercial registry. Failure to do so would "signal"
to infringers that you have no interest in protecting the work.

The Registration Paradox: By conceding that their proposals would make
potential orphans of any unregistered works, the Copyright Office
proposals would lead to a registration paradox: In order to "protect"
work from exposure to infringement, creators would have to expose it
on a publicly searchable registry. This would:

— Expose creative work to plagiarists and derivative abusers;
— Expose trade secrets and unused sketches to competitors;
— Expose unpublished and private correspondence to the public on the
Orwellian premise that you must expose it to "protect" it.

Yet registries will not be able to monitor infringements nor enforce
copyright compliance. Even after you've shelled out "protection money"
to a commercial registry to register hundreds of thousands of works,
you still won't be protected. A registry would do nothing more than
give you a piece of paper. You would still have to monitor
infringements - which can occur anytime anywhere in the world; then
embark on an uncertain quest to find the infringer, file a case in
Federal court, then prove that the infringer has removed your name or
other identifying information from your work. Meanwhile all the
infringer will have to do is say there was no such information on the
work when he found it and assert an orphan works defense. This will be
the end result of trying to "resolve the users' concerns" at the
expense of time-tested copyright law.

Coerced registration violates the spirit and letter of international
copyright law and copyright-related treaties. And because this bill
would effectively eliminate the passive copyright protection afforded
personal correspondence, family photos, etc. it would tear one more
slender thread of privacy protection from the fabric of fundamental
rights we currently take for granted.

We urge Congress to carefully reconsider the unintended consequences
of this radical copyright proposal.

— Brad Holland and Cynthia Turner, for the Board of the Illustrators'
Partnership

Please post or forward this email in its entirety to any interested party
For additional information about Orphan Works developments, go to the
IPA Orphan Works Resource Page for Artists
www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00185

I suggest that you contact your representatives immediately with your concerns about this matter. This is the worst sort of "privatization," where a real and useful service is replaced by a money-making scheme that will do less, cost far more, and bury every individual and small business that has any intellectual property under a snowstorm of probably quite useless paperwork, while giving all the "passive compliance" advantages to potential data thieves.

Under this law, Pepsi could replicate Coke and every single frame from every single film will have to be individually protected - for a fee.

Frankly, I think the very idea is obviously corrupt. Certainly it is practically impossible for individual creators or small businesses to adequately protect their works - since there's no possible way for them to afford to prosecute offenders. Recovery, you see, is capped.

The obvious remedy would be for the US entertainment industry to relocate north or south of the border, where the Berne Copyright Convention would still apply, and US commercial and constitutional law would require it's enforcement. Same for small creators, who could incorporate in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else with an online application form.

And of course, at that point, well, actual relocation seems probable - given the very portability of the digital arts themselves and the communications capability of the web. For myself, I could live and work anywhere with a high-speed internet connection, and I'm starting to become rather indifferent to patriotic appeals, considering the rising cost of patriotism these days.

I would find it much easier to be patriotic about a homeland in which my home and livelihood were actually secured by my taxes, rather than made available to the highest bidder by people my tax dollars pay for.

Clearly there is a God in Heaven - Because the Athiests Won

You know, I cannot think of a clearer example of the deliberate "establishment of religion" than the clear and obvious attempt to make public compliance with and participation in a Christian prayer a pre-condition of participation in school, school activities, or indeed, within the social matrix of the town itself, a small pimple on the panhandle of Oklahoma.

The behavior you clearly see in the video is of course, unconstitutional, prima facia, and I delight that the matter was taken to court - and on even better grounds than this rather old video clearly shows.

The Smalkowski case attracted national attention after Nicole Smalkowski was kicked off of the girls' basketball team after refusing to stand in a circle with her teammates on the gymnasium floor of the Hardesty public High School and recite the "Lord's Prayer." After school officials learned that she and her family were Atheists, lies were created about her as grounds to take her off of the team.

