Can anyone nail down just what this creature is?
Friday, July 13, 2012
One more reason it's important to carry...
We need to protect our border patrol officers - apparently, despite carrying guns themselves, they will be disciplined or terminated if they come upon an active shooter and respond with anything more than hiding, running away, or perhaps throwing things at the offender.
So, I suppose, it's more important than ever that we legally carry - so we can defend this latest victim group, federal law enforcement officers, should the need arise.
So, I suppose, it's more important than ever that we legally carry - so we can defend this latest victim group, federal law enforcement officers, should the need arise.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
More GRPC stuff - Sidebar Image & Wordpress Implementation
For folks who just want to do a sidebar in Blogger that links to the GRPC registration...
Is the magic code to generate:
'
Now, in the wonderful world of WordPress, all is different. It's not where I live regularly, but here's how I did it on the Alt-Blog.
1) Say any necessary bad words relevant to dealing with an unfamiliar system. This will save you time later.
2) Sign in and then click on Manage My Blogs (top right, on a drop down menu under your sign-in)
3) Under the blog you want to add the GRPC banner to, click on Dashboard.
4) This takes you to the Dashboard or control panel for WordPress. Now, select Appearance and then Widgets
5) Now, click on the Image widget it and drag it to the Sidebar box, dropping it there. You'll then get a blank Image Widget Menu.
6) Having done the magic drag'n'drop, it's data entry time. Fill in the blanks exactly as below, then hit SAVE.
7) Now, go to your blog and test the link by clicking on the shiny new image.
Is the magic code to generate:
'Now, in the wonderful world of WordPress, all is different. It's not where I live regularly, but here's how I did it on the Alt-Blog.
1) Say any necessary bad words relevant to dealing with an unfamiliar system. This will save you time later.
2) Sign in and then click on Manage My Blogs (top right, on a drop down menu under your sign-in)
3) Under the blog you want to add the GRPC banner to, click on Dashboard.
4) This takes you to the Dashboard or control panel for WordPress. Now, select Appearance and then Widgets
5) Now, click on the Image widget it and drag it to the Sidebar box, dropping it there. You'll then get a blank Image Widget Menu.
6) Having done the magic drag'n'drop, it's data entry time. Fill in the blanks exactly as below, then hit SAVE.
7) Now, go to your blog and test the link by clicking on the shiny new image.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
New bike. Is good.
Ok. Been wanting a bike for sometime. Now I have one, and need only do a tune-up and add a *much* larger trunk to accommodate the laptop for commuting - the long term plan. Had my first real ride on it this morning, will go out again in a bit.More on other topics later.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Gun Rights Policy Conference
Seems the Second Amendment Foundation is persisting in holding their 27th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference - much to the dismay of hoplophobic elitist bigots (aka gun-grabbers) everywhere in Orlando this year. And SAF is reaching out to the blogosphere to spread the good word!! So, in the spirit of helpfulness I've both included their message...and instructions as to how to make it work with Blogger.com blogs (Wordpress may happen later. Maybe. I'm less familiar with it.)
1. Sign into your Blogger account and choose the blog to which you want to add the GRPC banner and link.
2. Click on Design.
3. Click on Add-A-Gadget
4. Click on HTML/Java Script
5. Copy and paste (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) the code below into the “Content” box:
6. Click on Save.
7. Click on and drag the new HTML/Java Script block to the top of your page, right under the “header”. Release the mouse button, “Dropping” the element.
8. Click on Save.
9. Click on View Blog.
10. If it didn’t work leave a comment here.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference sounds like a really good thing - and if we can help it be bigger and better than ever, I think we should!!
GC
The 27th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) will be held in Orlando, Florida from September 28-30, 2012. This event is sponsored by the Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org).To add the GRPC banner and links to the top of your blog simply follow the directions below.
GRPC has traditionally been the place to meet national gun rights leaders and activists, to develop gun rights victory plans, and allow attendees a firsthand chance to hear movement leaders and make their voices heard.
