Things were tense. It looked like Washington State was set to become the seventh state in the US to legalize gay marriage, but some people – fag bashers, puppy kickers, Catholics, and other monsters – wanted the voters to decide. It was the business of the Triangle Commission to make sure that never happened.

Steve, the Commission’s Sublime Potentate, lay quietly in a tanning bed, attempting to do away with the unsightly tan lines he had acquired while laying out on the beaches in Maui after a young couple on their heteromoon insisted he put on his Speedo, brainwashed fascists that they were. Mark, the Secretary of Fabulosity, was busily plucking his eyebrows while surfing the net for something none of the three had yet been able to find – naked pictures of Mark Wahlberg.

Chuck – not an officer -  sat quietly in a corner, reading a book on early American history.

Rick squeed shrilly, then palmed the panic button. A klaxon sounded.

“What is it?” Steve wondered aloud from the tanning bed, sounding bored. Rick was such a drama queen.

“We have a live one. Quick, girls! Initiate drama sequence Beta-69!”

“Oh no! I forgot what one that was,” a worried Mark fretted, fanning drying nails.

“It’s when we all log into our 27 Twitter accounts with the NOH8 avatars and RT the bigot to all our followers, then go for Bellinis.” Chuck didn’t even look up from his book. He’d reached the part on the faith of the founding fathers. It was riveting.

“Ooooh! Check Miss Thang, knowing her facts and stuff.” Mark said. “We may have to make you an officer after all.” He turned to Chuck, who was wearing a plain white t-shirt and jeans he’d purchased from Costco. He shuddered. “Then again, maybe not.”

“Vicious!” Rick hissed, licking a forefinger and making a checkmark in the air. “But he’s right. Let’s get to work.”

Steve ejected himself from the tanning bed, wrapped himself in a semi-transparent robe and took his seat in the command chair. “Action report!”

“Well,” Rick began. “It’s an account called @FmlyValues4Ever, and it looks like it’s run by some big-haired chick in the Midwest.”

“Typical,” Steve snorted, pulling up the profile and reading the latest tweets.

Mark gasped and clutched at the neckline of his Kenneth Cole bedazzled “VICTIM” shirt. “I did NOT just read that.”

“What?” Rick asked, himself scanning down for the most offensive tweet.

@FmlyValues4Ever: I wonder if gay marriage is really as important to society as stimulating the economy or re-establishing American excellence

“No she didn’t!” Steve was beside himself, mostly due to the full-length mirror he’d had installed on the wall next to the command chair, but also rage.

“Oh yes she did!”

Chuck looked up from his book and rolled his eyes.

“Well, she isn’t going to get away with it. I have Lady GaGa on speed dial!” A vicious green light glinted in Mark’s eyes as Rick began typing:

@AnitaIsSatan: @FmlyValues4Ever ROT IN HELL YOU EVIL CHRISTIAN FREAK!!!!

Steve, who was reading FmlyValues4Ever’s mentions, refreshed the page and giggled. “You tell her, Rick! Vile Jesus freak.”

@FmlyValues4Ever: @AnitaIsSatan Look. I don’t hate gay people. I just don’t believe in changing the definition of marriage.

Mark screamed. “EVIL BITCH TROLL!!!! Where is she located? Does anyone have a fix?”

“I do,” said Steve, who had several browser tabs open, one to the WordPress blog listed in FmlyValues4Ever’s Twitter bio. “Looks like Des Moines.”

“Figures.” Mark and Rick said simultaneously.

“Why is that?” Chuck wondered, putting aside his book.

“You’re joking, right?” Rick looked at Chuck agog. “Sweetie. That’s flyover country! You don’t want to be caught dead more than 50 miles from either coast with so much as a Depeche Mode CD in your car. They will kill you!”

@AnitaIsSatan: @FmlyValues4Ever I HOPE YOU DIE IN A FIRE, YOU HOMOPHOBE! #NOH8

Three of the four men in the Peace Room cackled maniacally, overcome by righteous fury (and just a bit of amyl.)

@FmlyValues4Ever: @AnitaIsSatan You don’t seem like a very tolerant person. You’re kind of mean, actually.

“Joe….my….GOD!!!!” The three freedom fighters screamed as one … man.

“Hey. She’s being pretty nice, actually.” Chuck said from the corner of the room, where he was now tracking the conversation on his own laptop. Three heads swiveled and six eyes bored into him with icy hatred. “What?” He continued. “Her faith tells her that gay marriage is wrong. She has to vote her conscience just like we vote ours, right?”

“I don’t even know who you are,” Steve said, then turned to Mark. “Actually, who is he?”

“Ask Rick. It’s his trick.” Mark said accusingly, glaring at Rick, who always went home with the men Mark wanted.

Rick glared back. “I picked him up at The Eagle last night. He was doing shots off the seat of the Harley and wearing nothing but a jockstrap.”

“I was not!” Chuck protested. “We met at a diner. I was your waiter. And we didn’t have sex. I brought you home because you were drunk and refused to get into the cab because the driver was only a six.”

“Dressed like that?” Mark asked.

“It’s a Country-Western diner.”

“How … primitive.” Steve said.

“Look,” Chuck continued. “I just think it’s really hypocritical to demand tolerance and then treat someone so horribly because she doesn’t agree with you on your pet issue. From what I can see, the three of you are way more likely to do her harm than the other way around.”

“Do you see that window?” Steve pointed. “Look up Prague in that fancy book of yours. As in, the defenestration of.”

“Prague is in the Czech Republic.” Chuck answered, holding up the American history volume.

“So? That’s, like, in Kentucky, right?” Steve looked at Mark and Rick for confirmation.

“You know what?” Chuck said, getting up and stowing his book and laptop in the sensibly priced generic bag he’d purchased with tip money from Target. “You guys are kind of assholes. I’d rather hang out with tolerant Christians than hateful queens any day of the week.”

“Be my guest!” Rick leaped from his chair and rushed to the door. “Fred Phelps’s church is that way. Have a nice time, traitor.”

“Oh, hey!” Mark yelled excitedly as the door closed behind Chuck. “Dan Savage is in Topeka and he says he has a head cold.”

“Call him.” Steve said, eyes narrowing to slits. “We’ll stop these evil breeders, one way or the other.”

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Consider the momentum the conservative movement had going into (and coming out of) the 2010 mid-terms. We took back the house and claimed it was a referendum against the far-left policies of a tyrannical nanny-state Democratic party. A little over a year later, we apparently think all of our candidates (but the one we personally support) is a RINO. How did that happen?

It happened because we were (mostly)  worried about voting against something, rather than voting for something. The strong fiscal-conservative principles of the Tea Party were thrown aside as we began looking for the “Anybody but Obama” candidate.

In a rush to appeal to swing voters, we principled, unwavering conservatives ran towards centrism. Gone were the Thad McCotters (who, as I wrote a while back, himself dropped out to and supported Romney) and in were the Mitt Romneys. Now we’re bickering about whether Newt’s extra-marital affairs and divorces are more or less important than Mitt’s previous “essentially pro-choice” and pro-socialized medicine governorship.

We snark, scoff and moan anytime a candidate whose flagging popularity with the GOP causes him to consider a third party run, while talking about the GOP establishment and how top-heavy, fat and stupid the Republican Party has become. Aren’t we the GOP? I mean, We The People, right? We are the ones whose donations keep the GOP running. You would think we’d have figured out how to have a say by now.

Part of the problem is that conservatives really are more diverse than liberals. We hate Group Think (unless you disagree with my positions, you commie, fake-conservative pinko.) We’re bound to have more disagreements than lockstep liberals. Also? We’re total reactionaries who spend at least as much time battling liberal stereotypes of conservatives on the Internet, when we should be preaching pro-conservative values all the time. (Yes, I know that sometimes we can do both simultaneously.)

The fact that “Anybody but Obama” is even a thing is problematic. Shouldn’t that be a given? As a conservative who is left with one party from which to choose my candidate, it should be obvious I will vote for the Republican candidate when the time comes. But it’s been the rallying cry for a majority of people (yes, that’s anecdotal evidence. I haven’t done polls.) in strong support of one candidate. “What do you mean you don’t like Rick Santorum? Keep your eye on the prize, man! We’re out to beat Obama.”

Excuse my vulgarity, but no shit, Sherlock.

Beating Obama is the lowest common denominator. Strong fiscal conservatism, strong conservative values: those should have been our goals. Now we’re stuck explaining why a guy who cheated on his wife should appeal to family values voters, or why RomneyCare isn’t really like ObamaCare at all.