When her father Chuck discovered conclusively that public school and law enforcement officials had lied to him about his 15 year old daughter, he and Nicole and her mother Nadia went to the home of principal Lloyd Buckley to attempt to discuss the matter with him. Outside of his front fence, the principal struck Chuck, who blocked the blow. Both men fell to the ground and Buckley sustained minor injuries, the provable origins of which were strikingly contrary to his under oath trial testimony. Buckley then took out misdemeanor criminal assault charges against Chuck. After Smalkowski rejected the offer to drop the charges if he and his Atheist family left the state, the charges were raised to a felony. Chuck called American Atheists for help.

Chuck won his day in court - despite the room being packed by people literally praying for his conviction. I presume this is one case where the answer is "What part of 'I am a God of Justice' escaped you all these years?"

The school district will lose and I say that with the unstated but sincere underline - "if there is a God in heaven."

There is a specific reason I say that. And it is a reason that is absolutely critical to persons of all faiths - but most especially to Christians, inasmuch as these points were raised, exemplified and made to be conditions of faith by the example and words of Jesus. In other words, if you think as a Christian paster that what you see here is an example of what "good Christian kids do" than you are are in contention with the words in red and unqualified to lead a Christian church of ANY denomination.

You see, Christians may well dispute the positive meaning or the exact expression of those words in a positive sense - but when one is cheer-leading exactly the sort of thing that sent Jesus himself off on a snorting tirade of righteous indignation - that would be outside the bounds of sectarian variation, or even schism.

Indeed, in Christian theological definition that goes back to the earliest days of the church, one teaching in direct disputation of the direct words of Christ would be...

Oh, I'm sure you know this one. It's on the lips of every odious little thumper out there.

Yep. That's it: "ANTIChrist."

Now I state this, with absolute confidence that I can support it biblically, in depth - but all I really need to do is to point you to a decent concordance and council you to study the concepts of hospitality and to read what Jesus had to say about practitioners of public piety, such as the Pharisees.

But having said that, I'm going to further state that there is a much greater point at issue having nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not whether honest observers should quotes around the word Christian when referring to you.

The point is this - if you have to establish your religion by force and maintain it by indoctrination and immersion, if it cannot sustain itself in the face of one little teen-aged atheist who respects both her moral position and your own enough to not commit an act of dishonest piety for your town's comfort - you don't have a faith. Or rather more to the point, you clearly have no faith in your faith.

So, that would be a Vente Grande of What's the Point with whipped nonsense and bullshit, wouldn't it?

And since it is all that, and you are indeed using force to sustain it against utter collapse in the name of preserving social order and of course the social rank of it's most visibly pious practitioners, it really wouldn't actually be wrong for another church to come to town with a dutiful and militant congregation and practice exactly as you preach?

Would it?

Be careful how you argue against that, for that's pretty much exactly what has happened in many churches, due to leadership from various "Christian" organizations - the takeover of entire parishes by outsiders; takeovers that amount to theft on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, an honest person and a good Christian wouldn't want to be seen arguing in favor of theft or covetous behavior. Those things are generally considered to be, what's the word again?

Oh, yes. Sins.

If practiced by the smugly unrepentant, it's rather conventional theology to assume that would be pretty much "go to hell, go directly to hell; do not pass through Purgatory."

But again, compelling as that argument is for both it's instructive and entertainment values, it does not stand particularly well in the public square. Especially when this is not a question of what Christian doctrine one may believe to be superior, or convenient or publicly acceptable, but a far more fundamental one; one critical, as I said, to all our freedoms; the right to hold opinions that many may disagree with.

Including the opinion that there is no god, and your religion is a crock.

I happen to agree with the young lady on the latter point, and tend to assume on the first that whatever God there may be (and I happen to believe there is Someone,) you wouldn't recognize Them if they set your personal bush burning - even though that would be entirely within the realm of the sense of humor associated with the Divine.

Look up "emroods."

But nonetheless, no matter how little regard I hold for the evident quality of your faith, o Citizens of Hardesty, you have the right to it. So long as and only to the extent that you do not use tactics like this to enforce and defend it.

