Civil Disobedience?

No, not really.

I was looking at some of my blogs numbers, to try and find where my recent uptick in readership was coming from, and I noticed something interesting:

4/8/2015 to 4/15/2015

Apparently, behind the United States, I'm getting the next highest number of page-views from RUSSIA.  

Now, in light of their "Law" prohibiting "pro-Gay" or "Homosexual Propaganda," and in consideration of the many pro-Gay Rights and LGBT+ positive posts I've made over the years, it would appear that I'm helping people break that particular law, or am breaking it myself. (Yeah, I know: Assuming they can even SEE all of my blog, and the State isn't managing to block it.)

All the same, that really amuses me.  It pleases me greatly that I might be playing some nanoscopic role in helping people thumb their nose at Vladimir Putin and his absurd little scum-puddle of a censorship law. I certainly hope so, anyway!

So, in short, if you or your comrades are reading this: Fuck you, Putin! 

:P

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

Reblogged from HuffPo, because SOME PEOPLE (*a-hem* william) don't seem to know the difference.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Home again, DADT

Did you hear? It turns out even the troops don't support "Don't ask don't tell!"

This country is so absurd.  DADT costs us a fortune in recruiting, undermines our National security (in the same way: it eliminates qualified people) and isn't even supported by the very troops who's morale it's repeal is supposed to undermine.  This is a policy that exsists for no other other reason than to pander to the funny mentalists.  And it's high time the whack-jobs were kicked to the curb. As far as I'm concerned, they don't even deserve a seat at the table, they should not even be allowed into this debate or any other, because they don't possess even an elementary understanding of the Constitution and how our laws our SUPPOSED to be made.  Their opinions on matters of law have no validity and their differences are in no way legitimate.

Speaking of people who's differences are far from legitimate and who's opinions deserve nothing more that the most rank derision, check out the view from our hotel room when we were visiting my Brother-in -Law in Lynchburg...



Yes folks, we slept in the shadow of the late Reverend Jerry Falwelll's Orwellianly-named LIBERTY UNIVERSITY; truly one of the greatest temples of ignorance ever constructed by mankind.

(Young earth creationism is another viewpoint that deserves nothing but scorn, and whose proponents have no place in any debate either, as they do not possess even an elementary knowledge of how science works or how knowledge is created.)

God, I hate that place.

BUT... It's good to be back.  Hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Symbols... for the symbolminded?

I’m not really all that big on SYMBOLS. I’m not a religious man, as you know, so there’s no symbol I really see as sacred. Even FLAG BURNING is hard for me to get all that worked up about. Some are cool, and some are important, but the whole idea that there are man-made symbols that are so pure (or so evil, such as the swastika) that they simply cannot be disrespected (or used) in any way shape or form…? That to me is completely irrational. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say it is this very irrationality that gives these symbols their power. If people weren’t so wound up about the Swasticka? Far fewer people would ever use them. (And those that still would, obviously, have their own problems.) Same goes for flag burning – if we weren’t so worked about it, most people wouldn’t bother DOING it. (And again… those that would have their own problems.) But these things are being done specifically because it pisses ordinary people off! And OK, it riles up the real crazies as well - nazi's terroists - but you can't do much about THAT anyway and it's hardly a reason to play ball.  The very fact that we would even TALK about banning it as a form of Constitutional protection is evidence of the kind of irrational thinking, is exactly what GIVES the act it power!

Now, as I said, I don’t think that way. Shwasticka wearers, flag burners… I’m inclined to just shake my head and get on with my life. They're morons, biggots, idiots... that's fine, I'll have all the same problems with the PEOPLE that I would have anyway, but... the symbols themselves just aren’t all that important to me. Just makes it easy to identify the ignorant, I always say. (Though I still appreciate the symbolism of that Taliban motherfucker who tried to burn the American Flag and ended up lighting himself on fire in the process! LOL. I’m not completely heartless (or without a sense of humor) you know!)

But, in any case, for better of worse symbols are powerful. You can’t argue that. And with that in mind, I think it’s high time that LIBERALS pick a new symbol. The Jackass? Yeah… way too easy to work into jokes.  Fine for the Democrats. At this point they've got it coming anyway.  But LIBERALS need something to differentiate themselves from DEMOCRATS and to dispel this absurd myth the Right keeps yappign about how the LEFT who hates their country.  (Actually, it's the RIGHT that hate their country. But that's neither here there there right now.)

And if you're down with what I’m getting at, you'll realize that the symbol of Conservatives is NOT the Elephant. THAT'S the symbol for Republicans.  CONSERVATIVES have coopted adopted another one: The BALD EAGLE. Think about it. Now, I realize that the Bald Eagle is actully an AMERICAN Symbol, fine.  But if you see one at the top of a website? You pretty much KNOW it’s a Right Wing site, correct? Seriously. Almost every one I've ever seen! (And yet NEVER of a Liberal'ssite.) They LOVE that symbol! And whenever they are trying to make a SERIOUS symbolic point, they never use the Elephant. They use the BALD EAGLE.