There is no registration fee and attendees are only responsible for their own travel expenses (transport, food and lodging). Participants are invited to the no host receptions on Friday and Saturday evenings and a free lunch on Saturday. Each attendee will receive over $150 of books and materials at no charge. More information can be found on www.saf.org and www.thegunmag.com
With dozens of speakers, GRPC participants will examine critical issues such as: city gun bans, concealed carry, federal legislation, BATFE policies, gun show regulation, and state and local activity. The 2010 elections will be reviewed, the 2012 Presidential race discussed and recent and pending Right to Keep and Bear Arms cases will be analyzed.
We would like your help to get the word out and make the 2012 GRPC the biggest and best ever. We have attached a GRPC registration banner and hope that you will run it on your site with a link back to the GRPC registration page at (http://www.ccrkba.org/?page_id=2898). Any mentions of GRPC in your blog will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or need a different size banner, please give us a call at (425) 454-7012 .
1. Sign into your Blogger account and choose the blog to which you want to add the GRPC banner and link.
2. Click on Design.
3. Click on Add-A-Gadget
4. Click on HTML/Java Script
5. Copy and paste (Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V) the code below into the “Content” box:
6. Click on Save.
7. Click on and drag the new HTML/Java Script block to the top of your page, right under the “header”. Release the mouse button, “Dropping” the element.
8. Click on Save.
9. Click on View Blog.
10. If it didn’t work leave a comment here.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference sounds like a really good thing - and if we can help it be bigger and better than ever, I think we should!!
GC
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Executive Privelege - A Long One...
This one is going to run a bit long. It encapsulates a fairly lengthy pair of facebook posts that discuss just what executive privilege is in the eyes of a libertarian conservative, a liberal, and briefly - the courts.
Commenter 1: Don't question him, he taught Constitutional Law!........
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:26am · Reply
Commenter 2: How, praytell, does Exec privilege apply if Zero never saw the docs?
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:28am · · 1Reply
Commenter 4: I wanna know where the Oreo's touted "greater transparency in government than at any time in the past" plays into this...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:36am · · 2Reply
Commenter 1: Renee, and then there's this from O on the subject back in 2007....
Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress.
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:39am · · Reply
Commenter 4: someone in that committee needs to show this to him - and the committee
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:41am · Reply
Commenter 2: Remember, for liberals, history began this morning...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:51am · · 1Reply
Commenter 1: Commenter 2, if they had a solid understanding of history (including their own political history) they probably wouldn't be liberals
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:55am · · 1Reply
Commenter 3: GC. US v. Nixon established the privilege. n the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Wednesday, June 20 at 5:50pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Also, "gunwalking" under George W. On this one GC,I must humbly disagree with all those who say it is an over reach. to cite him for contempt and undermine ongoing investigations and undermine internal deliberations for political gain is wrong. Where was the outrage in '06?07? 08 etc? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Sorry for the rant
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Commenter 1, Bush did this six times. Obama one.
Obama exerts executive privilege in Fast and Furious: GOP suggests cover up - TwinCities.com
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:04pm (16 hours ago) · · Reply
GC
Executive Privilege #'s:
Reagan: 3
Bush 1: 1
Clinton: 14
Bush2: 6
Obama 1 (but hey, he still has time).
Broken down by party: GOP - 10, DNC - 15
Holder Letter: http://tinyurl.com/6mrxllt
Now, simply asserting Executive Privilege does not mean that one is correct to do so, or that the assertion will stand up. Executive Privilege is not some Imperial Scepter to be wielded whenever a President gets a wild hair - limits upon it exist.
The Georgetown Law Journal in an article ("Showdown in the Rose Garden") that originates in a discussion of Bush II era exercise of executive privilege (U.S. v. Meirs) and the limits thereupon offers a number of excellent insights, particularly beginning at page 174-175 (pdf page 12).
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Mastrogiacomo.pdf
As a point of logic, the unpunished misconduct of one actor does not typically excuse the misconduct of the same sort by future actors - making the "Bush did it" argument, whether either factual or fanciful, largely irrelevant. If Bush, Clinton, or any other prior president exercised executive privilege outside the bounds set upon it "THEY DID IT" is not a defense preventing adjudication of the matter in the current or future administrations.
Moving on, it is worth noting that U.S. v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683) evolved out of a criminal proceeding - not an exercise of congressional subpoena or contempt authority. Historically, these are substantially different areas of law. Assuming (which may be an excessive leap) that it remains relevant to the case at hand, the telling quote from the decision would seem to be
"However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.?"