This is where “electability” over principle gets you: with a group of candidates so riddled with holes, they make Swiss Cheese look impenetrable.

People who have paid attention to politics far longer than I keep assuring me this is how the game is played, to which I answer: 1) it shouldn’t be a game and 2) maybe that’s the problem.

I don’t think a 2012 loss is inevitable. We can do this! I just think we’ve made it a much harder struggle than it should have been.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

I’ve seen ridiculous suppositions – MLK would have been pro-choice! Doubtful, considering his socially conservative and Christian background. MLK would have been an environmentalist! Doubtful, at least in the political activist, let’s burn down the UW greenhouses because of lab rats meaning of the word. MLK would have been an Obama fan. MLK would have been an Obama detractor. MLK would have hated reuben sandwiches with their evil Russian dressing and fascist sauerkraut.

This is a game we play a lot. Reagan would have nuked Iran by now. Jesus would be a Tea Party activist (or an OWS supporter, depending on who’s yakking.) I’m starting to think some people are missing the point.

When Dr. King had his dream, there were some laws still on the books in this country that were reprehensible. Dr. King and other civil rights activists helped to change those, but in my mind, that was a lesser accomplishment compared to the social changes he helped bring about. Dr. King truly changed hearts and minds. He captured our imaginations and made us view racial inequality as an ugliness. We remember Dr. King for his actions and his beliefs, not his politics.

It’s become a useful tool of any political ideology to claim such and such historical figure would be the spokesperson for our own pet causes. Believe Texas should secede from the union? Joan of Arc would get behind that! Reinstate Pluto as a planet? Charles Dickens hinted at it in Oliver Twist. And Gandhi would have celebrated an individual’s right to skin Dalmatian puppies to make a shiny new coat. (Personally, I believe Nietzsche would be a HUGE Lady GaGa fan, but I digress.)

There are some things – many of them, actually – that transcend politics. Dr. King was a man who taught us that. It’s a shame that on a day set aside to remember him and his works, that we’re too busy deciding which camp he would have been in on issue a or issue b, rather than focusing on what MLK actually said and did.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

A friend of mine wrote a post likening Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan, where she noted that Reagan also changed his mind on some important issues of the day and introduced socialized medicine to the state of California. Her conclusion was this: Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have been a pure enough conservative in today’s political climate, so shut up about Romney and his flip-flopping. It’s so unfair to treat Romney differently than we treat our beloved Reagan!

The problem, of course, is that Mitt Romney says he supported Roe v. Wade and was “effectively pro-choice” as Governor. So, I guess Romney’s a fucking idiot when he talks about how he came to change his mind. Personally, I believe Romney changed his mind about government involvement in abortion legislation, but it does trouble me he said he would support a law he didn’t believe in. If that makes me an idiot, so be it. I’ll stand over here with the other slack-jawed yokels asking stupid questions and expecting all candidates to account for themselves. Hey! Tell me that part about not being an elitist again! (Or legalizing RU-486. I’d like that explained.)

There are a whole bunch of Romney supporters running around saying effectively, “If you don’t support Romney, you’re a moron.” Which is nifty on the rage scale, but isn’t what I would call a sophisticated argument. In case you haven’t noticed, Romney’s nomination isn’t in the bag yet. There are a whole bunch of Romney critics who still have to do a little thing called “voting.” Many of us are discouraged by what seems to be a very thin GOP field, especially since we’ve been crowing about Tea Party and conservative momentum for the past year or so and … oops. You want me to back your candidate? Give me something more to go on than, “If you don’t, you SUCK!” Or, “Hey! Reagan did that.”

Because, you know…

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

When non-Republicans and non-conservatives write about Republicans who take stances that differ from the party platform, it’s as if it is the most unbelievable thing that ever happened. Because, in the party that championed civil rights (Democrats first vetoed and then filibustered in the ’60′s, remember), and has long been for the individual before the government, people who actually have diverse opinions is certainly counter to the mission statement, or something.

Westneat bravely admits that Washington State’s Democratic Governor hasn’t come out in support of gay marriage until very recently. He also bravely ignores other Democrats who have stood against gay marriage – like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama – on the national scene. (Let’s not forget to mention noted Democrat Fred Phelps.)

I don’t read the Seattle Times a lot. It drives me crazy. But, when I do, I  seek out Westneat. He’s smart and has some good things to say and I very often think he is  wrong. Like now.

He’s considered one of the GOP’s few rising stars here. Can that still be true now that he’s out and proud pro-gay?

I hope so. Dunn is right that gay marriage is inevitable. Times are changing. Maybe his party finally will, too.

It’s like 1996 never happened. It’s like Barack Obama didn’t court black voters by stating, repeatedly, that he was against gay marriage. It’s like there aren’t any Washington Democrats who struggle with the gay marriage issue (or are flatly against it.) Nope. The Republican party needs to change. (It was a Republican who wrote DOMA, I believe, but a Democrat who signed it. DADT? Also Clinton, for those who have forgotten.)

This is an ignorance of history that drives conservatives crazy. “We don’t care that George Wallace was a Democrat when he was governor of Alabama. We don’t care that Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church has run for office as a Democrat. We don’t care that Robert Byrd used to be a KKK Kleagle. We don’t care it was the Democrats who started the KKK. Because it’s the Republicans who are racists and homophobes and … OMG STOP THE HATE!!!” (Let’s not forget drunk driver and lady killer Ted Kennedy. I think being pro-life is a lot less misogynistic than drowning a woman. I’m weird like that.)

Meanwhile, Democrats laugh at an article in The Stranger that mocks gay Republicans – 3 vignettes by those unfortunate enough to have slept with some. They laugh when Dan Savage tries to give a conservative politician the flu. They continue to hail Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader in the fight for racial equality despite his hatred of Jews and the whole Tawana Brawley thing. You must embrace the proscribed politically correct diversity offered by the Democrat party, or you are an evil teabagger who probably caused the shooting Gabby Giffords.

YAY DIVERSITY!

The Republican Party has and always will be more about real diversity than the Democratic Party, which is why the GOP not only “tolerates” social conservative and faith-based members, but honors them. We don’t all have to agree. Isn’t that the very definition of diversity? Unless you support the Democratic cause du jour, you are a racist, a misogynist or a homophobe. Black Republicans? Uncle Toms! Gay Republicans? Self-loathing! Diversity: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

This whole revisionist perspective has become so pervasive that even smart people like Westneat are allowing it to seep into their brains. Westneat isn’t calling anyone an Uncle Tom or self-loathing, but this idea that the Republican party has a singular, anti-gay stance and the Democratic party is all gay friendly is just … stupid. Look at the history, folks!

And now gay marriage comes to Washington State. By government mandate, not by a popular vote. Gay marriage is inevitable, but has one state passed it by the will of the people? It seems to me it’s been a top-down decision in all six states. (Who know what happens in DC? I ran from that place as fast and as far as my little Hyundai would take me.)

There are lots of Republicans who either condone or support gay marriage. There are also many who don’t. What Republicans and conservatives tend to agree on is that, when broad social changes are to occur, they should happen on a social level. That is to say, it should be the people who decide, not the government. Of course, there are those who favor a constitutional amendment forever forbidding gay marriage. To me, those folks tend to lose some credibility when it comes to individual or state’s rights, but that doesn’t mean I can’t talk with them or that we can’t agree on other issues.

Meanwhile, an AP article printed in the Seattle Times notes that there are Democrats who are planning to vote no on gay marriage, and that some people supported domestic partnerships, but not a redefinition of marriage. In a party that is all about social justice, redistribution of wealth and identity politics, isn’t breaking with the received wisdom that being anti-gay marriage is a hateful position much more scandalous than a Republican voting in favor of same-sex unions? If not, why not? It would seem to me that a liberal standing against it would be much more damaging to the movement than a conservative standing for it. I’ll bravely wait for Westneat’s column about cowardly Democrats.

There is going to be a lot of talk about gay marriage in the coming weeks and months. Again. Let’s just nip the “Republicans need to accept the inevitable” in the bud right now, before Westneat changes his Seattle Times photo to a “NOH8″ campaign glossy. Being for or against one social issue is only utterly redeeming or damning if one is silly enough to buy into the notion that all freedoms hinge upon that particular issue. (OMG! It’s a symbol. Release the doves!) As a gay man, I know I can get a date, even enter a long-term relationship, if I want to. What is less clear to me is if I will have the means to support my partner’s love of movies or fine dining. In other words, I, like most other conservatives and Republicans, am worried about a free market economy, job creation and the reduction of the debt.