And really? It’s perfect for them. Predetory. Thieving. A species that’s been around for thousands of years, but almost went extinct before 1980. It’s a good fit. And they’ve pretty much monopoliozed it, so there’s really no point in trying to get it back.  (And I don't really want it anyway.  I see no way in which it represents Liberalism.)

So let’s play their game for a moment. Think of another symbol that’s undeniabley American, completely patriotic, bordering even on sacred, that the Liberals could adopt that would be a good fit with our movement, show our patriotism, be unassaible from a “pro-american” point of view and also be something that the Republicans and Conservtaioves wouldn’t even really want to try and take back from us (even is they wouldn’t dream of denigrating it.) I’ve been thinking about that, and I think I have the answer:

The Statue of Liberty.

Now… there is a LITTLE BIT of tongue-in-cheek here, but in even in all seriousness, it really is pretty much a perfect fit.

The statue is of a woman. A POWERFUL woman. This shows our commitment to gender equality and feminism. (Palin, Bachman, Angle & company, along with Steele only show the Right’s commitment to tokenism. Well... And that precious few women of any real talent would (or should) be Conservative.)

She welcomed immigrants to this country.  And let's face it, the people who are trying to kick out the Mexicans and build a 50 foot high electric fence, topped iwth barbed wire and patrolled by rabid pitbulls to KEEP them out sure as hell aren't Liberals

Think of her most famous inscription: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. (Thanks Erin, I hadn't realized how apt that was until I read your strip.)  The Right certainly has no claim to the poor. OK… they have their VOTE at the moment, at least the WHITE poor, but that comes down to MAKRTETING, not any real policy or empathy. And really, more and more, the Republican Party has nothing at all to offer to anyone “yearning to breathe free.” Sure they TALK a good game, but it’s all down to marketing. No Abortion. No Gay Marriage. No Sex. No Drugs. No free exchange of information. No Health Care. No free speech. No freedom from discrimination. No freedom from religion, despite a constitutional mandate for it. The list goes on and on.

The only freedoms the Right stands for are for Corporations to be free from any Government regulation, the Rich to be free of any taxation and for the Church to oppress all those who disagree with them, and proselytize without moderation, from a postion of legal authority. (Again, despite a Constitutional mandate that this NOT HAPPEN.) They only want any real freedom for those whose power is so great that they can pretty much do as they wish anyway. If there was every a party that stood up for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” it has been the Democrats for the past 75 to 100 years. (And the Progressive Republicans, but let’s face it: those guys have been the victims of systematic political genocide over the past three decades.)

She bears a torch. That's another powerfully apt symbol.  When a Liberal bears a torch, it is symbolic of a beacon, meant to lead people out of darkness. And if the Right tried to co-opt THAT, the obvious joke is that they needed to get a torch because they’re going BACK INTO the darkness.

She was a gift from another country, which represents the sprit of international diplomacy and peace.
Finally, along those same lines… she’s French. So even if this Liberal branding was wildly successful, they’d have to get over their Francophobia before they could seriously try to reclaim it.

LOL (I said some of it was tongue-in cheeck, didn't I?) But still.

Finally, think of the organizations that have already worked her into their logos: The ACLU comes to mind.

One final thought… The obvious political cartoon of the future might have a Bald Eagle shitting on the Statue of Liberty. Now I’d have no doubt that even after all the tears they shed over burnt flags, they’d have no problem joking about the desecration of an American Symbol that represented the Left. Hypocrisy thy name is Republicans, after all. But the cartoon would backfire somewhat because of the perhaps unintentional symbolism there in: First, that the Republicans aren’t really capable of doing anything except shitting all over everything. That’s pretty much where they are as a party. It’s working for them, but still… THAT’S REALLY ALL THEY’RE DOING, right? Second, that, try as they might, all the RW Eagle-Shit in the world cannot move, bury, or destroy the statue. And no amount of RW shit-slinging will dissuade us from our path. Because the path of Liberalism is right. The path of Progressivism is GOOD. And for ME, there is no greater, more apt symbol of the kind of freedom that is represented by what is so derisively referred to by these RW hypocrites as “the Left.” THAT is the only REAL freedom. The only freedom that REALLY allows all human beings the rights that were promised them. And for my part, I would rather allow a million people to make (what I may believe to be) bad decisions affecting only themselves, than to stand in the way of even a single person’s pursuit of happiness. THAT is freedom. And THAT is what I see in this Iconic, Patriotic, All-American Symbol.

Now… if only I ever saw any evidence of that in AMERICA.

