A Meaningless Midterm and my own poll...

In the video I reference the following message that Rusty Shackleford sent me after casting his vote:

"Regardless of whether or not you believe in this (and you know my stance on this), assimilation into the military-industrial complex is REALLY far down on the list of priorities for trans rights.  If you want to buy into this neoliberal nonsense, whatever, but I'm going to be heavily side-eying your priorities if this is where you choose to focus your energy.  Liberation, not assimilation.  Don't feed the military more victims and call them "free" for having the privilege of dying for some rich cis-het assholes."

Also, if anyone is interested n seeing the original discussion between myself, Rusty and Princess Bitchface Androgyne Anode, you can find it in the comments section, here. (Assuming MMFA didn't remove any of it.)

And my sincerest apologies to KRISTEN BECK, (not "Christine Speck") who's name eluded me during the video.  I really should have had all of my notes in order: I'm sorry about that!

Great!

...As soon as they end their ban on atheists, I might start supporting them again!

Still, progress is progress.

Go far enough to the left...

...And you'll find as much of the smae stupidity as you find on the Right.

(Of course, to be fair, on the Right you don't have to go nearly as far!)

Let me back up a bit...

I don't care for labels.  I'm not a "Republican," but that doesn't make me a "Democrat."  Thanks to all of the political and mental baggage that comes with the label, I haven't called myself "Conservative" in about 20 years or so.  Does that make me "Liberal?" Meh, I suppose.  That's fine, if that's how those numb-skulls want to characterize me, I'm OK with that.  I can't stop them, and I hardly see it as an insulting epithet anyway.  But I just don't embrace labels. (Which alone, in their eyes, MAKES me a Liberal!) But I don't really care if my position on something is Liberal or Conservative.  That it happens to be liberal 90-some percent of the time is entirely a function of modern Liberals largely choosing the path of reason, rather that me choosing the path of  modern Liberalism.  I like "Progressive" better anyway, since it conjures imagery more about forwards versus backwards than Right versus Left, but again: I really don't care if I earn that label or not.  I only endeavour to form opinions that I believe are principled and defensible and that will lead to positions that make the world a better place.  If, years from, now it's happens to be so-called "Conservatives" who do that? Fine. Then I'll be "Conservative" again.

I guess my point is that I just hate DOGMA (the philosophical concept not the Kevin Smith movie!) and DOGMATIC thinking.  And really that precludes me from being Conservative these days, because ever since they decided to basically abandon Social Libertarianism and embrace Christian Funny-Mentalism, dogmatic thinking has become a basic requirement to being Conservative.  And while [whatever you call the alternative: Liberalism, Progressivism, etc...] simply does not embrace dogma the same way - Liberalism is all about CHANGE, after all - the fact is that if you go far enough off the deep-end (and we do have one) you'll find that there IS in fact dogma, or at least dogmatic thinking in "our camp" as well.

The first time I encountered this was in seeing the hard-core Feminist reaction to basic rape-prevention advice, characterizing any and all discussions of that nature as "blaming the victim."  And DON'T GET ME WRONG: There is NEVER any justification for rape, and I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE we have a societal commitment to stopping all forms of Rape, Violence against Women, Sexual Harassment, and any other form of mysoginy and gender discrimination.  Hey: I manage to get through every single one of my days, working with women, without triggering a lawsuit; so I have very little sympathy for those man who can't seem to accomplish this. (And I've worked with some of them as well. Dumbasses, every one.) I despise the Barbie doll on many levels, and truly believe that the sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.  So I've got plenty of feminist cred.  Yet, when it's pointed out that maybe after her fourth abusive relationship, a girl might want to take batter care in selecting her life-partner? (Or address whatever personal issues she's got that keeps her fgoing down the same path over and over?) I get attacked for "blaming the victim." Hey: Society can do anything and everything you want them to, and yet in the end you can still only control your own actions.

When idealism blinds you to pragmatism?
That's dogmatic thinking.