Speaking purely for myself, though, and based on my understanding of ethics and of the Ten Commandments, if I were a Fundamentalist Christian, I would find the fact that Hardesty, Oklahoma has apparently not yet evaporated under a hail of fire and brimstone to be a challenge to my faith.

Fortunately, I am not, and I do not bother my God with such stray thoughts. Though, in all honesty - I must say that it would be far beyond my capacity for charity or tolerance to show much compassion at all should any disaster happen - and as I am an experienced believer in Karma, I 'spect it will. And as tempting as the idea of being able to own such a spread as the Smalkowski's did; I consider living downwind of that much bad juju to be unwise.

Hope Steffey: "Rape without Penetration."

(raw story)

Hope Steffey's night started with a call to police for help. It ended with her face down, naked, and sobbing on a jail cell floor. Now, the sheriff's deputies from Stark County, Ohio who allegedly used excessive force during a strip search 15 months ago face a federal lawsuit, and recently released video won’t help their case.

Steffey's ordeal with the Stark County sheriff's deputies began after her cousin called 9-1-1 claiming Steffey had been assaulted by another one of their cousins. When a Stark County police officer arrived, he asked to see Steffey's driver's license. But instead of handing over her own ID, she mistakenly turned over her dead sister's license, which she contends she keeps in her wallet as a memento. That's when the situation became complicated.

"Hope was not treated as a victim," her lawyer told WKYC News. "The officer said to her 'shut up about your dead sister.'"

Hope Steffey summed up her ordeal at the hands of Stark County deputies and correctional personnel as "rape without penetration." I'm not sure I'd be that charitable in my description. I believe "terrorism" might not be an inappropriate description of the behavior and it's effect.

And certainly, well, if the deputies were trying to "send a message" - well, they surely got my attention.

The thing that amazes me most is that the sheriff responsible for the actions of the people in this video is defending them - even though the tape is a record of a direct violation of policy that makes it an actionable offense (she IS suing) as well as, arguably, a sexual assault and a violation of her Civil Rights.

Of course, the irony involved here is that the practice of videotaping was started in order to forestall suits by prisoners intended to harass and intimidate police and guards. I would presume every uniformed individual in that room knows exactly why that camera is rolling - and that would include the dude with the camera.

So, if you are doing something you know to be "off book," something you KNOW to be against policy, why are you not making sure that camera "malfunctions?"

Everyone in that room should be looking for work, and if the official charges are the ones that most concern me, the sheriff should be at least a little concerned about how his employees care so little about his personal culpability in this matter. Now, in every situation I've ever been in that's at all similar, putting your boss in an embarrassing position like that will likely cost them time, money and maybe even their job is not the way to a brilliant and shining future in the career of one's choice.

And this is the Age of Google - and routine 39.95 background checks.

Best comment on the story is from a digger referring to the original Raw Story:

This is the kind of conduct that becomes acceptable when we start torturing "alledged" terrorists....

This is the kind of police conduct that becomes acceptable when we start giving people immunity from prosecution for breaking our laws.

Pam Spaulding appears to have picked this story up from the Dark Wraith Forums, because she includes the Dark Wraith's comment:

Hat tip to The Dark Wraith, who said:

When you're finished watching the video of the strip search, go ask your favorite candidate of "hope" and "change" and all those other lies just exactly what he or she is going to do to end this rising nightmare of an authoritarian state.

No, seriously. Don't find some reason why your choice for Heir to Empire is not responsible. He or she is. They all want to lead this country? Then let them explain precisely how they plan to lead it away from this mess.

Ask those Democrats and Republicans running for office when enough will be enough. Ask them when they plan to stop spewing their sweet little nothings. Ask them if they will vow to their very God or perhaps even to that piece of paper we call the Constitution of the United States of America to take upon themselves the enormous task of putting every monster of this spreading blackness of sovereign violence-from George W. Bush and Dick V. Cheney all the way down to the very last, badge-wearing jackboot on the beat-into prison to rot.