THIS is Liberalism.

And we should stake our claim to this, the same way the Right did with the Bald Eagle.  If you're with me, make sure to add a picture of Lady Liberty to you blog or website, assuming you don't have her on there yet.  Not because we need to get all weepy over symbols like they do... Just because it'll PISS THEM OFF.  (And do so while representing our values in many way.)

Civics for Dummies (or: The Constitution for Conservatives)

You’ve got to give credit where it’s due: Conservative TALK a really good game when it comes the Constitution. Unfortunately between their talk of “Liberal Activist Judges” and “restoring the congress to their Constitutional limitations” their blind ignorance and/or blatant hypocrisy because self-apparent when one considers the propensity of the Roberts Court to completely ignore precedent whenever it suits them, the way the Bush Administration rode rough shod over almost every part of the Bill of Rights, and John Boehner’s latest pet project to reform, amend or repeal the 14th amendment. This after the Bush administration wanted the AMMEND the Constitution to ban gay marriage, thus stifling any possibly of common sense winning out in court. (As it has just thhis past week in California.) In any case, one thing that’s become abundantly clear to is that there is nothing CONSERVATIVE about the Conservatives any more. Altering the Constitution is, by definition, inherently a RADICAL ACT. Particularly to do so in a way that effects a Legal AGENDA, rather than in a way that merely describes how laws are made.

Now… I’ve READ the Constitution. And I’m always struck by just how inherently LIBERAL a document it really is, even today; let alone almost 250 years ago when it was intended to replace a Monarchy that still held executive power. So whenever these Right Wingers talk about how “Liberals hate the country” or how “Liberals are destroying the Constitution” I’m reminded that it’s probably a good idea for more people to know what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAYS. Because it has become increasingly clear that the Conservatives apparently think it says something else. So I thought I’d go through each one of the 27 amendments (yes, JUST the ammendments) and compare what is actually says, to what it would NEED TO SAY in order for almost any part of the Republican, Right-Wing, “Conservative” agenda to appear Constitutional.

Now… This IS a bit long, but I recommend you read it anyway. And no, not just because I took the time to write it! LOL. Rather, because I think it is critically important that every American understands their rights, understands the actual limitations put on our Government, and to see first hand what the “Conservative Paradise” would actually look like in contrast. Because we’re going there. This piece is tongue-in-cheek, but it remains my sole, critical voting issue. So it’s one that I am deadly serious about.


Actual First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Conservative First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion other than Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity; or abridging the freedom of corporate speech, or of the conservative press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, heavily armed, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Actual Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Conservative Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be regulated in any way whatsoever, at all.


Actual Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Conservative Third Amendment:

Support the troops!


Actual Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Conservative Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless said persons have been accused of being under suspicion of something, in which case, their conversations and electronic correspondence can be intercepted and read with impunity by agents of the executive branch.


Actual Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Conservative Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger, unless they are accused of a crime related to terrorism; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, unless they are a terrorist and will be set free; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, unless they might know something about terrorism; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Actual Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Conservative Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense, unless the defendant has been accused of a crime related to terrorism. In such a case, all provisions of this ammendment are forfeit to the state.


Actual Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative Seventh Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law, unless these original findings of fact were in contradiction with the State’s established Christian beliefs.


Actual Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

Conservative Eighth Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted, except in cases related to terrorism.


Actual Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, except as required by a strictly literal interpretation of the King James Bible.


Actual Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Conservative Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, provided the State agrees with the teachings of the Christian Church or to the people who would otherwise support our Christian values.


Actual Eleventh Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Conservative Eleventh Amendment:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State, unless the judge rules in a way that goes against our Conservative Christian values.


Actual Twelfth Amendment:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[1]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States

Conservative Twelfth Amendment:

If the vote is anywhere near in doubt, the Supreme Court has the authority to decide the election.


Actual Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Conservative Thirteenth Amendment:

Slavery and involuntary servitude, including as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Actual Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void

Conservative Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, unless they are the offspring off one or more illegal immigrants. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law, unless they are illegal or accused of terrorism related crimes.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Immigrants and Liberals. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in an effort to challenge the established, conservative dogma, or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies of the Conservative agenda. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability, assuming the reformed Liberal now accepts Jesus as their savior..

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned when the Republicans control the Congress, or a Republican is the President. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of a Liberal Cause or rebellion against the Conservative position, or any claim of fair compensation for a honest day’s work; but all such debts, obligations on the parts of Corporations and claims brought against said Corporations shall be held illegal and void.


Actual Fifteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Conservative Fifteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote may be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Supreme Court shall have power to decide any election in which a recount may otherwise be required, or challenges based on disenfranchisement are made.


Actual Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Conservative Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have very limited power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, and the proportion collected from any person must never increase under any circumstances.