At this point, not only has no claim regarding "military, diplomatic, or national security interests" emerged, but the refusal to provide the privilege log (individually detailing the documents for which privilege is claimed and the reason for such claim) No such claim or log appear to be about to emerge.
Mere presidential embarrassment does not appear to be a valid grounds for assertion of privilege; in fact, it can easily be argued that such testimony and materials that an administration would find *most* embarrassing (barring military, diplomatic, or national security considerations) are those which are most beneficial to the public to have drawn into both congressional and public view as a balance against the power of the Executive.
We might ask "well, why didn't the GOP drag bush out into the public courtyard?", but this is an inherently silly question. Barring outbreaks of sainthood (amazingly rare among politicians), the party of the offender will *rarely* if ever drag out their fellow party hack - in fact, it was a Democratic House under Bush that filed the abortive contempt charges against Bush officials. In turn, then Attorney General Mukasi's refusal to move the contempt charge forward in the courts to the disadvantage of his President is a powerful argument for the use of inherent contempt as the proper mechanism rather than the statutory process.
This has been a bit lengthy, but...
Commenter 1: Don't question him, he taught Constitutional Law!........
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:26am · Reply
Commenter 2: How, praytell, does Exec privilege apply if Zero never saw the docs?
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:28am · · 1Reply
Commenter 4: I wanna know where the Oreo's touted "greater transparency in government than at any time in the past" plays into this...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:36am · · 2Reply
Commenter 1: Renee, and then there's this from O on the subject back in 2007....
Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress.
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:39am · · Reply
Commenter 4: someone in that committee needs to show this to him - and the committee
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:41am · Reply
Commenter 2: Remember, for liberals, history began this morning...
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:51am · · 1Reply
Commenter 1: Commenter 2, if they had a solid understanding of history (including their own political history) they probably wouldn't be liberals
Wednesday, June 20 at 9:55am · · 1Reply
Commenter 3: GC. US v. Nixon established the privilege. n the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Wednesday, June 20 at 5:50pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Also, "gunwalking" under George W. On this one GC,I must humbly disagree with all those who say it is an over reach. to cite him for contempt and undermine ongoing investigations and undermine internal deliberations for political gain is wrong. Where was the outrage in '06?07? 08 etc? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Sorry for the rant
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:01pm (16 hours ago) · Reply
Commenter 3: Commenter 1, Bush did this six times. Obama one.
Obama exerts executive privilege in Fast and Furious: GOP suggests cover up - TwinCities.com
Wednesday, June 20 at 6:04pm (16 hours ago) · · Reply
GC
Executive Privilege #'s:
Reagan: 3
Bush 1: 1
Clinton: 14
Bush2: 6
Obama 1 (but hey, he still has time).
Broken down by party: GOP - 10, DNC - 15
Holder Letter: http://tinyurl.com/6mrxllt
Now, simply asserting Executive Privilege does not mean that one is correct to do so, or that the assertion will stand up. Executive Privilege is not some Imperial Scepter to be wielded whenever a President gets a wild hair - limits upon it exist.
The Georgetown Law Journal in an article ("Showdown in the Rose Garden") that originates in a discussion of Bush II era exercise of executive privilege (U.S. v. Meirs) and the limits thereupon offers a number of excellent insights, particularly beginning at page 174-175 (pdf page 12).
http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-1/Mastrogiacomo.pdf
As a point of logic, the unpunished misconduct of one actor does not typically excuse the misconduct of the same sort by future actors - making the "Bush did it" argument, whether either factual or fanciful, largely irrelevant. If Bush, Clinton, or any other prior president exercised executive privilege outside the bounds set upon it "THEY DID IT" is not a defense preventing adjudication of the matter in the current or future administrations.
Moving on, it is worth noting that U.S. v. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=418&invol=683) evolved out of a criminal proceeding - not an exercise of congressional subpoena or contempt authority. Historically, these are substantially different areas of law. Assuming (which may be an excessive leap) that it remains relevant to the case at hand, the telling quote from the decision would seem to be
"However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.?"