Well, between Pam, the Digger and the Wraith, I'm reduced to nodding my head violently.

But I do have a suggestion for your next town council or civilian/police co-ordination event. Ask your police chief or sheriff to comment on how exactly they feel about this, what procedures they have in place to prevent such incidents, and what, exactly, would they do to officers under their command stupid enough to be captured in the commission of such acts?

Aside from all of this, one wonders what the allegations of "probable cause" will be that would necessitate such a search in such a manner, what procedural necessity would not permit her clothing but would permit her flammables substances such as toilet paper? If she was arguably so dangerous or so obviously suicidal, why was she not placed in six point restraints and transferred to a competent, secure facility for observation?

There are so many, so very reasonable, so very innocent-seeming questions that leap to mind, based on my own rather superficial knowledge of the law and law-enforcement that it is rather easy to understand the aura of smug complacency on the part of the lawyer:

"And you have to ask yourself, what was the purpose of the strip search?" said Steffey's lawyer. "What was the necessity of it? This was a disorderly conduct claim."

The lawsuit says that Steffey remained in the cell for six hours and wrapped herself in toilet paper to stay warm. During that time, she was not allowed to use a phone or seek medical assistance for injuries she accrued that night, including a cracked tooth, bulging disc, and bruises.

You really have to view the tape to get the full impact of the lawyer's silky tones here - the subtext is "Oh, and what IS 40% of your current net worth and future earnings, anyhow?"

His amusement must well be compounded by the suspicion that there are any number of other violations, crimes and cover-ups waiting to reveal themselves. ...I mean, if they haven't already sought his representation.

And as for the voters of Stark County, Ohio. Folks, when it comes about that you have to choose between fewer officers on the street or higher taxes as a result of this lawsuit - remember, you get what you pay for. You voted for Good Old Fashioned Law and Order - and you got it, in the person of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

LATER STORIES:
Sheriff Tim Swanson likes to make sure none of them pretty girls are suicidal.
Starke County deserves a Hellride for Hope.
Hope Steffey; Starke County's Internet Fueled Nightmare.

The Abandonment of Moral Agency in America.

Hugh Hefner with Girlfriend and "Girl Next Door" Kendra

I happen to think that Hugh Hefner demonstrates better morals and is a better example of a socially-concious, patriotic Citizen than any any randomly selected politician or pulpet-pounder you are likely to come up with as a counterexample. Why? Actions speak louder than words.

Lets's start this out with a quote from Tibor R. Machan, Co-Founder of Reason Magazine.

..when someone advocates a disagreeable idea, no one's rights are being violated; when someone engages in self-destructive conduct, once again the culprit isn't violating any rights; when someone sells dope to a willing adult buyer, once again no rights are being violated. Consensual interaction can not be rights violating.

But what, you might ask, about vulnerable folks, with weak wills? Here is where the complications arise, which is why the matter isn't amenable to being treated briefly. If ordinary citizens, human beings, do have free will, as morality and the criminal law assume, they are able, even if with some difficulty, to resist temptations and inducements from others to do what can hurt them. If they refuse to resist, if they decide to take up a bad habit-smoking dope, gambling excessively, hiring hookers-and even get addicted, this is their responsibility to handle. Others may be morally blameworthy for attempting to induce them, tempting them, promoting the bad behavior, but no one has violated their rights in doing this. I can influence others, perhaps, with fancy words, with charisma, and the like but none of this forcibly imposes anything on them, none of it amounts to violating their rights. Even if they are unusually vulnerable, they have the freedom to take measures to protect themselves from my bad influence-they can avoid me, form a support group to keep away from tempting literature I might send their way, and so forth.

Indeed, it is both insulting and presumptuous to assume that others ARE "acting irresponsibly" or subject to "bad influences," and to interfere with their rights, associations and chosen supports, friends and even chemical crutches on that basis is both unethical and immoral. If they wish your advice, they may ask. And of course, to complain of their choices imposes the moral obligation upon you to provide choices that are objectively better than theirs.