Actual Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Conservative Seventeenth Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, unless a Republican has lost by a close margin, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive there of to make temporary appointments if he is a Republican, or allow the people fill the vacancies by election if he is a Democrat.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution, unless we can come up with a reason to get rid of the lousy Democrats.

(Cheap shot alert! OK, before anyone points it out to me, YES, I am fully aware that the Democratic State Legslature in Massachesstets basically did EXACTLY waht I descibed in the 2nd paragraph. I did consider leaving it as it was, but I changed my mind. Sue me.) ;P

Actual Eighteenth Amendment:

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Conservative Eighteenth Amendment:

[SELECT ALL], [COPY], [PASTE]… Hey, don’t forget: Conservatives WROTE the Eighteenth Amendment!


Actual Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Conservative Nineteenth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Only race, sexuality and being economically underprivileged are valid reasons to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote.


Actual Twentieth Amendment:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Conservative Twentieth Amendment:

The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, but the responsibility for any problems facing this country become the incoming President’s, effective upon his election on the send Thursday in November. The terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin, excepting any Democrats whose terms can be held up in court battles.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day, however under no circumstances can we allow any part of Democratic legislation to EVER come to a vote!

[Remainder unchanged.]


Actual Twenty-First Amendment:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed:

[The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.]


Conservative Twenty-First Amendment:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby extended to included all recreation intoxicants as well as gay marriage.

However, the transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby allowed once again.


Actual Twenty-Second Amendment:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Conservative Twenty-Second Amendment:

No Democrat shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no Democrat who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any Republican holding the office of President.


Actual Twenty-Third Amendment:

The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Conservtaive Twenty-Third Amendment:

WTF?! Why did we ever agree to this?! These assholes were only ones who voted for BOTH McGovern AND Mondale!!! What the hell is wrong with these people?!


Actual Twenty-Fourth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Conservative Twenty-Fourth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State provided that they can pay any poll tax or other tax.


Actual Twenty-Fifth Amendment:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Conservative Twenty-Fifth Amendment:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death, resignation, or having been found in bed with an intern, the Vice President shall become President.

(Remainder unchanged)


Actual Twenty Sixth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

(Ed.Note: Actually this is already pretty goofy the way it is. Read it carefully… It’s like saying, “Other than Blacks, no person shall not be denied their right o vote on account of race." Just sayin’!)

Conservative Twenty Sixth Amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. Per the 19th Amendment: Only race sexuality and being economically underprivileged are valid reason to denied or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote.


Actual Twenty Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Conservative Twenty Seventh Amendment:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened… Because that great fiscal conservative, and crusader against fat government paychecks, John Boehner, has got our backs!


If you're still reading, I admire your stamina!  Now that you see what's at stake, lets start TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!

Orwellian Language Part Two: Freedom

I'm not sure what's worse: Hearing the right talk about how their the party of freedom and liberty, or hearing them say that the liberals want to take you're freedom away. With all of that utter nonsense in mind, I give you:


Part Two: Freedom

The next word I want to discuss that the Right has co-opted is “freedom.” (I will no longer refer the Right as “conservatives” to avoid confusion and maintain consistency with Part One.) Now there is one part of the Right that truly loves “freedom.” It’s the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, to avoid conflict with their Religious Funny-mentalist wing, these libertarians have largely given up their dedication to individual liberty, and for the most part they now only really care about corporate freedom, or the freedom from government regulation for large corporations. Individual freedom to the Right is defined fairly narrowly and applies almost exclusively to right to own guns, and first amendments rights only so long as it fits their agenda. IOW – Freedom of Religion when it comes to putting prayer IN schools, in support of THEIR religion, but not as it applies to respecting OTHER religions but keeping prayer OUT of schools and maintaining the Separation of Church and State. They also claim first amendment rights when they post the names and addresses of abortion providers on the Internet, yet at the same time have tried to ban the distribution of information over the net to those trying to GET an abortion, as well as any objective or (god forbid!) pro-choice leaning commentary on the matter. I’m not suggesting that the Left never does this, only that I think their abuses are far less egregious. For my part, I believe the ALCU are the truly principled defenders of freedom in this country, as they have defended the freedom of both the far left and the far right and everyone in between. It is only the Right’s mental disease of religious absolutism that makes them view the ACLU as a decidedly Left-leaning or “liberal” (*their use of the word, not mine!) organization. The fact that the Left in this country largely supports them, despite the ACLU’s defense of many on the Right (Neo-Nazi’s, the Ku Klux Klan, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, many Religious Groups and Individuals, just to name a few) to me, only shows that the Left has a far more principled view of freedom than the Right does.