At this point, not only has no claim regarding "military, diplomatic, or national security interests" emerged, but the refusal to provide the privilege log (individually detailing the documents for which privilege is claimed and the reason for such claim) No such claim or log appear to be about to emerge.
Mere presidential embarrassment does not appear to be a valid grounds for assertion of privilege; in fact, it can easily be argued that such testimony and materials that an administration would find *most* embarrassing (barring military, diplomatic, or national security considerations) are those which are most beneficial to the public to have drawn into both congressional and public view as a balance against the power of the Executive.
We might ask "well, why didn't the GOP drag bush out into the public courtyard?", but this is an inherently silly question. Barring outbreaks of sainthood (amazingly rare among politicians), the party of the offender will *rarely* if ever drag out their fellow party hack - in fact, it was a Democratic House under Bush that filed the abortive contempt charges against Bush officials. In turn, then Attorney General Mukasi's refusal to move the contempt charge forward in the courts to the disadvantage of his President is a powerful argument for the use of inherent contempt as the proper mechanism rather than the statutory process.
This has been a bit lengthy, but...
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Yes, there is a place for "Bar Carry"
One problem liberals, such as those at the barbecue I just attended have in discussing "what should be gun laws" is that they simply don't know what existing gun laws that are on the books and as a result, don't know what the real world effects of those laws are or aren't.
The conversation began with a very distressed liberal gentleman going on about a rather distasteful sort pistol-whipping a couple of folks after "all of the above" had left a bar, and a couple of random shots discharged in the process - and then leaping to "there's no justification for guns in bars". Really?
Generally, pistol-whipping folks and random gun fire in an urban area are both activities to be frowned upon with great firmness. And, the gentlemen related, the Seattle police performed such grimaces with alacrity - however, he then launched into the diatribe about how folks who own guns should leave them in car s or at home, that there was no reason for carrying them into bars - ever.
The most dangerous part of a LGBT persons night is frequently between "bar and car." Soo...you want me to leave a gun unguarded in a car in a neighborhood known for car prowls? Or leave it at home? Or just hope for the best walking from bar to car in a neighborhood where a couple of guys just got pistol-whipped? And you expect me to go cheerily along with this?
At a minimum, I will support efforts to repeal the WA Bar Carry ban as both ineffective and actively counterproductive. Twenty states (or more) allow bar carry with neither the world ending, blood flowing in the streets, nor a noticeably higher amount of violence per capita in the bar visiting crowd. Nearby Oregon has had bar carry since dirt was invented, and bar carry was legal in Washington until 1984 (and may one day be lawful again). The notion is far from revolutionary and in some states (Virginia) legalization of the carry of firearms in bars by CCW/CPL holders has been shown to actually *lower* violence in bars.
So no, I don't have a problem with carry of firearms in bars by CPL holders until you can actually show me a substantial risk of harm based on prior evidence objectively accumulated in the 20+ states that allow individuals to make responsible self defense choices.
I do have a problem with those who would abandon reason and place LGBT folks (or folks generally, really) at greater risk of bashing by legislatively depriving them of legitimate means of self-defense as a sacrifice to a false assumption.
The conversation began with a very distressed liberal gentleman going on about a rather distasteful sort pistol-whipping a couple of folks after "all of the above" had left a bar, and a couple of random shots discharged in the process - and then leaping to "there's no justification for guns in bars". Really?
Generally, pistol-whipping folks and random gun fire in an urban area are both activities to be frowned upon with great firmness. And, the gentlemen related, the Seattle police performed such grimaces with alacrity - however, he then launched into the diatribe about how folks who own guns should leave them in car s or at home, that there was no reason for carrying them into bars - ever.
The most dangerous part of a LGBT persons night is frequently between "bar and car." Soo...you want me to leave a gun unguarded in a car in a neighborhood known for car prowls? Or leave it at home? Or just hope for the best walking from bar to car in a neighborhood where a couple of guys just got pistol-whipped? And you expect me to go cheerily along with this?
At a minimum, I will support efforts to repeal the WA Bar Carry ban as both ineffective and actively counterproductive. Twenty states (or more) allow bar carry with neither the world ending, blood flowing in the streets, nor a noticeably higher amount of violence per capita in the bar visiting crowd. Nearby Oregon has had bar carry since dirt was invented, and bar carry was legal in Washington until 1984 (and may one day be lawful again). The notion is far from revolutionary and in some states (Virginia) legalization of the carry of firearms in bars by CCW/CPL holders has been shown to actually *lower* violence in bars.