..within the framework of the American political and legal tradition, animated by the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence, victimless crimes simply are no proper crimes at all. The people "committing" them may be vicious, evil, acting immorally, and so forth but their doing so does not suffice, in a free society, to make them criminals.

My thoughts, below the fold.
There's more...
As I've said many times and in many ways, morality is not the proper concern of government, it is the proper province of religion and religious leaders, for the very reasons related above.

For religion to become government, or government to become religious is to degrade the legitimate authority of each, with the price of a bastard entity that has less social utility than either separate entity, much less the combined force of each. Don't take my word for this, read some history. It's utterly lousy with examples, from Phillip of Spain to Constantine to the Holy Inquisition.

Government, ideally speaking, places few, and only necessary limitations upon the liberty of individuals in order to protect the interests of all. For instance, driver's licenses and speed regulations.

Aside from having the force of law, speed limits are based on the far more immutable laws of physics - stopping distance, limits of visibility and the like. In other words, aside from the law and it's role in determining accountability should you screw up, it is also doing it's higher duty of providing you with information so that you do NOT screw up in a way potentially harmful to others.

But, ultimately, how fast you drive is your choice, and speed limits (as well as most other traffic laws) are obviously considered advisory by many people. We all put up with the consequences of that with every single commute, yet while it's technically feasible and probably cost effective, you aren't seeing "smart roads" springing up, so that all high-speed traffic is computer controlled. Individual liberty is worth some calculated risks and many inconveniences.

I think it obvious that a single person in their own vehicle under conditions that do not exceed their ability, with no other person's life at risk without consent should have the right to make such calculated risks. I have no problem with that. Nor will you see the highway patrol in any state wasting much time patrolling lonely roads to protect people from miscalculations.

The question as to whether you have the moral right to put yourself at risk is quite another matter - and the answer varies greatly due to the religion. Some would bypass that by saying that you have the moral obligation to obey all laws, so as not to be a bad example to others.

I personally reject that arguement, for it precludes responsible civil disobedience. Worse yet it makes "respect for authority" a moral imperative, irrespective of it's competence or consequences. There is a place for social disobedience as a statement of personal, moral and ethical integrity, with consequences that are no more avoidable for being largely un-addressed in law.

Separation of church and state is not for the benefit of the unchurched, nor is it for the benefit of an "amoral" government. Our government has a Constitution, which is it's particular "morality;" it's legal and ethical boundaries set in stone. It quite properly leaves the moral dimension of individual actions to those with the moral responsibility to handle those choices. For those that have difficulty with making good moral and ethical choices, we have separate institutions, as Machan notes above; churches, AA, Masonic orders and the Rotary Club that each deal with various aspects and dimensions of personal and professional ethics, moral choice and individual responsibility.

Should their advice become law, whatever spiritual benefit that may accrue from making the "right" choices comes rightfully into question, as does the necessity for the institution itself.

Worse yet, these ultimate questions of ethics become identified with particular political viewpoints, economic interests and doctrinal associations. And to the extent that one or another congregation of interest "wins" a point, individual liberty is always diminished, at the expense of both the individual and the consequent life-lesson.

If I avoid "occasions of sin" because consequences for such "sins" have been inflated to the point of absurdity, what need have I for a church? The government will suffice, and then all that is not forbidden is permitted. Conversely, if all "sins" recognized by government are known by their draconian punishments, it becomes far more possible to shrug off the ordinary consequences of mistakes ("sin" means just that, "mistake") that are not deemed illegal.

I humbly suggest that we already see the consequences of this sort of thinking - and most dramatically within the folds of the very strictest denominations themselves. The crusade against "moral relativism" is in fact just this - an attempt to extinguish the idea that a particular action may have particular consequences under particular circumstances that make it specifically a sin for that person in that case - but not in another. This, of course, requires individual judgment informed by specific understandings of ethics and moral choice, a realization that would put a large number of professional moralists out of work.