There are two key planks in the Rights platform that undermine it’s claim to be the party of “freedom,” even as they’ve used both in an absurd attempt to bolster it: Religion and States Rights. But before we look at those, let me propose a very simple working definition of “freedom.” It is the ability to do stuff. LAWS (and other prohibitions) can thus ONLY reduce you freedom: They can only reduce the amount of stuff you can do. The libertarian’s viewpoint is that the only laws that are needed are those that determine who’s “freedom,” or “rights” supersede. IOW, it’s very similar to my doctrine of choice that I previously laid out. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the two aforementioned Republican pillars: Religion and States Rights.

Religion. Hoo-boy, where to even start? First of all, don’t let ANYONE tell you that “[insert religious icon here] will set you free.” This is bullshit. Big-time, major-league, gold-standard, grade-A, five-star, BULL*SHIT! No two ways about it. Every single religion has it own collection of taboos and prohibition that come with it. So while they may claim you’ll be “free from sin,” in reality, you simply be prohibited to sin. IOW: There is less stuff that you will be allowed to do, above and beyond what the law already restricts. Now… It can be argued that this is a “better” or “more moral” way to live, and that’s fine – you are “free” to decide that for yourself. But when religion intermingles with government, the only result will be MORE prohibitions, MORE laws, LESS stuff you can do. As for the idea that the Left will take away your religious freedom? That’s nonsense. An outright lie in fact. The Left only wishes for the separation of church and state, so as any person can belong to any religion they want, as well as be free from the prohibitions of any religion they do not belong to – even if, or especially if, they choose to belong to none. They ONLY way you can have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion. And the complete separation of church and state is the only way you can achieve that. Enough has been written about that, so I’m just going to leave it there. If you can't accept that at this point in human history, then you have been brainwashed by religion.

Now… supporting “states rights” sounds like a pro-freedom agenda no? After all “rights” is just another way of saying “freedom” right? Bill of “Rights,” “Freedom” of Speech, Religion, Press, etc… (Sidetracking for a second, it sure make you wander how ‘pro-freedom’ the right can be when you hear conservatives arguing against the government (or the judiciary) “making up new rights.” Well… what’s wrong with that?! New rights = more freedom, no? But I digress…) But let's look at what States can do, and have done with their ‘rights.’ Medical Marijuana laws not withstanding, a State cannot make anything or any activity legal that the Federal Government has deemed illegal. (And if they think mary-jane has been legalized, the fact is that federal agents can still come in at any time and arrest anyone they want to for both dealing and possessing marijuana. They don’t, largely because they are supporting states rights in one of the very few instances in which they increase our freedom, but they still reserve the right to do so! I imagine the Fed won’t however since it might lead to a Supreme Court case that would likely (1) erode the power of the fed (good for the Right, as long as they control the State Houses, and remain in the Minority in Congress) but also (2) lead to broader legalization of marijuana, which they don’t want.) But with that lone exception, all a State can do with it’s power is to pass MORE laws: IOW – further reduce the amount of stuff we can do beyond what the federal government already prohibits.

Now I’m all for states managing their own fiscal affairs – levying taxes as they see fit, managing their public services, etc… But when it comes to LAWS, what kind of useful laws do states ever really pass? You can’t buy liquor on Sunday before noon. (Michigan.) You can’t buy alcohol, including Beer and Wine, in a supermarket, only in a state-licensed liquor store (Massachusetts); You can only buy liquor, excluding beer and wine, in a STATE-OPERATED, “ABC” Store (Virginia – a ‘red’ state taking a rather ‘communist’ approach, no?); You can only stock liquor in tiny “airplane” bottles (North Carolina, until recently); You can’t buy liquor on a Sunday at all (Connecticut – what a boon for neighboring New York on Sundays, huh?). This is just one example, but its illustrates fairly well what States do with their rights: PASS REALLY STUPID, POINTLESS LAWS! (The so-called "BLUE-LAWS" were a PRIME example, as was segregation... but I digress.)

Let me put it a different way… If something is not bad enough to be made illegal everywhere (murder, theft, rape, etc…) then why should it be illegal ANYWHERE?! And LOCAL laws get even worse! Now you have prohibitions on top of State Laws AND Federal Laws! Dry counties?! WTF?! If you don’t want to drink that’s fine, by where does 51% of a county get off telling the other 49% that they can’t?! And yet the Right, who claim to be all about “freedom” LOVE their states rights… except, you know… in the case of medical marijuana, when states have used their rights to actually increase our freedom. But restricting abortion, restricting alcohol consumption, restricting religious freedom (whenever a prayer-in-school or am intelligent design bill comes up, it’s ALWAYS at the state or local level!), restricting access or information about contraception or family planning, even restricting GAY MARRIAGE!