So no, I don't have a problem with carry of firearms in bars by CPL holders until you can actually show me a substantial risk of harm based on prior evidence objectively accumulated in the 20+ states that allow individuals to make responsible self defense choices.
I do have a problem with those who would abandon reason and place LGBT folks (or folks generally, really) at greater risk of bashing by legislatively depriving them of legitimate means of self-defense as a sacrifice to a false assumption.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
YAY! A Walker win...
Looks like Scott Walker is still going to be Governor in Wisconsin - but the kids on the left are not content being sad pandas, instead firing up a cheering section for assassination on Twitter as a way of remedying elections they don't like...
Just *one* such tweet about a Democrat, and what do we think would happen?
Now, how well do you think these Gentle Folks (tm) will respond if Obama implodes in November?
Just *one* such tweet about a Democrat, and what do we think would happen?
Now, how well do you think these Gentle Folks (tm) will respond if Obama implodes in November?
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Politicians National Anthem
Before its time, and certainly amazingly prophectic, Charles Durning performs "Dance a Little Sidestep" complete with the allegorical under the bus hurtling for Miss Mona...
If it seems familiar, just imagine a chorus line of Obama impersonators doing the number and it should all fall into place...
Monday, May 21, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
And finally, Mr. Romney
Mitt.
You dork. You numb-skulled fondler of inappropriate species.
Shut up.
It's a really basic skill. If you need to, hire someone to follow around behind you to shout "IT'S A TRAP!"...
The whole same sex marriage thing? You really should have just kept your mouth shut, because the issue costs you votes either way.
You come out supportive of same sex marriage? You end up pissing off the theocratic bigots amongst your base, and you need their votes no matter how loathsome they may be. You come out opposed to same sex marriage? You confirm the fears of any fence-sitters, you hand Obama a stick to beat you with, AND you peeve the younger voting demographic that's more libertarian in orientation (and thus largely favors same sex marriage) all in one fell swoop.
Shutting the hell up is the indicated alternative. A good second best is pointing out that marriage is simply none of the business of the federal government under our constitution and that on those grounds you oppose DOMA, just as you do many other extra-constitutional measures.
But no. You couldn't shut the hell up. You couldn't wrap your mind around "this is none of a Presidents business and can only hurt me."
You have a fragile candidacy facilitated only by broad distaste for the incumbent. The nicest thing most GOP folks have to say about you is, reluctantly, "well, he's better than Obama." You may, quite p0ssibly, have screwed the pooch.
You dork. You numb-skulled fondler of inappropriate species.
Shut up.
It's a really basic skill. If you need to, hire someone to follow around behind you to shout "IT'S A TRAP!"...
The whole same sex marriage thing? You really should have just kept your mouth shut, because the issue costs you votes either way.
You come out supportive of same sex marriage? You end up pissing off the theocratic bigots amongst your base, and you need their votes no matter how loathsome they may be. You come out opposed to same sex marriage? You confirm the fears of any fence-sitters, you hand Obama a stick to beat you with, AND you peeve the younger voting demographic that's more libertarian in orientation (and thus largely favors same sex marriage) all in one fell swoop.
Shutting the hell up is the indicated alternative. A good second best is pointing out that marriage is simply none of the business of the federal government under our constitution and that on those grounds you oppose DOMA, just as you do many other extra-constitutional measures.
But no. You couldn't shut the hell up. You couldn't wrap your mind around "this is none of a Presidents business and can only hurt me."
You have a fragile candidacy facilitated only by broad distaste for the incumbent. The nicest thing most GOP folks have to say about you is, reluctantly, "well, he's better than Obama." You may, quite p0ssibly, have screwed the pooch.
Monday, May 14, 2012
My applause is muted..
For those that know me, my views on the misfortune currently impersonating a President are fairly well known. I begin with the notion that if a candidate is excreted from the cesspit of Chicago politics, that such a candidate is irretrievably tainted from square one - regardless of race, religion, orientation, gender or creed. He manages to sink yet further in my estimation through his association with bigots and terrorists such as Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, former Weather Underground terrorist.