But if "moral relativism" is so dangerous, we should look at the success rate for "Moral Absolutism, " the choice of dominionists and fundamentalists of most religions.

The metrics for divorce are higher in states dominated by the "big box churches", for example, by significant margins. This is one of many indicators that suggest to me that the conservative churches of America, in focusing on the sins of those outside their congregation and insisting on the general at the expense of the specific have failed their duties to the flock within. That duty is not to the group as a whole, much less to the nation as a whole - it is to each and every separate individual faced with their own individual challenges.

When Jesus said "feed my sheep," it was within a culture quite used to tripping over the damn things. Sheep are harmless unless they fall on you, inoffensive and have an amazing capacity for innocently wandering into death traps, stepping on feet and crapping indiscriminately. Furthermore, if not taken to where they are literally up to their ankles in food, they will helplessly starve while bleating pathetically. Jesus was a realist, and he was not complementing the flock, nor conveying power with out duty.

"Feeding the sheep" is a chore. A duty. An obligation of those capable of recognizing that for one reason or another, praise Goddess, they are NOT sheep.

I use the word Goddess to underline the fact that the duty is inescapable by simply choosing to become something other than Christian. Indeed, from my perspective, the ethics of the matter are clear enough that I'd be saying the same thing as an atheist.

Government is wholesale. Religion - and it's secular equivalents - are retail. By seeking to become major secular powers, influencing governments the various churches have both currently and historically become whores TO government, or become governments themselves.

But the shepherd does not get to choose which sheep they have a duty toward - they run after any sheep in trouble . The dogs may attend to the flock as a whole. And yes, we may indeed use that as a metaphor for Law.

The law is implacable, and for that reason alone it must be as minimal a restriction on individual liberty as possible, so that it does not interfere with our individual rights and responsibilities.

For instance, while it's Unconstitutional (a fact, though it's an often inconvenient fact in the face of the utter failure of our churches to do their rightful tasks) to forcibly take money from Peter to feed Paul, I see no constitutional impediment to it establishing mechanisms whereby Paul can choose to feed Peter.

It would certainly be Constitutional for it to invest in a universal insurance scheme that did not depend on borrowing from the future. Better yet, it could simply serve as a conduit for such schemes, to amortize risk, minimize overhead and serve to ensure that such services did not become schemes for profit or power.

No government - nor for that matter, religion - is truly wise and all-seeing enough to truly know what any of us need to meet our responsibilities, or even directly determine what our needs are and meet them. Were it possible to know, such knowledge would be so totally invasive as to completely strip us of all human dignity.

Therefore, state and church exist in separate, immiscable capacities to advise, and with our consent, provide information, resources and human contacts to help with those most personal and non-transferable duties. Nor may any entity, person, religion, corporation or government claim to be wise enough to know for certain that in the face of a poor outcome, their choices would have been better on behalf of any particular individual.

First attempt define what "better" would be for every single affected person with inarguable accuracy first, with absolute reliability from the viewpoint of those in need and you will see my point. Even the most obvious-seeming judgments rely on assumptions based on your informed guess as to what would be best for most people, with "most" being ultimately defined as "people you know."

Therefore, "judge not, lest you be judged also." It's not a prediction of future consequence, it's an observation of very immediate human reaction. The moment you make assumptions about individuals based on your assumptions about what people "should" do or be able to do, you reveal your own personal inability to accept realities and people outside of your understanding.

To you Christians out there who nonetheless refuse to feed Paul for various transparently false rationalizations - the Bible says that if someone comes to your town and is hungry, and he is not fed, clothed and given refuge, then they may take what he needs from the altar of the Temple. As I recall, it would ordinarily be a lesser offense under the Levitical Code you are all so fond of for them to steal from you.