If we have to do the gay marriage thing now, fine. Let’s do it. But I’m not about to sit around and let anyone promote the idea that Republicans are the ones against liberty, or that they need to accept the “inevitable.” I remember the two things in life that are inevitable: death and taxes. Inevitable: it doesn’t mean “good.”

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

There is a dangerous trend I see emerging from conservative Christians on social networking sites: that of conflating the tactics used when waging war over political ideologies and those used to save men’s souls. The battlefields have overlapping territories, but the wars are quite different.

Let me explain why I think so.

The United States is a great country, founded on the belief that all rights given to mankind descend to us from our Creator, who is God. There are many who believe that, because our founders acknowledged God in forming the nation, we have somehow earned a special place in Heaven, or something. I love that we have acknowledged from the beginning a higher power, named him Lord, and remind ourselves we answer to a greater authority than the federal government. That does not make the Almighty a Republican (or a Democrat.)

No matter how great America is, and no matter how long she remains so, she will eventually cease to exist, as all temporal kingdoms, principalities and nations do.

Not so the Kingdom of God.

Yet, so many people seem to think the same rules that apply to “taking back the country” also apply to the fight between atheism and faith. They don’t. Tell someone they’re anti-American and you answer to your own conscience. Tell someone they are going to Hell and their may come a day you have to answer for that. When you alienate a voter from potentially supporting the same candidates and ideals you support, it’s too bad. When you alienate another soul from the possibility of redemption, well, see where I’m going with this?

Militant atheism is a pernicious threat to religious freedom, but so is militant Christianity.

Someone asked on Twitter the other day whether it is possible for a person to believe in the Constitution without acknowledging the Creator and the basis for that great document’s legitimacy. The answer is simple: of course it’s possible. For people of faith, it is much more sensible and logically consistent to draw a line from God to the rights championed by our founders than to do otherwise. But the question wasn’t whether it’s illogical; it was whether it’s possible. People believe in logical inconsistencies all the time. (for example, the same people who run around shouting about how liberals hate science will shout down any scientific evidence that doesn’t agree with their preconceptions of how physical laws work. This is a logical inconsistency: “I believe in the scientific method, except where it might prove me wrong.” That doesn’t mean people don’t believe it.)

But that’s more or less a semantics thing. The person asking the original question was attempting to lure people into a reasonable, logical discussion on faith and where it intersects with the ideas that founded this country. Yesterday, I saw an exhibition of something much more pernicious: someone stupidly claiming that anyone who claims to be an atheist, but gets upset when told they’re going to Hell, really isn’t an atheist. Because, hey, if it upsets you, you must believe it, right?

Wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

This is the same liberal logic that leads gay rights activists to think that, hey, if you’re upset by sodomy, you must be queer. If you’re upset at being called a racist, you must be one. Try this one on for size: your sister’s a whore. Did that piss you off? Then I guess she rents seedy hotel rooms by the hour, huh.

If you’re upset by atheists, I guess you must secretly be one.

See how wrong that is? See how infantile and stupid it is? Do you see how easy to dissect it is?

Let’s leave aside the question of whether it is Christian or un-Christian to champion anyone’s descent into Hell; I think the answer is obvious. Let’s focus on why it’s pernicious to tell someone so.

The most common argument against God is really an argument against man. Organized religion is evil. The Catholic Church used to kill heretics. Jerry Falwell said some truly stupid crap. All in the name of God. Christianity is therefore evil. God obviously doesn’t exist. Also? Flying Spaghetti Monster, for some strange reason.

Many atheists just simply don’t believe, of course. But many who might see an obvious lack of Divine Grace by its absence in some of His most nominally devoted followers. “You’re a Christian and you’re running around telling people they’re going to Hell and that you’re happy about it? Just as I thought: Christians are assholes.” And, voila!, someone shuts his eyes and ears a little tighter against the possibility of eternal redemption. Job well done.

I believe in the struggle against militant atheism because I’ve seen what it can do. (Ask Robespierre how it all worked out for him.) Pushing back against the encroachment on religious freedom does not mean helping condemn people to hellfire.

As someone who has returned from a path of atheism to have my own faith rekindled, I can promise you it was not people tweeting about how all atheists are stupid and wrong that did the trick. It was the love of Christians and Jews I saw online that softened my heart so that, when a particular set of circumstances played itself out, I believe I was able to see it for what it was: God telling me to come back to Him.

Having come back to faith, I have to believe that’s a beginning of a new journey, not the endgame. “I’ve accepted Jesus Christ, so I guess we’re done here.” No. Now begins the real work: using my own struggle and life experiences to help other skeptics to see that, maybe – just maybe, God really does exist.

If there had been someone pointing at me and laughing, chanting “Ha ha ha! You’re going to Hell,” I’m not sure that would have happened.

We push back against liberal and secular ideologies because we fear they will ruin our country. There is no such fear when it comes to God. He never loses. Ever. To use the same tools against a person’s lack of belief in God as one does against any political idea is waging the right battle, but in the wrong war.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

The narthex was filled with people, some of whom we saw every Sunday, and others we hadn’t seen since Easter. Some were there to see and be seen. Others, my age mostly, were there under duress. We filed past Pastor Ericksen, grabbed a small candle from a large cardboard box, and found good seats in comfortable pews.

Christmas Eve services were nice. Everyone put aside petty differences, church gossip and family squabbles. There were no crying infants; our church had soundproof booths at the back. (Who wants a screaming baby around on Christmas?) There were soloists, as well as the usual numbers by the choir, and a few extra hymns thrown in to boot. The sermon was short and full of hope. But, by midnight, natives were getting restless. I can’t speak for anyone else, but visions of sugarplums were replaced with the latest Atari 2600 cartridge I’d gotten three hours earlier. Jesus’s Birthday could be remembered any old day. Frogger! (Sorry, Jesus.)

That’s when it happened.

The pastor would come forth, bearing a candle. Acolytes and ushers lit their own candles from his, then walked down the aisles, stopping so that the person seated at the end of each pew could light his or her own candle. Flickering light spread through the church, all lit from that one candle, to remind us some things can be given away and kept for oneself: God’s love.

The overhead lighting dimmed and went out. Ernie, our ancient organist, played the opening notes of an old Austrian Christmas song, written, ironically, because the church in Oberndorf had flooded, leaving them without music to celebrate the birth of their savior. Our savior.

This was years before cellphones and the Internet (cruise control was still a big deal), but we hardly lived in caves. Yet the most important gift we got every Christmas lacked flashing lights or required batteries. It was three minutes, huddled amidst warm light, together with family and friends, singing Silent Night.

Merry Christmas.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

There’s a video up, posted under the title “Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy is Crazy … Until I watched This!”

Go watch it. No, really. It’s … bizarre.

“They attack us because we’re over there,” an earnest Paul lectures us. “We’re there. Occupying their land. And if we think we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves.”

The video then switches to a definition of “blowback” (unintended consequences caused by a foreign operation, in this case) and traces the problems with Iran back to one incident in 1953. It’s all because of the oil, after all! Britain wanted Iran’s oil. Eisenhower declared the leader of Iran a communist. The CIA was sent in to overthrow him and voila! 9/11.

It’s just that simple kids. Don’t get involved in those furren matters and we can all sleep at night, safe as houses.

Except, there are those of us who have lived in the world.

In grade school, we had these flashcards. On one side of each, the shape of a country, the way it might appear in an Atlas, was drawn. On the other, the name of the country along with some general information (neighboring countries, languages spoken, population, etc.). I memorized all of them, thinking that borders were borders. 40 years later, I needn’t have bothered. How many of those cards are still accurate, I wonder.

Just like you can’t look at 9/11 as an isolated incident without considering the context, you can’t look at a situation that happened 60 years ago that way, either. What was going on in 1953? Because it wasn’t a quiet year.

Here are some highlights – King Faisal of Iraq is killed, along with family members. The USSR breaks off diplomatic ties with Israel. The Lebanese president disbands the government. The Rosenbergs are executed. The Cuban Revolution begins. Everyone who has them is testing nuclear weapons. West Germany is formed by the Allied Nations. The Soviet Union is busy at work, denouncing and executing people.

This is less than a decade after the end of World War II, people. And there’s a new worldwide threat against freedom called Communism, that claimed millions of lives. Doesn’t it just make you wonder how much world politics played in that 1953 Iranian oil incident?