I started out unamused amidst the post-election malaise of 2008 and after the smoke and mirrors railroading of ObamaCare through Congress, the failure of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute the obvious attempts at voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers, and the failed political set-up job of Fast & Furious orchestrated to promote gun control - at the cost of dead U.S. law enforcement agents and hundreds of Mexicans killed have only grown less amused over time.
The primary accomplishments of the Teleprompter President seem to be unusual skills at script-reading and hurling embarrassing or inconvenient associates under the allegorical bus.
Yet, as a gay man, I am told that I'm supposed to be thrilled at the recent so-called evolution of his views on same sex marriage.
If they were a difference that made a difference, I would be thrilled. If Obama had come out in support of repealing DOMA or in favor of legal efforts to declare its provisions unconstitutional based on the Full Faith & Credit clause of the federal constitution, it is entirely possible my hostility towards his re-election might be somewhat moderated.
Because, if he'd taken such steps, he'd actually be taking concrete steps towards making a difference and moving us forward towards an increasingly post-bigotry future. A day when race, creed, color, and orientation truly do not make a difference before the law, and the response to someone coming out is "so what?"
Instead, Obama strode forth and declared "“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
He will not be pushing for this to be included in the 2012 platform of the Democratic Party. He will not be pushing for a repeal of the regrettable Defense of Marriage Act. He will not be directing his walking misfortune of an Attorney General to question the constitutionality of a statute that flies in the faith of Full Faith & Credit.
Instead, he throws a sop to the LGBT community. Words, not action, confident that so long as he stops short of rounding us up and sending us to camps that few, if any, members of the community will commit heresy and deviate from supporting him. No real action, or even courage, however.
From this throwing of a bone, he baits the GOP into pandering to their own special bigots in the theocratic branch of the party. This, in turn, makes there panderers repugnant to those that support civil rights, equality before the law, and basic morality.
I'm pleased that a President, even this one, made supportive comments about same sex marriage. But that pleasure is tempered by knowledge that the statements are hollow political statements intended to buy off one constituency for cheap while inspiring the opposition to self-immolate.
I started out unamused amidst the post-election malaise of 2008 and after the smoke and mirrors railroading of ObamaCare through Congress, the failure of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute the obvious attempts at voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers, and the failed political set-up job of Fast & Furious orchestrated to promote gun control - at the cost of dead U.S. law enforcement agents and hundreds of Mexicans killed have only grown less amused over time.
The primary accomplishments of the Teleprompter President seem to be unusual skills at script-reading and hurling embarrassing or inconvenient associates under the allegorical bus.
Yet, as a gay man, I am told that I'm supposed to be thrilled at the recent so-called evolution of his views on same sex marriage.
If they were a difference that made a difference, I would be thrilled. If Obama had come out in support of repealing DOMA or in favor of legal efforts to declare its provisions unconstitutional based on the Full Faith & Credit clause of the federal constitution, it is entirely possible my hostility towards his re-election might be somewhat moderated.
Because, if he'd taken such steps, he'd actually be taking concrete steps towards making a difference and moving us forward towards an increasingly post-bigotry future. A day when race, creed, color, and orientation truly do not make a difference before the law, and the response to someone coming out is "so what?"
Instead, Obama strode forth and declared "“At a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
He will not be pushing for this to be included in the 2012 platform of the Democratic Party. He will not be pushing for a repeal of the regrettable Defense of Marriage Act. He will not be directing his walking misfortune of an Attorney General to question the constitutionality of a statute that flies in the faith of Full Faith & Credit.
Instead, he throws a sop to the LGBT community. Words, not action, confident that so long as he stops short of rounding us up and sending us to camps that few, if any, members of the community will commit heresy and deviate from supporting him. No real action, or even courage, however.
From this throwing of a bone, he baits the GOP into pandering to their own special bigots in the theocratic branch of the party. This, in turn, makes there panderers repugnant to those that support civil rights, equality before the law, and basic morality.