The other day on MMFA, I was in an argument with a LIBERAL who wanted to defund NPR, because their bias was even more insidious than Fox's, since they put on juts a good enough of show that people believe them to be objective.  OMFG, where to even begin?  NPR is worse for society than Fox? *shakes head* Is NPR perfect? No.  They absolutely are not perfect.  They have biases and agendas and rely on political favor from congress as well as corporate donors for their financial survival.  So yes, they have committed every error from false equivalency and balance to broadcasting outright RW misinformation.  The thing is? That is largely the EXCEPTION at NPR, where it is the RULE at Fox.  If you seriously conclude that NPR is WORSE than Fox?  Well... You're either off the deep end of Conservatism, or off the deep end of Liberalism, as was the case here. (Though, for the record, I do agree with them that there was simply no reason for NPR to act as they did in this case. However, much like with MSNBC's treatment of Olbermann in 2008, I will take a media station that at least HAS a standard of ethics over one that flaunts their lack of one ANY DAY.)

So... what's this all about.  Well... I'm talking to my Dad earlier today (staunch Conservative / Republican) and he asked me if I'd heard about this idiot superintendent in Massachusetts who wants to ban Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving.  Now, I had, on MMFA. But in a stunning (LOL) show of liberal bias, they point out of she may have had plenty of Conservative allies (Christian Whack-Jobs, Pat Robertson, etc...), had she just stuck to Halloween. But they kind of left out the rest of it. But that's fine, I've got the whole story now.  And you know what?

She's a fucking idiot.

Now DON'T GET ME WRONG:  My objection to this particular breed of LW insanity has nothing to do with the "PC Police" complaints coming from the Right.  Unlike the modern breed of jingoistic, Right Wing, "American Execptionalists" I have no problem discussing the genocide of the Native Americans (and it WAS a genocide) nor of the Europeans bringing diseases, nor of them stealing their land, nor of having a frank discussion about those very "exceptional" origins of America from all angles.  And it is precisely because I believe those discussion to be of such importance that I make my judgement of her.

What better time to have a complete discussion, and endeavour to give children a FULL and COMPLETE understanding of our history than in the context of these Holidays?!  And seriously... It's not like Thanksgiving is all about celebrating the Pilgrims (eventual) victory (massacre, genocide) of the Indians, and neither is it really about trying to GLOSS OVER IT either.  Not anymore, anyway.  For as long as I can remember, it's been little more than a Hallmark Holiday and an excuse to drink and est yourself into a carb-coma.  Maybe, maybe  we'd take a few minutes to "give thanks" for the "things were thankful for." (Hardly an offensive practice.) But really?  It's about Turkey and Potatoes and Stuffing and Gravy and possibly some form of Alcohol.  So if this person wants to raise awareness about what REALLY happened to the Native Americans, maybe a more productive way would be to fill the void of meaning that this holiday has now, let the kids have their celebration, and USE THE OPPORTUNITY to EDUCATE them a little!  (They still do that in schools, right?)

She'd reach a lot more people that way, raise awareness about the American Genocide that much higher, and piss off... basically no one! (I'm not even sure that ACTUAL Native Americans would give a crap about this, one way or the other!) And so thinking that we should BAN Thanksgiving and Columbus Day (not to mention Halloween?) is just stupid.  And, if it's coming from a Liberal motivation, only the result of what happens when LIBERALS start engaging in DOGMATIC THINKING of their own.

Nothing will accomplish more in getting modern Americans to FORGET about the fate that befell the Native Americans than BANNING Thanksgiving Celebrations.  On their best day FOX NEWS could only dream of accomplishing so much harm.

One of those rare times that I side with conservatives...

Time for another article where I may break with the "liberal orthodoxy" as it were. (Contradiction in terms intentional, BTW.) Regarding the recent supreme court decision to lift city, state and local bans on hand guns, I found myself nodding my head (though admittedly not pumping my fist) in approval. Gun Ownership Rights is one of the few issues that I lean conservative on; probably due to my non-corporatist Libertarian philosophy, I suppose. It’s not really a VOTING issue for me – I despise guns, I don’t own a gun, and I don’t ever intend to own a gun... but I do appreciate that the CHOICE of whether or not I own a gun is my own to make, and nobody else’s.