Operation Ajax was a bad idea. No doubt about that, in my mind. Replacing a democratically elected leader with a monarch because said leader won’t live up to an oil agreement? Not good. But there was a fear that the type of leader who nationalized his country’s oil supply might be aligning with the Soviet Union, who was testing its own nuclear missiles and creating “satellite states” out of neighboring nations.(Bulgaria, Albania and East Germany had already been co-opted. Yugoslavia had already gained independence.)

You have to wonder if the Western powers (aside from not wanting to release a stranglehold on a strategically important resource like oil) were afraid of “Vichy Tehran.”

Just a thought.

Here’s another: Germany didn’t become a unified country until 1871. That’s 6 years after our Civil War ended and well after we’d established a federal government. Why is that important? Ask a European. Borders change. They change all the time. Find Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia on a map today. Heck, last time I was in Berlin, there were four parts of it, three surrounded by a huge wall.

What does that have to do with anything? Only to make the point that national borders and interests are more fluid than we would like to believe. What was Europe in the days of my youth is much different than what Europe is today.

What the world was 60 years ago is different from today.

The other part of the blowback definition used in the Ron Paul video is this: the government hides actions from us, so when the retaliation comes, we poor stupid sods don’t recognize it for what it is: it’s us!

It’s all our fault.

Iran had no problems before 1953. Soviet expansionist policies and a free world could have co-existed peacefully. Roseanne Barr is rational. All these ideas have equal merit.

It’s redundant and useless to state: we don’t know what we don’t know.

Might as well claim it’s all because of the Illuminati or the NAFTA Superhighway, because you don’t know it isn’t.

Except you do. You totally do, and so do I.

Picking a random starting point and saying: it all started there! is like saying the assassination of an Archduke caused World War I. It didn’t. It was all the weird treaties and promises that caused one death to bring the world to war. And each of those treaties were caused by some incident or other.

Does Ron Paul consider the torching of our Capitol by the British to be “blowback” too? I’m just wondering.

One can’t exist as a nation in this world and have no foreign interests. Border skirmishes, nationalism … people, just keep on happening.

But let’s say Paul is right. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tense situation with Iran is all our fault. We’re going to … do what? Pull out all our troops, play the deaf-mute and blind Chinese monkeys? Write a note to the world saying “Sorry! My bad,” pack up our toys and go home?

What then?

Here’s a thought experiment. You can make it a real experiment if you want, but I don’t recommend it. In your mind (or, reality, if you’re creepy), walk up to someone on the street and punch him in the face. Keep punching until he starts punching back. When the fight gets really nasty, throw up your hands, apologize for starting it and walk away.

Think it’ll work? Because I don’t.

The problem with Paul’s foreign policy is that it is predicated on the idea of action/reaction: the US acts and the world reacts. We started it, which is satisfying only if you are a self-loathing kindergartener. If we were to pull out of everywhere tomorrow – bring all the troops home – would we be leaving a safe world behind, or a less safe one? Would we be improving our economy by slashing military spending, or leaving a more volatile marketplace?

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

I never thought it would happen, but I’m writing a post defending a position taken by the Obama administration, namely Kathleen Sibelius – the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. It seems, even though it is perfectly safe, Sibelius doesn’t think women under the age of 16 should have access to Plan B, the “morning after” pill, without a prescription.

Cue the outraged left.

My own state senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, have joined the likes of Al Franken (Al! Franken!) in demanding Sibelius produce a scientific basis for her decision to overrule the FDA and deny teenyboppers the right to buy the pill over the counter.

OMG, because science says the pill is OK. Science!

Reading a statement issued by Sibelius herself, it seems her decision was based on the belief young, adolescent girls may lack the maturity and discernment to make appropriate decisions on the use of such drugs. That’s all. Not, “Mwahahahaha! We control your uterus now!” Just, “Hey. You’re eleven. How about you talk to a doctor first, OK?”

The left, who doesn’t believe adults can make rational decisions about what blogs to read or what political platform they support, thinks a sexually active twelve-year-old is out there, acting appropriately when deciding whether or not to become a mommy. That’s the same left who wants to control the Internet, make thought a crime and redistribute the wealth of private citizens – all because we’re just too stupid to see things clearly for ourselves.

Apparently, the message from Senate Democrats is: you don’t tell us whom to control. We tell you whom to control. Don’t forget it!

It’s astounding to me anyone buys this bull crap. Democrats champion the family? By what, subverting the rights of parents to know what their underage daughters are up to?

Here’s the thing: remember when you were 15? Yeah. See, for most of us, that’s enough. We remember. But now science is telling us everything is alright. Little Susie should be able to take a pill because Johnny forgot his condoms. It’s perfectly safe! Sadly, neither Susie nor Johnny know Johnny has syphilis and/or HIV.

Science has never once said something is “perfectly safe.” Science may say taking the Plan B pill will result in no harmful side-effects, but that’s not the same thing. This is what pisses off conservatives about how liberals use “science.” As if it were the only framework in which anything should be considered. Well, it isn’t. Science doesn’t tell you to call your Mom on Mother’s Day. It doesn’t tell you to bring your wife flowers. It doesn’t tell you taking a pill and thinking everything is alright is like sticking your head in the sand, ignoring all the other possible consequences of unprotected sex. Science also doesn’t tell you that, even though you think you’re ready for sex, you can’t even take care of the puppy we got you for Christmas last year, or keep your room clean. Know who does? Mom and Dad.

Advocates of the pill’s unrestricted distribution are claiming the White House is subverting science to avoid a political debate, and maybe that’s true. As much as I dislike Obama’s politics, he is also a father, and I can’t help but feel maybe he understands what science never can: that there is a little girl involved. Millions of little girls, potentially.

Science is, or should be, a rigorous intellectual pursuit whereby some questions on some things can be answered. It says nothing about whether God exists, or why Juggalos are the way they are (though it does tell you how magnets work.) Claiming any “unscientific” opinion is somehow anti-intellectual or unsupportable dilutes science into a jumbled pseudo-religion aimed at those for whom God has no meaning. “Unscientific” is the secular version of “unchristian.”

In the past two years, I’ve seen a push by leftists to sexualize our country’s children. We need to teach them about the mechanics of gay sex, because of tolerance. We need to take them to get abortions without telling the parents, because of feminism, or something. Yet, I’m pretty sure it won’t be Patty Murray paying the medical bills when your teenagers get sick or pregnant.

Sibelius is not saying underage girls should be denied the drug; she is merely claiming its manufacturers failed to conclusively prove that an eleven-year-old can understand the risks and responsibilities involved in its proper usage. That seems pretty reasonable to me. It’s the people gnashing their teeth and pulling out tufts of hair anytime someone suggests maybe children aren’t ready to make adult decisions that seem like the knuckle draggers.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

photo credit: brianholsclaw

You may remember a local Seattle/King County dust-up that became national news a while back when King County Metro, one of our mass transit systems, decided to allow advertisements on buses that alleged Israeli war crimes. That’s right. Buses were going to roll through the streets stating that the nation of Israel was pretty much a rogue, anti-humanitarian state. (Hint: the two people arrested for plotting to blow up a military recruiting center in Seattle weren’t Jewish.)

Needless to say, reaction to the planned advertisements was mixed, at best. The organization attempting to place the ads sued Metro and lost, proving there are at least some sane people interpreting the law in this country. But let’s get real: the reason the ads were banned wasn’t the politically whitewashed reason supplied by Metro officials: they may disrupt bus service. It was a whole bunch of angry people who found it disgusting that we live in a world where we’re not allowed to say “radical Islamic terrorism,” but we can still hate a Jew.

As a result of the bad press, Metro decided it would no longer accept non-commercial ads, or at least ads that took a political or social position.

Fast forward to this week: A local group tries to take out advertisements on Metro buses encouraging people to buy American and are refused on the basis of the above-mentioned policy. Because encouraging the support of local and national businesses – and thus our economy – is just like decrying the nation of Israel as band of war mongering hoodlums hell bent on spilling Palestinian blood.

You can already predict what happened, can’t you? People were outraged. What the hell is wrong with telling people to buy American? During one of the busiest, if not the busiest, shopping months of the year, reminding people traveling downtown (the shopping district) to spend their dollars where it might help their neighbors secure jobs hardly turned out to be the bugaboo Metro had feared. In fact, quite the opposite. The result is, of course, that Metro has reversed its decision and will now allow the ads to run (except the organization is now reconsidering as they have had offers for free advertising from people who work with smarter organizations than Metro.)

Metro, in its haste to not offend anyone, has offended everyone. Why? Because they’re too damned stupid to apply common sense to their optics-based advertisement decisions.