I'm pleased that a President, even this one, made supportive comments about same sex marriage. But that pleasure is tempered by knowledge that the statements are hollow political statements intended to buy off one constituency for cheap while inspiring the opposition to self-immolate.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
A few thoughts on North Carolina & Same Sex Marriage
The recent passage of the decidedly anti-gay and anti-sanity Amendment 1 to the North Carolina State Constitution merits a few words.
While "FUCK YOU" is a good opener, and a fair statement of emotional viewpoint, it really doesn't do the issue or its proponents justice. Similarly, "How Dare You!" doesn't accomplish much. Regrettably, even questioning the species and mating habits of Amendment proponents is unlikely to really drive the point home.
It is, quite simply, time to bring the pain.
Whether at the state or federal level, I offer a modest proposal made up of a small bit of legislative action affirming the effects of Article IV, Section I of the federal constitution (bettter known as the "full faith and credit clause"). Perhaps it should be called the Civil Reciprocity Act, though others may come up with a more artful name.
The proposal is based on the old notion of "good enough for the goose", and goes a little like this - "The state of ______ only recognizes licenses, commissions, and authorizations issued by states and nations that recognize all licenses, commissions, and authorizations issued by this state. All other licenses, commissions, and authorizations shall become null and void upon their bearer entering within the boundaries of the state of ______."
I'm not hugely hopeful, but several days later, I'm still deeply annoyed.
And, in an aside, why are the Democrats still holding their Convention in a state that just modified their constitution to mandate discrimination - particularly one where the last time that state modified their constitution was to ban miscegenation?
While "FUCK YOU" is a good opener, and a fair statement of emotional viewpoint, it really doesn't do the issue or its proponents justice. Similarly, "How Dare You!" doesn't accomplish much. Regrettably, even questioning the species and mating habits of Amendment proponents is unlikely to really drive the point home.
It is, quite simply, time to bring the pain.
Whether at the state or federal level, I offer a modest proposal made up of a small bit of legislative action affirming the effects of Article IV, Section I of the federal constitution (bettter known as the "full faith and credit clause"). Perhaps it should be called the Civil Reciprocity Act, though others may come up with a more artful name.
The proposal is based on the old notion of "good enough for the goose", and goes a little like this - "The state of ______ only recognizes licenses, commissions, and authorizations issued by states and nations that recognize all licenses, commissions, and authorizations issued by this state. All other licenses, commissions, and authorizations shall become null and void upon their bearer entering within the boundaries of the state of ______."
I'm not hugely hopeful, but several days later, I'm still deeply annoyed.
And, in an aside, why are the Democrats still holding their Convention in a state that just modified their constitution to mandate discrimination - particularly one where the last time that state modified their constitution was to ban miscegenation?
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Things We Talk About...
Names have been changed to protect the... Guilty? Innocent? Mischievous?
AnonyMom:
What makes teenage boys socks so crusty and gross? I pick them up and they literally crackle. Ugh.
MummyFriend:
I'd have a guess at it being dry sweat. Do they wear leather shoes or breathable trainers? And also, sweaty feet run in the family. Both me and alfie have it. I can't wear trainers or enclosed shoes/boots because my feet sweat buckets. On the very rare occasion I wear stuff like that I have to wear vest tops to keep me cool xx
GayCynic:
Umm. To put it delicately, what do boys do from 12-18+ that the pre-pubescent don't and the married do *very* discreetly if they know what's good for them?
Mummyfriend:
GayCynic...please spell that one out to me because I think I know what you mean but I'm hoping its not that. lol
AnonyMom:
Ray: OH GROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never even thought about that. It makes sense; we can't seem to keep any lotion in the bathroom either.
Mummyfriend:
Ooohhh nooooo!!!!!! It ain't a nice thought to think your own son is doing stuff like that. At the back of your mind you know its gonna happen sooner or later, but actually thinking it is just wrong! lol
GayCynic:
Eh, just go ahead and put a nice jar of lubriderm out into which you've dumped a tube of icyhot or capmax and stirred well (joking)...
Mummyfriend:
Thats a good idea actually! instead of putting hand cream out, put some lubricant. Then your son might realise you know his game and stop...ya never know! lol xx
GayCynic:
Stop? NEVER. Die of embarrassment? Perhaps. I.e., men are pigs. The younger sorts *usually* are less sneaky that the older sorts.