Oh, and how they've they criticized the states that allow it! But then they make a “states rights” argument for why the federal government shouldn't compel states to recognize it! WTF?! Hypocrisy anyone?! The rights of two men or two women to marry takes nothing away from anybody else. This is NOT the case of two people or groups with mutually exclusive rights here. This is about one group imposing their religious views on another. As a strait, (hypothetically) Christian Male, I can still marry, or remain single as I choose. I am free to do as I wish – which would not include marrying a man, as that would be prohibited by the church I chose to belong to. That situation does not change when two other men marry. My rights are not diminished in any way! This only extends increased freedom to them, as well as to me (though I would likely continue to choose not to exercise that freedom.)



Gun Ownership is about the only area that the Right supports states rights in an area that DOES increase our freedom. For the record, I’m OK with this. I like the fact that the decision of whether or not I own a gun is mine and mine alone. I DON’T own a gun. I DESPISE guns and I feel that a gun is a coward’s weapon… But I cherish that the choice is MINE.

BTW… Here are my weapons of choice: (LOL)

(And yes, they work.)

So again… You can follow a pro-religion political agenda, and sing all the praises of ‘states rights,’ that’s fine. But THIS “liberal” is NOT going to let you do that and then get away with any claims about protecting personal liberty.

For that? I’ll stick with the ACLU.

Irony Alert at Liberty University!

I hope everyone had a happy and safe Thanksgiving! We've just gotten home from our fairly long, once yearly trek: Detroit to Washington D.C. to Lynchburg VA to Charleston WV and then home. *phew*

It was fairly uneventful in a very good way. Not exactly what I'd call relaxing, but we did have Thanksgiving dinner in a tiny farmhouse sitting on 250 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains. Not a bad place to take the boys for an after-dinner stroll. :)

But I wanted to share something with you all that I'm not exactly sure how to take. On our last day in Lynchburg, we ate breakfast at a 50's-style diner called "DOC's". It is located ON the Liberty University Campus. For those that don't know, Liberty University was founded in 1971 by none other than his holy hypocrisy, the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Easily one of my 10 least favorite people on Earth, when he was still on Earth. And if I had my way, Liberty University would be burned to the ground, along with Bob Jones College, Regent University and Oral Roberts University. (And any other "school" that teaches any form of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom.) (I'd burn down the "Creation Museum" in KY as well!) That being said, one might wonder why I'd spend any of my hard-earned money there. Well... first off, I didn't know where it was (or who owned it) when we agreed to meet my brother-in-law and his family there for breakfast. Also... he paid. So none of my money went there. I did get a free car-sticker:



Of course... I'll be dancing naked in the 9th circle of HELL before I drive around with a Liberty University ANYTHING on my car, but still: Good for a laugh!

Thing is... while we were in there, trying to keep our breakfast down sitting amongst tacky, larger than life-sized murals of the Reverend Falwell *barf*, I noticed a few things that I found... rather odd. And I'm not talking about the picture of Falwell being hoisted up by the Basketball team so he could cut down the net! (WTF? What, did Liberty win the Class-C Evangelical Invitational or something?!) No... I mean something rather... IRONIC, considering the setting.

Now, like I said, this place was ON the Liberty Campus. And it was called "DOC's" because apparently that was Falwell's nickname amongst the students. And the menu was (supposedly) full of his favorite stuff. I'll give the portly, hypocritical, cardiac case this much: The FOOD was excellent! But as were eating, I take a look at my kid's "kiddie-cups" and what do I see? A WIZARD. A medieval SORCERER! Seriously! And, no, he wasn't being burned at the stake or anything! In fact he was helping a knight fight a Dragon! Aren't these the same nutcases who boycotted D&D back in the '80s and Harry Potter much more recently?! And the picture on the cup was actually a GAME: Help the Wizard find the six magical stones! MAGICAL STONES?! WTF?! These people are now teaching childeren about MAGICLA STONES? When the fuck did that start happening?!

OK... So, at first, I thought I might just be reading too much into it. Or who knows, maybe someone made a mistake? But then I look over the KID'S MENU. The second item (basically a Burger-n-Fries combo) is called the "TINKY WINKIE!!!" Again, for those who don't know, Tinky Winky is the Purple Teletubby that caused all kinds of controversy a few years back, amongst people like his blessed insanity, the Revered Jerry Falwell, because supposedly he was GAY. That's right: TINKY WINKY was the GAY TELETUBBY and they named the second item on the KID'S MENU in a JERRY FALWELL-themed diner ON LIBERTY U. CAMPUS after him!

So... Either the people who run this place are actually more like thee and me and they're poking a little fun at the late Preacher and the students who took his verbal incontinence seriously enough to pay him tuition -OR- these Christian Funny-Mentalists have WAY MORE of a sense of humor than I ever gave them credit for!

Not sure. We had a good laugh (and a GREAT heaping stack of Pancakes!) either way!

The Doctrine of Choice

(I'm still working on Keynes, so here's some more brain droppings of mine) (Thanks George!)