If Metro were to stick to the letter of its own policy there would be: No Planned Parenthood ads allowed (abortion is obviously a huge social and political issue, and Planned Parenthood is at the center of it), no Seattle Pride ads (gay rights? Yeah. Nothing social or political about that.) No Black History Month advertisements. No … well, you get the picture.

Now, I’m pro-life and think the gay rights movement has been co-opted by a political party who couldn’t give a damn about gay people (or individual liberty for that matter), but I’m not going to throw a fit because Planned Parenthood or the Greater Seattle Business Association takes out advertising space. It’s called America; they can do that. And this is where Metro drives completely off the road. There is a simple way Metro could satisfy government mandated equal opportunity or discrimination laws and still play “fair.” Rather than barring any ad aimed at a social or political topic, why not ban any ad that promotes hatred against any group or person? See where I’m going there?

I call this approach common sense, which makes it a realm completely foreign to local government officials.

Like it or not, government entities are bound by a certain amount of political correctness. The same people who sued Metro for refusing anti-Israel advertising would be suing Metro if there were anti-Palestine advertising. Metro operates at a huge loss as is; they can’t afford expensive legal battles. But neither can they afford to regularly and publicly remove the egg from their faces. In trying to avoid playing politics, Metro is playing politics, and in the worst way.

In adopting a policy that allows only advertisements promoting something, rather than advertisements hating something, Metro would draw a clear line that would allow an expansion of speech, rather than these clumsy efforts to decide on a case by case basis what the people will find acceptable and getting it wrong.

Metro already restricts advertisements regarding alcohol, tobacco, pornography and images that may harm the public. If the choice has been made – and clearly it has – to further restrict advertising, I encourage Metro to do so responsibly by allowing groups to promote themselves, rather than detract from others. Potential advertisers may be thus encouraged to do business with Metro, bringing in important revenue for the failing transportation system, rather than take their business elsewhere. Or, they can continue to alienate potential customers who don’t want to be the subject of Metro’s next national outrage.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Anne McCaffrey at a book signing. Photo by Anna Creech, taken from Wikimedia Commons

Sad news for the world of speculative fiction writers and fans today. Ann McCaffrey passed away at age 85.

Most people remember her for the Pern series, and with good reason, but I remember her for an encounter at NorWesCon in … oh … 1986 or 1987? Ms. McCaffrey was one of the guests at the con, my first, and as I wandered the halls of the SeaTac Red Lion, unsure how to spend the boring daylight hours (all the fun at cons happens at the parties), I spotted McCaffrey’s name on the program. Having been fond of the Pern books in middle and high schools, I decided to go.

You need to understand something about the 19-year-old me to appreciate this story: I was miserable. At 17, I was a preppy Jesus freak with a bright future. By 19, I was a disenfranchised goth kiddy who hated everything and everybody. My clothes were entirely black, my hair was dyed black. I had black fingernails. As one friend put it, “Mr. Batcave Bellingham – Emperor of Doom.”

I arrived at the convention room a bit early. It was small, narrow, packed with banquet tables. It looked distressingly like a public high school classroom. I picked a seat toward the back and adopted the appropriate scowl and slouch. “Fine, I’m here. But I’m not going to like it.” Around me, typical science fiction nerds populated the rest of the room over the course of about 10 minutes. Then, a frumpy, gray-haired lady wearing a flannel shirt and mom jeans entered.

Did I say gray hair? Well, it was, but McCaffrey had put broad streaks of pink on one side, green on the other. Mine had been touched up with a dash of purple; a nod to the inevitably fun atmosphere of a weekend getaway with geeks.

I’m not sure what I expected a prominent science fiction writer to look like, but it sure wasn’t her. I guess I thought she’d be stately and mysterious. She would say complex things about art and life, and we would all nod thoughtfully, pretending we understood. Instead, think Ma Kettle gets a book deal.

McCaffrey was an extremely friendly woman. She engaged the crowd immediately. I sat there, like a bit of coal in someone’s Christmas stocking, trying my best not to crack a smile (thus ruining the deathly pall provided by Clown White. The things olive-skinned goths have to do…) I lost. I can’t remember what she said, but I about fell out of my chair laughing. Without skipping a beat, McCaffrey pointed right at me and said, “Gotcha!” Everyone giggled, but along with me, not at me.

My con experience was greatly enhanced by McCaffrey’s ability to draw me out and make me realize how stupid it was to spend money to have a good time, meanwhile being determined not to have one. I started to see people in a new light. Rather than being the ghost wandering the halls, I wandered into parties. Rather than walking the other way when I encountered a group of convention-goers in the hall, I engaged.

I can’t remember if it was the same afternoon or the next day, but I was riding the elevator back to my floor when the car stopped and the doors opened. Anne McCaffrey stepped in and we exchanged a friendly smile of recognition. “I love your hair,” she said, reaching up to touch it. She was not a big woman, and I think I mentioned my appearance wasn’t friendly or inviting. She just didn’t care. She was the honey badger of getting to know people.

During the brief elevator ride, we talked about hair dying techniques and just being individuals. It’s amazing what you can learn in 3 minutes.

That’s it. I never met Ms. McCaffrey again. I don’t think I even read another one of her books (I’d read most of the Pern series by then.) But that moment stayed with me forever. Not because McCaffrey was a somebody in a field of somebodies I admired, but because she didn’t act like one. She wasn’t “Anne McCaffrey – celebrated writer.” She was simply Anne McCaffrey, a decent person who enjoyed life.

RIP

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

photo credit: Fibonacci Blue

In Hennepin County, government officials became so annoyed with protestors occupying a downtown plaza that they enacted new rules banning tents, electricity and marking up the pavement with chalk. “Argh argh argh mumble argh,” cried the protestors, which the ACLU of Minnesota translated into: Hey! You can’t enact rules just, you know, out of the blue. Naturally, the ACLU is now suing Hennepin County and also demanding the county provide protesters with … free electricity.

I think I must have missed the “angry people don’t have to pay utility bills” in my no-doubt lackadaisical skimming of the Constitution.

“The rules put forth by Hennepin County are particularly troubling because they were created as a direct response to OccupyMPLS,” said Justin Perl, a partner at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, representing the protesters. “They are not based on any previous ordinances. The Constitution does not allow the government to just make up new rules as you go along in order to target a particular group.”

Well, that’s nifty. In Washington State, a man died after having unnatural relations with a horse. Washington State reacted, creating new laws prohibiting bestiality. People laughed. “LOLWUT? Bestiality wasn’t illegal before?” Well, no. We all assumed “don’t have sex with animals” was sort of a given. Until it wasn’t. Legislate nothing until it becomes necessary to do so for the public’s interest seems to be good practice, not bad. When a bunch people start camping out downtown, breaking into foreclosed homes, disturbing the peace and causing health and safety concerns, a duly elected government of the people has to weigh the rights of other citizens against those of the protesters.

It’s public property, not protester property.

But the ACLU is completely disingenuous when it claims this law is just “made up.” There are all sorts of restrictions on public land use. Again, these restrictions are to balance the rights of all citizens, not to advance the interest of one particularly smelly subset.

In Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the National Park Service to prevent people from sleeping overnight in public spaces even after granting permits for “symbolic tent cities,” concluding that there is “substantial government interest, unrelated to suppression of expression, in conserving park property that is served by the proscription of sleeping.”

While the Hennepin County government may be establishing new rules, they are hardly rules without precedent. Where did I, a lowly blogger without a law degree, find the case to which I just linked? On an ACLU website that talks about the right to assemble, along with legitimate rules curtailing protests when they interfere with the rights of other citizens. (It should be noted that ACLU Minnesota and ACLU Washington are two separate offices, obviously.)

And, in demanding the city of Minneapolis provide free electricity for the Occupy movement, isn’t the ACLU trying to create new laws, in effect formalizing an expansion of freedom of speech and assembly to encompass “free to take anything we want from the people as long as we attach a cause to it?”

I wonder if I could make a similar argument. You can’t charge me rent! I’m occupying my apartment, because of trans fats and fluoride in the water. You can’t demand I put on pants in public! I’m protesting the two-leg-ism of the garment industry. Oh, that’s your BMW, Mr. Mayor? Not so fast. People wagon, if you please. Now, kindly hand me the keys. Is the tank filled? No? Oh, ACLU!!!!!