The thing is… I’ve just never bought into the Liberal’s argument that more gun control laws mean less crime. First of all, as Liberals rightly argue all the time: CRIME stems from MAN Y factors, but primarily socio-economic ones. It’s about POVERTY, not GUNS. If you’re broke? You’re more likely to commit a crime. And your ability to LEGALLY obtain a handgun, for the purpose of committing a crime, is completely irrelevant. And the very idea that if you outlaw handguns, that only outlaws will have them, seems to be proven by the comments of the people interviewed for the NPR segment most of whom were trying to make an argument against the supreme court’s decision and in favor of upholding the ban. One of the comments, from a Chicago resident (and I’m PP’ing because I can’t find a full transcript) was pretty exemplary of the argument:

“We have shootings every other day; people getting killed in gang violence; we need less guns not more!”

Now… that’s sounds all well a good, but think about it: If there’s a gang shooting ‘every other day’ in the city, how effective IS that gun ban? Not very, I’d say. In fact, it seems to me that – just as the conservatives usually argue – all that law has done is kept guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens! It was a later comment in the program that, IMHO, spoke more to the heart of the matter. This was from the neighbor of a burglary victim, (again, PP’d)

“We’re not going to go out and shoot anybody, but the criminals had better think twice about coming into our homes and thinking they can do as they please, because some of us will be armed.”

(OK – THAT got a fist-pump from me!)

Now… If you’re a liberal and you can’t see why THIS LIBERAL feels this way, and you need a different perspective on this to better understand my point of view, I see a lot of parallels between gun control and immigration reform.

Fist of all, you’ve got to ask yourself: What is the PURPOSE? If the purpose is to know exactly WHO owns a gun (or WHO is coming into the country) then you need people to voluntarily comply with the registration process (or the immigration process.) If your purpose is to LIMIT gun ownership (or immigration) then complying with the system will NOT give many people what they want. So they simply won’t comply.

If registration and licensing was CHEAP, EASY and generally allowed ANYONE (other than, say, convicts and the mentally ill) to legally own a gun, 99% of the population (far more than do now) would gladly register their guns, comply with the system and you’d know exactly who’s armed and who’s not. And you can now MONITOR THE SITUATION, and police can go in prepared, informed and plan according to the situation they’re facing. Likewise, if our immigration system was quick, easy, cheap and generally let anyone (except, say, terror suspects and drug smugglers) into the country, 99% of the incoming immigrants would be happy to comply, and you could successfully MONITOR THE SITUATION. And in BOTH cases, concerns about security are better served by creating a system that, if people complied with it, GAVE THEM WHAT THEY WANTED: Either a legally owned gun, or legal entrance to this country.

But arguments about security – in both cases – are either woefully misguided, or outright bullshit:

Misguided: You can’t physically stop people from coming into the country. And any thoughts that you CAN are absurd. What’s more – the very idea that we even SHOULD is, as I’ve said, counterproductive. Also, you can’t use the LAW to stop people who are already predisposed from BREAKING IT from obtaining a gun. Again: We’ve tried and yet we still have a “gang killing every other day [in Chicago.]

Outright Bullshit: Let’s face it: “security” is just a more pleasant sounding term substituted for what the respective agendas REALLY ARE. Liberals want FEWER GUNS, period. Conservatives want FEWER MEXICANS, period. And THAT’S why neither group is buying into my argument that you need to GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT in order to get them to comply with the law. Because they DON’T WANT TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT. In both cases, each group has agenda designed to take something away from the very people that they expect to comply with their laws! The incentives are completely backwards, and yet we are so quick to comdemn those who do EXACTLY AS WE SHOULD EXPECT THEM TO!

And in every case, we need to stop trying to force our personal agendas on everyone else and focus on the tangible, security issue. And the only way to have true security is to KNOW what the hell is going on! And the only way to do that is to have a legal system that 99% of the population is HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH. And the only way you’ll have that is if you only ever say, “No,” to the smallest, most narrowly defined group as possible. Because then, those groups that DON’T COMPLY will stand out as the exception instead on mixing into the crowd...

...Well, maybe not ‘mixing into the crowd’ so much as BEING the crowd.

It’s very rare indeed that I’ll side with the Wing-Nuts, but this is once instance in which I truly believe the Right got it RIGHT.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and ClassicLiberal? Again we see a 5-4 decision with Sotomayor siding with the dissenting Liberal block. I totally get (and share) your beef with Kagan, by why are you so down on Sotomayor?