The Constitution will not force you to act morally, ethically or even responsibly. It does not demand that you "hold up your end," nor will it force others to compensate for your lack. It will not protect you from the consequences of pretending you are when you are not. Nor is there any legitimate religion, system of ethics or morality that will pretend otherwise. Not even Satanism. What the Constitution does is to attempt to limit Government from interfering with your rights - and empowering it to protect your individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the encroachment of others.

If you are genuinely unable by temperament, mental state, or circumstances to act responsibly in all things, then it is your responsibility to seek out help, just as it is your duty to help when called on by those in genuine need. There is a reciprocal responsibility to be helpful, and where government can legitimately make help from over here available over there it must - as our designated agent and adviser.

It's just that simple, and no, you really don't get to pick and choose between the "deserving and undeserving;" not as a Christian, and certainly not as a Deist, a Humanist or indeed, an irreligious, self-centered couch-potato. Refusing to recognize an ethical necessity does not make it go away.

As I study the Constitution, I realize more and more that it deliberately denies the People the comfortable apathy of a state that exists to "take care" of them. Even the sheep have the the minimum responsibility of finding a trustworthy shepherd. Those of you claiming to be shepherds, but who are but shills for the slaughterhouse - well, sooner or later the smell of blood will betray you.

Aint' that right, Messers. Bush and Haggard?

With such examples of "Christianity" in positions of power, it is deeply and damnably ironic to hear comparable asshats intone that "This Is A Christian Nation." With Pharisees in charge, it's time to consult a Samaritan.

Here's an example of a really excellent Samaritan. (NSFW)

Yes, that links to Playboy's "The Girls Next Door." And yes, Hefner has all three of them underfoot. And yes, I'm sure the relationship is mutually satisfactory, sexually and financially.

But the point is, it's not a relationship Hefner has any obvious financial need to have and watching the show is evidence enough that there are some significant downsides. Hef chose to care for three girls who are... erm... well, they are prettier than sheep but not a whole lot smarter.

My wife - the special educator - became fascinated by the show. Kendra is her favorite. She says it gives her hope for some of her students.

You see, responsibility need not be fulfilled out of pure altruism, nor are you expected to be of help where you cannot. Such bizarre ideas lead inevitably to abuse, exploitation and burnout.

Those particular three women would drive me completely, stark raving mad, even were I financially capable of padding life's corners for them as Hefner has. Furthermore, by giving each of them responsibilities commensurate to their talents, such as this show, he is also giving them an individual dignity that few others could.

The show itself makes one smile. That was something I simply did not expect. I thought it would be primarily about cleavage and jiggle, but oddly, it's mostly not. Or rather, cleavage and jiggle is so pervasive it becomes invisible, even when they are wandering around as blissfully naked as happy toddlers. (I actually find the FCC-required blur troubling, it transforms the nudity into a sexualized nakedness that simply doesn't exist without it.)

That's really how they come across, as happy innocents who really do not get what all the fuss is about being naked in the sunshine. It makes one question whether in "knowing better," one is really choosing something that is, in fact "better."

I grudgingly admit that it's forced me to reassess my own prejudices regarding stereotypical "blond bimbos," even as my wife's love for dogs made me reassess dogs in the light of her love and acceptance of the nature of dogs.

Dogs are dogs, and no amount of therapy or exhortation will make them into cats or caterpillars, so one may as well enjoy them for what they are, rather than condemning them for what they are not. As one who has much need to claim such indulgences - I find myself embarrassed that I had un-noticed reservation in giving equal charity to others.

Being factually more intelligent than any of the girls does not make me a better person, and certainly not a less inherently annoying person.

What makes me a better person is being accepted for who and what I am, without shame or embarrassment, and being aided (by my lovely wife) to leverage my abilities to our mutual pleasure, advantage and satisfaction.

In my own unique way, I can exhibit stupidities to rival those of any of those three - and without being nearly as decorative. But under Hef's gentle rule, they flourish, and manage to rise to meet his own, rather unusual needs. I'm not talking sex, per se. Hefner seems to have a need for a degree of isolation from "the real world" that exceeds even mine - and so he has dedicated his whole life toward creating his own private Xanadu. He makes it possible by sharing his idea of beauty open-handedly. There is a price of admission, of course, but one must pay the staff.