MummyFriend:
Well it aint gonna stop him permanently, obviously. But stop him from leaving the outcome on his socks. He might be a little more considerate/embarrased and use tissue instead. lol
I'm chuckling away over here, I'm sorry. It's not gonna be so funny when my little man does it though and I'll understand if you laugh at me as payback. lol xx
AnonyMom:
Ew. Ew ew ew. I was holding those socks with my BARE HANDS!!!!!!!!!!! There isn't enough hand sanitizer in the world....
GayCynic:
Elbow-Length Gloves when cleaning the areas inhabited by bachelors and young men, that's all I'm sayin...
MaleBuddy:
Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rolling on the floor here. I wanted to suggest that the other day, AnonyMom, but figured a.) You didn't want to hear it and b.) You'd eventually figure it out.
AnonyMom:
MaleBuddy! You knew and didn't tell me! Shame on you! :-)
In the course of my (relatively short but pretty eventful) medical career I have been snotted on, phlegmed on, puked on, pooped on, bled on, peed on, cried on, got amniotic fluid on me and even a dab of melena (blood that's been through the digestive tract. It's the foulest smelling stuff and it sticks around) on my sleeve once (had to throw the shirt out. Smell lingered) but I have never been so grossed out as I was after discovering what was on those socks.
They were in my bare hands. MY BARE HANDS. Ack.
AnonyMom:
What makes teenage boys socks so crusty and gross? I pick them up and they literally crackle. Ugh.
MummyFriend:
I'd have a guess at it being dry sweat. Do they wear leather shoes or breathable trainers? And also, sweaty feet run in the family. Both me and alfie have it. I can't wear trainers or enclosed shoes/boots because my feet sweat buckets. On the very rare occasion I wear stuff like that I have to wear vest tops to keep me cool xx
GayCynic:
Umm. To put it delicately, what do boys do from 12-18+ that the pre-pubescent don't and the married do *very* discreetly if they know what's good for them?
Mummyfriend:
GayCynic...please spell that one out to me because I think I know what you mean but I'm hoping its not that. lol
AnonyMom:
Ray: OH GROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never even thought about that. It makes sense; we can't seem to keep any lotion in the bathroom either.
Mummyfriend:
Ooohhh nooooo!!!!!! It ain't a nice thought to think your own son is doing stuff like that. At the back of your mind you know its gonna happen sooner or later, but actually thinking it is just wrong! lol
GayCynic:
Eh, just go ahead and put a nice jar of lubriderm out into which you've dumped a tube of icyhot or capmax and stirred well (joking)...
Mummyfriend:
Thats a good idea actually! instead of putting hand cream out, put some lubricant. Then your son might realise you know his game and stop...ya never know! lol xx
GayCynic:
Stop? NEVER. Die of embarrassment? Perhaps. I.e., men are pigs. The younger sorts *usually* are less sneaky that the older sorts.
MummyFriend:
Well it aint gonna stop him permanently, obviously. But stop him from leaving the outcome on his socks. He might be a little more considerate/embarrased and use tissue instead. lol
I'm chuckling away over here, I'm sorry. It's not gonna be so funny when my little man does it though and I'll understand if you laugh at me as payback. lol xx
AnonyMom:
Ew. Ew ew ew. I was holding those socks with my BARE HANDS!!!!!!!!!!! There isn't enough hand sanitizer in the world....
GayCynic:
Elbow-Length Gloves when cleaning the areas inhabited by bachelors and young men, that's all I'm sayin...
MaleBuddy:
Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Rolling on the floor here. I wanted to suggest that the other day, AnonyMom, but figured a.) You didn't want to hear it and b.) You'd eventually figure it out.
AnonyMom:
MaleBuddy! You knew and didn't tell me! Shame on you! :-)
In the course of my (relatively short but pretty eventful) medical career I have been snotted on, phlegmed on, puked on, pooped on, bled on, peed on, cried on, got amniotic fluid on me and even a dab of melena (blood that's been through the digestive tract. It's the foulest smelling stuff and it sticks around) on my sleeve once (had to throw the shirt out. Smell lingered) but I have never been so grossed out as I was after discovering what was on those socks.
They were in my bare hands. MY BARE HANDS. Ack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)