I wonder several things about Occupy Minneapolis. Do they have a land use permit granting them unrestricted access to the plaza? Are they serving food (with a health permit)? How long can one stay in one place before it becomes a residence? Is the plaza zoned residential? How is human waste disposed? Do they have permits for port-a-potties, if there are any? What are the costs associated with the occupation and who is paying that bill? If the county is supposed to pay to haul away the trash, the feces and provide security for the area, don’t they have an obligation to the actual taxpayers to see that the expenditures are reasonable?

Freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably are extremely important, but they don’t exist in a vacuum. There are other rights, and the old adage that maintains “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose” must apply. If the protesters occupying the plaza in Hennepin County are infringing on the rights of others, then appropriate ordinances to return a balance not only could be enacted, but should be.

Meanwhile, I’ve read reports that the cost of the Occupy movement to the taxpayer is now hovering around $12 Million. I wonder how many cuts to government programs that feed the poor and shelter the homeless will be made to facilitate people protesting the government’s lack of concern for the poor and homeless.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Day of Rage Protest in Seattle - September 17, 2011 - Photo by Chris Barnhart

I rarely go over to Google+ these days. Sure, it was fun while it lasted. Breaking away from the social networking megaliths of Twitter and Facebook, we brave G+ pioneers thought we were on the front of the Next Big Thing. Then, two weeks later: Hey! Where did everybody go. Oh, back to Twitter and Facebook. Gotcha.

It’s serendipitous, then, that the only conversation I’ve had where I engaged and was engaged by, proponents of the Occupy Movement took place on G+. Occupy will, I suspect, suffer the same sort of fate.

“We’re starting a revolution, everybody! Quick, to the bat tent.”

“Rah Rah Marx! Rah Rah Engels! Rah Rah… Hey, I’m cold.”

What I learned in the brief exchange with the Occupy people is that critical thought is not their friend. This was personified by one woman who sneeringly told a man of Indian descent that he didn’t have the proper point of view when it came to … Gandhi. She punctuated the thought by ending the sentence with his first name. “Why not call him ‘Uncle Sanjay’ while you’re at it?” I wondered.

The same woman told me I should learn how to think. When I rebutted her comment, using the same exact sentence in closing, but directed at her, I was called “condescending.” Which, I guess, is true, because I certainly think I’m smarter than she is. She maintains the occupy movement is activism for the people, which seems to be what the Occupy folks are touting. Yet most of the people I’ve encountered, even in the liberal enclave of Capitol Hill in Seattle – where Occupy Seattle camps out – don’t feel represented by the protestors. Most of us are growing increasingly annoyed.

The same woman said much of the Occupy movement is made up of former Tea Party members who left the Constitutionally-minded group to side with big labor unions and communist sympathizers because the former was co-opted by “the militant arm of the GOP.” All this while defending the illegal occupation of public spaces, the illegal blockade of public access to roads and bridges. “We’re happy to break the law for our beliefs, and fully prepared to go to jail for it,” she said, using slightly different words. “Apparently, you guys think only getting permits and playing by the rules should be allowed.” Or something.

So, we’re militant radicals who play by the rules, and they are heady idealists who cry for jobs while preventing people from being able to get to them?

Another guy kept blathering about how sit-ins were “protected free speech,” going so far as to link to a Wikipedia (I know) page where there were plenty examples of sit-ins not being protected free speech. “They don’t arrest you for sitting in, because that’s protected. Instead, they make up charges … like trespassing.”

Yes. Sitting in at a diner or a federal building or, in some cases, even a park is trespassing. That’s the whole point. It is not protected free speech. Whether you think the ends justify the means is another argument, but don’t pretend occupying a space and preventing others from accessing it is protected by law. That’s crazy talk.

And this is why the Occupy movement will fade away to nothingness: the seemingly sincere, yet utterly misguided, belief that they really do represent the vast majority of Americans who are just too cowed by their corporate masters to fight back. We follow the rules, stupidly getting permits to march down the street or hold rallies in parks. Really, what we should be doing is blocking traffic unannounced, defecating on the sidewalks and bravely mobbing legitimate businesses.

What the rest of us see – the real 99% – is a movement that had some sort of point at first (though a disturbingly vague one), but is now deteriorating into a group of thugs who don’t know what they want, when they want it, or how to go about getting it. Explain to me how blocking traffic creates even one job, or even brings attention to the issue. You can’t; it doesn’t.

Anytime someone criticizes Occupy, they are sneeringly derided as being trollish, rather than “trying to start a dialogue.” This, by people who interrupt everyone’s lives with mic checks, ensuring no one within a half-mile radius can make smalltalk, much less engage in serious dialogue. In Seattle, a community meeting of Occupy sympathizers was interrupted and harassed by … Occupy protestors. Building a dialogue: you’re doing it wrong.

“You’re supposed to protecting the community. We’re the community,” chanted occupiers in San Francisco when confronted by a police blockade. Yes, but so are all the people who need to get into that Bank of America to conduct business. So re all the people who need to drive along that road to get to the hospital, the school, the church, the newspaper office, etc. The Occupy movement made a big splash with the “We are the 99%” photo campaign. Disenfranchised people with haunted looks holding up signs that told personal stories of tragedy.

Personal stories. Personal anecdotes. It’s why many big cities are more socially liberal than smaller towns or rural areas. We encounter, every day, people who are different from us. There is more racial diversity, more economic diversity. We learn, on a personal level, from people with different experiences. Now, we’re learning that if Occupy doesn’t get what it wants, it will take over our roads, our parks, our access to free trade. I wonder who will start the “I was oppressed by the 99%” photo campaign: brave, haunted souls holding up signs with personal stories of losing out on a job because protestors blocked the route to the interview, mothers who were delayed getting to the sickbed of a child, because protestors blocked the route to the hospital.

We read about Occupy protests in the paper, but many of us see it up-close, too. What we actually encounter will shape our opinions much more than what any news agency reports. I have opinions on police pepper spraying protesters who refuse to clear the street (I’m for it), but I have stronger opinions on the constant reek of pot and the health hazard occurring six blocks from my home. And my hopes and fears for “serious dialogue” are marred by the fear I may be recognized from my Twitter avatar or Facebook profile photo as a non-collaborator. What rules will the brave activists at Seattle Central be willing to break to start a dialogue? Throw feces? Threaten me? Attack me?

Those stupid, oppressive rules!

I wonder what Little Miss G+ Activist would have to say if she knew I also stopped at red lights, or drove on the right side of the road. Probably just obeying my secret Koch masters, no doubt. Yet, what would the roads be like without traffic lights? Any Seattle pedestrian who has tried to cross the street at a busy four-way stop can tell you: chaos.

I, for one, am not interested in the goals of the Occupy movement. I’ve been a liberal, a socialist sympathizer, a gay rights activist, a protester (I got better). I know what the future holds: the inevitable stratification of the movement into a new hierarchy of community leaders and mere community members. Maybe people will use their victimhood as a means by which to further their own egos. Maybe they’ll use a sociology degree as street cred, or wear the badge of homelessness. But it will happen. It always happens. It’s precisely why socialism and communism can never, ever work. Because people are individuals, not cogs in a machine of any kind. A system that tries to enforce an equal outcome for all participants will soon be exploited by people who understand the rules of the game and are willing to break those rules for their own interests and advancement, their own biases and pet causes.

But some people who might be interested are starting to lose interest, because they hear no coherent message, just complaining. Because they had to spend three hours finding an alternate bus route home from their minimum wage jobs as the roads were closed by angry mobs. Because a waitress can’t get into her bank to deposit her tips and her rent check bounces. Because they see syringes on the street, or see a video of some guy crapping on the sidewalk, and suddenly they’re afraid to walk down Broadway at night.

Meanwhile, what Occupy seems to be saying – screaming, in fact – is this: We don’t care. We’re the people, not all of you.

Math: you’re doing that wrong, too.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Recent kerfuffles in politics and in American society have once again caused me to look at how various religions are perceived here in the United States. With two high-profile presidential candidates professing the Mormon faith, and with the plight of Israel played out in the media, various “Occupy” events and the United Nations (as always), I’m reminded of my own, newly regained faith, and often find myself disappointed by the way in which Jews and Mormons are portrayed or treated.

Popular anti-Mormon sentiments, even among conservatives, range from “icky cult” to “polygamists” to “ha ha ha! magic underwear.” Well, let me tell you something, folks. Y’all could learn a thing or two from the Mormons.