And, interestingly enough, the staff does things for Hefner on a routine basis that I cannot imagine that most bosses could expect in their wildest dreams. There's something about Hef that is truly sweet and innocent, that makes one want to keep him safe from the sharp corners of the world.

The result is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - most of which would be pretty dysfunctional without the whole. And yet there are many who would cheerfully "save" these girls from sin, and smash Hef's whole empire out of a moral superiority that obviously blinds them to evident fact.

This is why growups refuse to let the morality of others get in the way of one's own ethics, and such also is the advantage of refusing to be bound by the disapproval of those who would certainly refuse to do the right thing themselves on "moral" grounds. Were these girls to have been in Ireland as little as ten years ago, they could easily have been "helped" by being forced into a Magdeline Laundry.

Such is the "charity" of our churches who would consider that preferable to being safely and well employed being an instructive "occasion of sin" to bluenoses and moralists.

As a Libertarian, I accept the principle that charity is not the province of government. That does not make the duty to be charitable and neighborly, decent and civilized go away - as so many of my fellow Libs and certainly the vocal right wing preach and practice. Charity is OUR duty.

"Charity" such as the Magdeline Laundries, and all other such joyless, cheerless and oppressive substitutes for the plain obligations we have to one another are the result of the religious acting towards others as if they were a government.

Clearly, they do this no better than Governments On Crusade Against The Heathen.

But neither can become such abominations of desolation without our permission and tacit support. Only by abandoning our duty can they achieve such power over the "others" we see as being "the problem." This of course grants them power over us they neither need, deserve nor handle well.

It's time for us to join together in demanding that our government govern constitutionally and our religions and other such groups return to the duties they have long abandoned, which ultimately is to aid each individual who asks in governing themselves and fulfilling their own duties as best they can.

We can make an immediate start by doing two simple things: first, take back our government by impeaching those who have taken and misused that power. Second, we must take back our own moral agency from those who have willfully abused our trust by telling us that we should support this most damnable, immoral, unchristian war.

Not just Christians - groups and supposed "authority" of all stripes that have encouraged us to "trust" this administration, to trust in their good intentions against all evidence and against all principles of just law, just war and the teachings of every scripture and source of wise and tested moral and practical wisdom must suffer correction at your hands.

Shake the dust from your feet. LEAVE your big-box church. TURN the dial on your radio. Reclaim your moral agency and never again suppress your doubts or hold back sharing your reproof for those who's words from the pulpit encourage moral apathy, complacency or seek to make you fearful of the consequences of questioning authority and seeking to know the truth for yourself.

Everything George Bush has said and done, he has done in your name. Everything that Pat Robertson, Sun Myung Moon, James Dobson and others have been able to achieve, socially and politically is because you choose to fund and support them in the face of overwhelming evidence that their alliances, motives and beliefs rendered them untrustworthy by definition.

Are you comfortable with the results you see? Are you happy with the consequences of your misplaced trust? Indeed, have you even bothered to check for yourself? Whether or not you know, whatever you believe to be true, whatever you wish to be the truth is irrelevant.

You are accountable for the consequences of YOUR choices to other actual individuals. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Not just because it's RIGHT, because that's exactly what they will do.

Empowering others to make moral choices and act against the interests of others in your name does not absolve you from any consequences at all, no matter whether you believe in God, Provenance, random chance or merely human nature. Right now, your choice is to stand up and hold yourself accountable for your mistakes - or accept the fact that others will. Because they do, and have every right to do so.

tag: Reason, Morality, Law, Ethics, Government, Libertarian Philosophy, Religious Ethics, Individual Responsibility, Social Obligations, Impeachment, Citizenship, United States, Patriotism, Hugh Hefner, The Girls Next Door, Tibor R. Machan, Christianity, Unintended Consequences, common decency, culture, Christianists, Constitution, cultural warfare