The Doctrine of Choice is a pompous name that I've given to a very simple idea that guides my legal, moral and political philosophy more than anything else. At it's simplest it is this: People should be allowed to do whatever they provided that they're not harming anyone else.

A lot of people CLAIM that's what they believe, but I bet they'll fail the test on more than one thing, and on many things if they're a social conservative. Stated a little more specifically it goes like this:

1) Everything is legal, unless it victimizes someone else. To be a crime, something MUST have a victim. (And no, "Society," doesn't count. A tangible victim.)

2) The threshold for someone being a victim is for them have a choice they are otherwise entitled to usurped or taken form them by another.

Now... #2 may sound a bit odd, but it's actually a very low threshold for crime when you think about it. Does someone have to be killed, receive bodily harm, lose a certain amount of monetary valuables? Well, those WOULD qualify, but I set the bar pretty low. All they have to lose is their choice. Now you'd think that setting the bar for crime so low, that I'd end up outlawing many more things than the social conservatives would. But the opposite is true. So let's test this system, first against some easy ones...

MURDER

When you and I woke up this morning, we had a clear choice to make. Face another day, or slit our own throats. Putting the drama aside, obviously, most of us, on most days will choose the first option. But if someone comes along and SHOOTS me? They are taking my LIFE, yes, but they really only need to be usurping MY CHOICE (to live) for this to be crime. (The ADDITIONAL loss of a LIFE is really only relevant to the SENTENCING portion!)

THEFT

I can do whatever I want with MY [after-tax] MONEY. Buy stuff, lend it to a friend, invest it, put it in the bank, give it to a homeless guy, burn it... WHATEVER I WANT. But if someone, say the guy from the previous example, were to STEAL my money, well... That's tantamount to making the decision fore me: and the decsion was forced to give the money to him. Regardless of how much I've lost, it's all a crime because the choice was MINE, and he usurped it.

RAPE

I can have sex with whomever* I* want*, and I can abstain as I wish as well. But someone who's raping me, say, again that slimeball from the last two examples, is saying, "No. It's not YOUR choice, it's MINE. And I SAY, you're going to have sex with ME!"

*Point of clarification: CHOICE in this case DOES imply CONSENT on the part of all parties involved. And CONSENT implies all parties are legal, [human] adults. All parties must be legally able to GIVE consent, which rules out both animals and the underaged. In each case, we do not recognize consent, and a choice is thus usurped still.

So... You get the idea. Here are some more knotty ones...

FRAUD is a crime because it means that the person's choice was not INFORMED. You have usurped the choice in this way by withholding information that otherwise may have resulted in a different choice. In anyway they've been cheated of their choice.

SOME DRUGS remain illegal, but not all. To qualify as a controlled substance something must be both synthetic (meaning that it is consumed in a form that has been chemically altered from it natural form) and addictive. Addictive is important, because addiction is what represents the usurpation of choice here. NOW... the CRIME is on the part of the DEALER. Why you ask, when the USER in fact CHOSE to use drugs? Very simple. It's a case of unbalanced information. Prior to becoming addicted the user has no REAL idea, no real information about how horrible addiction is, what it REALLY does to every aspect of your life and how likely he is to even become an addict. And most who are or have been addicted would have made different choices had they had the first hand knowledge of these things back when they started, but they didn't. How could they know? But the DEALER? HE's got a pretty shrewd idea what's in store for his customers. He peddling addiction via fraud. So anyone dealing addictive synthetic substances (crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, opium, ecstasy, roofalin) is going down. But Tobacco, marijuana, coca leaves, betel nut, 'shrooms... it's all good, baby. They occur in nature, and you just can't outlaw something that's ALREADY THERE, on it's own. If we didn't invent it, how the hell can we outlaw it? REGULATE it? Sure. (18 and over only.) TAX it? You best your asterix. But why throw someone in jail who picked something up off the ground and chowed down or smoked it? No reason to. None at all.

The exception, and it should be obvious at this point, is Alcohol. I say: grandfather it in, and leave it legal. I have no justification for this in my model, other than the fact that it is consumed in moderation without issue (even some health and social benefits) buy almost everyone on the planet. So we'll draw the line HERE, and outlaw anything ELSE that fails the above tow tests.

Also... I say controlled, rather than illegal, becasue I still wouldn't outlaw those other thigns. Should we find that their is some medical use for them, in some small, safe dose? I won't let the law in the way of the medical research. And before you scoff, you should realize that most presciption anti-despreseant and pain-killers are checially very similar to many narcotics. Paxil is almost identical to cocaine in structure but also in the effect it has on the brain. It's just kept in a REALLY SMALL does - miligrams being swallowed insetad of grams being snorted. But you CAN get hooked if you abuse prescription medicinces. Just ask Rush Limabugh.