I was raised in a small city in the Pacific Northwest. Going up through the public school system was an education on several levels, as I struggled with my own social awkwardness, as well as a well-developed faith for someone my age. Religion had its place in our lives, and that place was on a Sunday, between 10:30-12:00, maybe 12:10 (but definitely no later, because OMG kick off!) People who took religion too seriously, or actually tried to make God a part of their daily lives, were viewed as dangerous fanatics or nuts. This applied most especially to high school students.

There was a small group of us who met in the cafeteria everyday before school to pray. It was the 80s; no one ever tried to forbid us, but we were treated as social pariahs. We were the “Jesus Freaks,” and it was completely uncool to be seen with us. Fast forward 20 years, and many of the kids who taunted us the most now regularly post about their faith on Facebook. Go figure. After I graduated, I had a serious crisis of faith and slid into an extremely secular life. That didn’t end until recently, and I’m still struggling, as we all struggle, to “fix my faith.”

The point of the back story is to get to one part: the Mormon kids. I had several close friends who were Mormon. We were all outcasts together, and we all had a very good time. We didn’t drink. We didn’t smoke. We didn’t do drugs. We didn’t fornicate. Boring, huh? Except you never would have known how boring our lives were. We hung out, went to parties, went to school social functions. We did all the things other kids do, just without enhancements. By far, the best dances were the ones put on by the LDS Church.

I usually went to these dances with one of my closest friends, Kim. We had no romantic involvement, but often went to dances together, either as each other’s date, or in a small group of friends who paired off for the evening. The first time I went to a Mormon-sponsored dance, I was nervous. I’d heard things. How Mormons would try to trap you, or ensnare you. At one Lutheran convention I attended, the speakers warned us about Mormon girls who dressed attractively to lure young non-believers into their church. They made it sound like Mormons ate babies or something! I knew Kim wasn’t like this. She was a friendly, honest person with strong convictions: faith being but one of them. She believed in being a good person, being forthright and being a good friend. But I didn’t know anyone else who would be there. Also, Kim had explained, only songs approved by the church would be played. I was into New Wave at the time, and I had a dim vision of nothing but The Osmonds and Country music.

To my great surprise, it was Men At Work playing when we entered the auditorium where the dance was being held. I believe The B-52′s and A Flock of Seagulls also got onto the playlist, but I can’t remember clearly. The point was, the dance wasn’t a bunch of misfit kids who were sexually repressed and too cowed by social conformity to spike the punch or spark up a joint. We were teenagers having a blast! There was no swearing. Young couples dances with a respectable space in between them. Yes, there were chaperones, but no one noticed. We didn’t need to. No one thought, “Gee, this would be fun if we could only slip out back, crack open a beer and make out.”

Now, all the teenagers who used to make fun of the Mormon kids are parents who wish their own children could spend some time partying LDS-style.

Over the years, I’ve always had good experiences with Mormons. Even those on mission who knocked on my front door were polite. If I told them I wasn’t interested, they accepted that and moved on. If I was willing to talk, they were as eager to listen as to proselytize. I came to view Mormons as a group of people I really liked. When I visited Utah, I was a little uneasy when visiting the tabernacle. There were lots of people in blue jackets who wanted to talk about their religion to tourists. But, again, they were all courteous and didn’t push.

Mormons have strong family values. They have respect for tradition and for the elderly, two things lacking in our society at large. While I have definitely met “ex-Mormons” who were disillusioned, the same can be said for any group of people.

I’m not trying to say Mormons are better than everyone else, just that they are good. I stopped listening to people who called Mormonism a cult ages ago. To my mind, Mormons believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized, ergo: Christians. They believe a lot of extra things I don’t, but the essentials are the same.

I didn’t really know any Jewish people until I moved to the East Coast. The Pacific Northwest is very protestant. Our city had Catholics and Jews, but they were a small minority and it just happened I didn’t know any of the latter. Upstate New York, on the other hand, was predominately Catholic and there were also lots of Jewish people.

Unlike Christians, Jews don’t proselytize. It was a bit harder to engage the Jewish people I met on matters of faith, as many of the ones I encountered were secular Jews. It took me longer to realize that many of the others who weren’t just weren’t interested in talking to strangers about their faith. From what liberal historians tell us, you’d think the Jews and the Catholics would be two groups who wouldn’t intermingle much, but nothing could be further from the truth. A friend from work, a staunch Catholic, told me her mother referred to Jews as “out of town Catholics,” which was another way of saying, “just like family” in her parlance.

The upstate New Yorkers, whether Catholic or Jewish, had again that strong sense of family that seemed to have disappeared from my hometown. It went beyond the “nuclear” family, and extended to grandparents, nieces and nephews, and cousins. In Washington State, the word “cousin” may mean something, or it may not. I remember walking into a grocery story with my grandmother as a young boy. She stopped to talk to an old man for a few minutes. They chatted, then went their separate ways. I asked her who he was and she replied, “Oh. That’s my brother.” I’d never even heard of the man before, much less met him. Things like that didn’t seem to happen in Albany. You not only knew who all your family members were, but you probably frequented their businesses, attended church together and actively took part in each other’s lives.

I think a large part of the reason Jews continued to be misunderstood is that they stick together. Many orthodox Jews live within walking distance of their synagogues for religious reasons. There are lots of rules to live by that non-Jews don’t understand, and don’t take the time to understand. And, because we don’t take the time to understand them, they are hidden to us, slowly becoming sinister.

I remember a friend explaining to me how the kosher tradition of never putting meat and dairy on the same plate comes from a passage in the Torah where God tells His people to never boil a calf in its mother’s milk (I hope I have that right. It’s been a long time since I’ve read the Old Testament. I’m working on that.) Some people see this erring on the side of caution as being silly. I see something quite different.

So many people I know pick apart the Bible looking for loopholes. “Oh, sure. It says this, but we don’t have to live by it because of this.” We look for reasons to sanction our own shortcomings. Not Jews. Jews are busy going out of their way not to piss off God, even accidentally. Even though I’m not Jewish, I love the tradition because it is one of intellectual curiosity. It places the emphasis on learning to live life according to God’s plan. I mean, the holiest day of the year for Jews is the “Day of Atonement,” where they spend time asking for forgiveness, fasting and hoping they make it into the Book of Life.

I’m constantly amazed at a societal bias that claims Jews are at once misguided and lost, and yet secretly control everything. Every time I hear someone say, “Because of the Jews,” what I hear is: We’ve been trying to get rid of these people for centuries and they’re still here. We’re supposed to tolerate Islamic radicalization, because hey! it’s all one God, right? And yet we should distrust banks because of the secret Jewish conspiracy. Um, no.

I think it’s important to remember that religion does not equal God; He doesn’t need it. Religion is for people who want to become closer to God, and choose to do so by coming together in a shared tradition. Jews and Mormons believe some things I don’t, and I believe some things they don’t. Mostly, we share things in common: a faith in God, an urge to do better in our own lives and a belief that a Constitutionally strong United States provides the best foundation for people to do that, for all Americans. We support Israel not because it is easy, but because it is right. (HINT: We’ve all heard about how Palestinians are treated when they cross the border into Israel. Ever wonder what happens to Jews going the other direction?)

Jews and Mormons share commonalities. Both are small minorities in our larger society who prosper because they have a strong sense of commitment to their faith, their families and their communities. Maybe it’s time we stop trying to cast aspersions on them, or claim their success indicates some sinister plot, and start asking questions. Questions like: how do they do it? There are successful Americans of all creeds and persuasions, but if I were coming to faith for the first time, without a background rooted in my own tradition, I know where I’d start looking for answers.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

As an alumnus of Seattle Central Community College, allow me to voice concern over your most recent move: allowing the Occupy Seattle tent city to occupy the only green spot on campus, that just South of the main building and adjacent to what at least used to be the playground for young children in daycare.

In a letter from the college’s president, Paul Killpatrick, dated November 1 of this year, we are assured of the “legal ambiguity” which allows Occupy Seattle to live on school property, as long as they are exercising their first amendment rights. This is utter bullshit perpetrated on the student body by a school that has long been the nexus of Marxism and violent protest in the Seattle area. Over the years, I have seen military recruiters actually threatened with physical violence, and I myself was threatened with physical violence in 2005, when I attended Seattle Central preparing to transfer to a saner school. When I brought a complaint to the faculty, I was literally called a liar by both Lexi Evans and the Dean of Student, who also called me a racist because I am white and the faculty member was black.

I was routinely harassed by anti-war protesters, who were repeatedly allowed to march through the halls of the school, disrupting the classes for which I had paid. I was subjected to lectures with an antisemitic bent, claiming Palestine was just its war, while Israel was an evil nation of murderers and thieves. My English 102 lecture was interrupted by students who had scheduled with the teacher to give a proselytizing speech on Islam, where no dissent, criticism or comment was allowed.