Now for some tricky ones:

GAMBLING

As long as the game is fair, meaning not FIXED, and everyone understands the rules and the odds? (IOW no fraud involved) Why the hell not? Just regulate it to insure fairness, the way we do today in places that allow it, and keep it to certain ZONES in a given town or city. No one wants a Casino in their NEIGHBORHOOD, but downtown, or on the outskirts? Why not. Let each town decide for themselves. No reason for the STATE or FED to say no.

PROSTITUTION

As the now immortal George Carlin once pointed out: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Again I don't care WHAT goes on between consenting adults and neither does out current system of law enforcement... until money changes hands. WTF? Why should THAT matter?! You name me ONE OTHER THING that's it's legal to GIVE AWAY but illegal to SELL and I'll take it all back. But IMHO prostitution is NO CRIME. And thus should be LEGAL.

REGULATED, to be sure. And this is actually the BEST way to address the (faux) concerns that people, usually conservatives, express for the workers in the trade and use as justification for criminalizing it. Disease? Require (and have employers pay for) regular check-ups and condom use to keep your license. (Yes, you'd need a license! How else could you regulate it?!) Customer don't want to pay? Legal contract: Girl can SUE. Assault? Not likely if it all takes place inside the brothel, which has bouncers. This also addresses the next concern: We don't want hookers soliciting on the street, in the neighborhood, at the schools, etc... Well, just like with the casinos, this is merely a ZONING issue. Discreet advertising, discreet signage, and an off-the-beaten-path location, should satisfy any reasonable person involved. We'll never make it into an admirable profession, but there's just no rational justification for criminalizing it.

DRUNK DRIVING

This includes ALL forms of intoxication, not just alcohol, so don't bother using DRIVING as an argument for criminalizing cannabis. That's just stupid. You can't drive drunk, high, low, or whatever. Stay home or call a cab. Why? Because everyone else on the roads made their choice to drive assuming it was safe. Or at least that weren't any reckless drunks out there, bombing around, which is as the law promises them. Plus you have no right to risk anyone ELSE'S life, other than your own. So it's simple. This fails the test.

HOMOSEXUALITY / GAY MARRIAGE

See 'prostitution.' As for the marriage part... again WHY THE HELL NOT? Show me any other legal contract ANYWHERE that I can enter with a member of the opposite sex, but not the same. There isn't one. And as far as the LAW is concerned with marriage that's all it is: a LEGAL CONTRACT. So if you have a problem with this one, all I can say is, "GROW UP."

RELIGION - The meaning of religious freedom should be obvious, and I'm stunned how many people try to say otherwise: (1) the separation of church and state. The above doctrine (as an interpretation of our Constitution) should drive our laws, not religion. PERIOD. (2) The prohibitions of any religion shall only apply to it's VOLUNTARY adherents. (So, "No" to these idiotic Catholic (etc...) pharmacists who won't dispense Birth Control. The church forbids YOU to use it. It has no authority over anyone else, and neither do YOU.) And anyone can leave any church at any time. (3) That also means no teacher-lead prayer in school. This violates YOUR choice to bring you child up in a given faith. Don't care about respecting OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths? Well what if the teacher was Muslim**? THEN would you want them preaching to your child or leading them in prayer? Didn't think so. Freedom for ANY ONE, necessarily means freedom for ALL, as well as the right to NOT believe or practice as well. It's pretty simple and, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. I'll never get why so many people can't understand this. (And don't be an idiot an think this means that NO ONE can pray in school. THAT would be a obvious violation of their right to practice, which IS and WILL REMAIN 100% proteted. Only teacher-lead prayer in banned!)

**I ask it this way, because in THIS country, it's usually the CHRISTIAN funny-mentalists who don't get it. If we were having this discussion in IRAN, obviously I'd say "Christian" instead of "Muslim" in the above example.

Anyhow, THIS is how I interpret the spirit of the Constitution, and the Rights it grants. This is how I define FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The only laws that are needed would those that arbitrate situation in which one person choices would usurp another's. And it's usually pretty clear in these cases who's right and wrong. Except one.

There is one issue that this philosophy is USELESS to make any headway on.

Abortion.

Because abortion (arguably) involves two entities, both of whom may or may not be having a choice usurped. And one side clearly believes that the rights of one win out, while the other just a clearly believe it's the rights of the other. And you know what? I'm not sure there a "win" here either way. I just don't see this as anything other than lose-lose one way of the other.

So I'll cop-out on this one, but I promise to take up abortion at a later date. I might actually surprise some of you conservatives with my views on abortion, but I'm sure you'll come away disappointed anyway. LOL. The thing is... so will many liberals! You just can't WIN an argument over abortion!

If you are curious how I would interpret any other, just let me know. So far I've never been stumped. (Other than abortion, attmitedly.)