I never once attended a non-science and math lecture that didn’t push a socialist agenda, and actively grade against people who were proud of their country, or supported a more traditional set of American beliefs. So to claim you, as an institution, are interested in free speech is a lie. You stifle it on a daily basis. Only one political point of view is allowed.

I was routinely harassed by other student, with the full permission of the teacher, when dissenting from any point of view that championed socialism, Communism or anarchy. I was thrown against the wall by a deaf sign language teacher, then told it was my fault because he was disabled. Much of the janitorial staff are registered sex offenders, despite the fact that Seattle Central has a daycare, not to mentions enrolls underage high school students looking to get a head start on college classes.

Meanwhile, Seattle Central is happy to accept money from “greedy” corporations and banks when it seeks to improve its math and science building, for instance.

And now, the administration of Seattle Central has the gall to claim the Occupy Seattle movement is wholly supported, even though anyone who has attended SCCC knows that a cesspool of anti-American/anti-Capitalist propaganda it has always been. You claim these people will follow the “Good Neighbor Policy,” knowing full well they caused a scene at a local bank and a hotel, necessitating a response from the Seattle Police in riot gear.

You are an embarrassment to my community, my city, my state and this country. I encourage all government agencies to withdraw scholarships for SCCC students. I encourage all corporations who donate to Seattle Central to stop immediately and never do so again. And I encourage all levels of the US government to take a good hard look at how are tax dollars are being spent: not on critical thought and academic excellence, but on promoting one social theory – that which says the US is evil and must be destroyed.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

I’m not disillusioned. I’m not having second thoughts about my beliefs. I’m no less interested in the topics. I just feel a need to reconnect on a more satisfying level with my first love, which is writing, not politics.

Despite the fact I have a dismal track record when it comes to writing fiction, I’ve decided to partake in this year’s National Novel Writing Month. Given it’s only 30 days, I’m getting something of a late start. But, I have ideas. I have a plot outline. I spent the last two days deciding if this is something I really want to undertake, and the answer was a resounding yes.

With campaigns heating up, scandals breaking almost daily, and a host of Occupy BS occurring, this may not be the best time to break from blogging. I’ve learned, however, that politics is happening all the time. Protests are happening all the time. I’m afraid that, should I let my annoyance with the current social and political climate overwhelm me, the passion I have for writing will be sucked out of me, leaving me an empty shell who feels like writing about … nothing.

In short: don’t expect to see much in the way of updates from me in November. Unless, of course, I procrastinate on my attempt at a novel by blogging instead. That’s possible, but not likely.

I hope to return in December with a flurry of new posts, and opinion guaranteed to drive my liberal friends insane.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.

Years passed in which I didn’t think about the game at all. After moving to Seattle in the mid-80′s, I became peripherally involved with the local science fiction and fantasy fans, and started going to conventions. I’m not much of a joiner, nor am I happy among large groups of people, but cons can be a lot of fun. It’s sort of like Twitter, but in real life: you meet people you normally wouldn’t have a chance to, have interesting side discussions and avoid the “V” fans.

At any rate, wandering the halls of the con hotel late at night, I noticed groups of people gathered here and there, squatting on the floor playing Dungeons and Dragons, or variants thereof. I was intrigued, but it also seemed extremely anal retentive, and people often stopped the game for hours on end to fight about the most annoying minutiae (so, exactly like Twitter, really.)

I mentioned the stupidity of the fighting to a good friend as a reason I wouldn’t be caught dead playing role playing games in a hotel lobby at 3 AM, and she agreed that people who took the game too seriously were nuts and ruined it for everyone else, but also encouraged me to start playing with her.

By that time, D&D had evolved into Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition. My friend, by way of getting me up and running, loaned me her manuals and helped me create a character. From the very first roll of the twenty-sided die, I was hooked!

I won’t go into a detailed explanation of the games rules. As I’ve just stated, there are manuals for that. Suffice it to say, Dungeons & Dragons is the grandaddy of role playing games, being to the modern ones what Tolkien is to all fantasy novels that came since. It is, in short, an attempt to make it possible for someone to play a character in a fantasy-like setting. You want to be Frodo Baggins taking the ring to Mordor? I’m sure there’s a module for that.

It is also a game heavy in numbers and statistics. The creators, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson (sadly, both RIP), clearly wanted to make the fantasy as realistic as possible. Therefore, you can loot that chest in the dungeon filled with kobolds, but do you have enough space in your saddlebags to carry all the treasure? Are you strong enough to wield that magical sword you just found? Want to be a wizard? Fine. Have you considered everything that goes into casting a “magical” spell? It’s not just the flick of the wand and a Latin-based word (sorry, Harry.) You need to concentrate. You probably need some sort of physical components (like a special type of powder or a bit of wood.) Do you have all of that with you? Did you remember to get it ready? Watch out! There’s a trapped door. Were you expecting it? Or did you spring the trap and suffer damage?

When you create a D&D character, you get to choose some base traits, then roll the dice to see how well your character will fare. Like life, the dreams you have for your character might not be best suited to your abilities. You may want to be a burly dwarven fighter who kicks ass and takes names, but if your basic strength is that of the typical flower girl, you won’t last long.

As your character progresses through various adventures, he grows stronger. He gains experience and becomes more proficient at his craft.  A wizard becomes better at casting magic, and learns more complicated spells. A thief becomes sneakier, and better at noticing and disarming traps.

There are statistics for all of this (lots of them), some tracked by the player himself, and others by the Dungeon Master, who orchestrates and oversees game play.

Like life, there are crossroads reached by a player’s character when tough choices are called for. Choices that will shape the character’s future, but not always in readily apparent ways. Say you’re playing a wizard, and you’ve chosen to have that wizard specialize in fire magic. Which is great against kobolds and orcs. Then, suddenly, you’re adventuring inside a mountain that turns out to be a volcano. Monsters that inhabit lava beds are probably going to laugh at fireballs.

What I’m trying to get at in my typically circuitous, rambling fashion, is that D&D is escapism, it’s true. But it’s escaping from one reality into another, and the rules are there to anchor players to a system where one’s wit and “street smarts” pay off. The game is all about preparedness, experience and thinking on one’s feet. Sure, there are dragons, treasure chests and magic swords, but sometimes there are miles of bad road between here and there, and success isn’t guaranteed.

It’s kind of sad D&D has a reputation for being played solely by fat, sweaty, middle-aged men who can’t get girls to kiss them. And I say this as a fluffy, slightly moist man of some years who lives alone with his cat. But the truth is, for people who are reality-challenged, framing life within a D&D-like framework has some serious advantages.

Life is a series of adventures, and we progress through each one, gaining experience from what has gone before. We make choices that open up opportunities in one direction, while shutting them down in others. Sometimes, you round the corner to find a treasure chest. Other times, a dragon. We don’t always get to choose what experiences come our way, in game play or in life. But we do get to choose how we deal with them.

Earlier, I compared D&D to Tolkien, but there is a very important difference. Every young readers knows Frodo will succeed in getting the ring to Mordor and destroying it. Sure, when the Nazgul enter the shire, it’s scary. But there are 900 more pages!

Dungeons and Dragons, on the other hand, is decidedly unfair, which is what makes it so very fun. Everyone who plays dreams of building a nearly omnipotent character capable of shaking the very pillars of earth (or Middle Earth, at least.) But if it was easy – if anyone could do it- where would the joy be in accomplishing the feat? No, there’s a decidedly non-zero chance your character will wind up as an oily smear in a long forgotten cave somewhere, and you’ll have to start again.

So it’s amusing to me when people who have invested time, thought and effort into D&D, where diligence and hard work pay off, seem to think that life should come with a guarantee of success. That grown men who remembered to bring along wooden swords on the off chance they’ll encounter steel eating ooze monsters don’t seem to think they should consider what might happen if they don’t pay their electricity bills, or start a savings account.

I lost touch with my friend who introduced me to the joys of D&D for well over a decade. But I have to conclude it’s no coincidence that, years later, she wound up a staunch conservative. Indeed, she and her husband are the ones who introduced me to Fox News, Red Eye and, thus, my own conservatism. It’s no surprise to me that so many speculative fiction fans label themselves as conservative. Or, more usually, libertarian. Liberalism doesn’t even work in the land of make believe! How anyone expects it to succeed in real life is beyond me.

Read the original post at Chris Is RIGHT.