A Quick Thought Of An Update

1 Comment

It’s been a very intriguing year. There have been numerous times I began forming a post and then time got away from me. How exactly does one reply to all the year’s political happenings without sounding cliche or redundant?

Well, I found an excellent comment I simply couldn’t pass up.

From E Pluribus Chaos in reponse to this article:

If you like your constitutional rights, you can keep your constitutional rights. Period.

Oh, and John Boehner is now feeling safe enough after the GOP’s Goverment Letdown last month to call for a delay of Obamacare. Too bad he didn’t have the guts to keep the Shutdown-In-Name-Only going until the GOP got a delay or full repeal of the health care law. Then again, should we really expect someone who voted for the 2008 Bailout to have even the smallest cojones?

One For The Queers

2 Comments

The decision leaves in place another provision in the law that says no state is required to recognize gay marriages performed in any other state. [Courtesy of the LATimes]

I must split with the faux-Conservative community regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act handed down today. I personally believe the law to have been un-Constitutional on two points. On account of the Tenth Amendment, the power to decide who can or cannot marry lies with each individual State. Whether Roberts et al agree with that or not, it is the correct way in which to adjudicate.

And, secondly, there is no such thing as the regulation of morality, which was the basic essence of DoMA. My working theory is the ceding of religious authority and personal morality over time to the governance of Modernism, which entails everything from Relativism to Darwinian Moralism, is the heart of the issue. But this is not the time to expand on that thought.

Regarding my stance on the regulation of morality, those more aligned with religious fundamentalism would disagree with me. They might say morality laws are necessary to slow the onslaught of social deviancy. Or that all law is inherently moral. With the latter point I would agree. Yet there is a sharp difference between a government having the power to print coinage and declare war with a government which says thou shall and thou shalt not. The morality of law, at least in the tradition of Western Enlightenment, is of a more humanistic nature: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reintroduce religion into government and the theocratic State will do as much if not more harm than what we now have. In other words, the problem is not that we lack law regulating morality, it is that we lack personal morality.

Ergo, where I break with Justice Kennedy is on the issues of morality, the definition of marriage and the individual’s duty to society.

The law “places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage,” Kennedy wrote for the court. “The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, and whose relationship the state has sought to dignify.” [Courtesy of Bloomberg]

The Constitution does not protect anti-social forms of sexuality. Why, in the face of allowing homosexual marriage, should we also not allow other forms of sexually deviant behavior. Logically, what society says is wrong about every other conceivable form of sexuality would also amount to discrimination and injustice. But such couldn’t be further from the truth. Every society operates on conceived ideals, what we might call the social glue, or societal fabric. Thus, should a strand be ripped out, the society falls apart, ie changes.

The term anti-social might bring to mind anarchy or some other such means of anti-government sentiment, but true anti-social behavior is that which completely subverts the normative, in this case a form of sexuality that on one hand does not provide for the propagation of society. And on the other hand fundamentally changes the social fabric at its most basic level, the individual family unit.

The pro-LGBT crowd would here cite two seemingly logical arguments as to why homosexual unions are no different than certain heterosexual unions. One, couples are allowed to marry who either cannot have children or are past the age of childbearing years. Second, couples are allowed to marry and choose not to have children. However, these are nothing more than smokescreen arguments. Every society throughout the expanse of time has understood marriage to be a contract, both social, religious and economic, between a man and a woman. By and large, marriages produce children. It is a rule of natural law. Equally so, homosexual unions cannot produce children. Only in our modern scientific age have we perverted the child-bearing process into the choice and convenience of a petri dish.

I am oddly struck that the Supreme Court did not amend the disparity of marriage recognition between the various States [Ref quote at top]. If Justice Kennedy and his four cohorts are truly out to find justice under the law for the homosexual community, would it not therefore be appropriate to wrest the power of marriage away from the individual States and form a Bureau of Marriage at the national level?

And Now For Something Completely Different

Leave a comment

In a The Producers line of darkish comedic genius, I would like to give a shout out to the Tumblr: Kim Jong Il Looking At Things.

America has certainly proven sanctions can’t hurt dictators much like sticks and stones can’t break bones. But my goodness, the humor is both cathartic to the soul and death to the fascist’s legacy.

Confusion Thursday…

3 Comments

brought to us by the outstanding Senator from California, Dianne Feinstien.

Thesis:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) laid out the conditions of her proposed assault weapons ban Thursday, saying it would prohibit 158 specifically named military-style firearms.

Except:

We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon. No weapon is taken from anyone.

The twist:

Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes.

Let me try to run the logic of this pretzel. We are proposing to uphold the Second Amendment via banning weapons [deemed unsuitable for law-abiding citizens]. But law-abiding citizens who already own high-capacity firearms can keep them because they are for certain specific purposes, i.e. hunting and other sporting engagements.

I would read into that last bit that Liberals will detach their proxy arm, PETA, to outlaw hunting and other similar sport through lawsuits at some point in the future.

Also, no hunting weapon has been used or ever will be used to commit a crime. There is no black market by which any citizen or non-citizen has or ever will purchase a firearm. Humanity is essentially good, perverted only through violent video games and movies. Non-citizens, such as Pancho Villa, have never committed a crime in the United States.

Okay. I think I understand their logic now.

Follow the same thought process to make sense of the following three oxymora. Feel free to add to the list:

Fixing illegal immigration by building a fence and/or passing new immigration reform laws and/or redefining the entire issue as a Path To Citizenship or Filling Jobs Americans Won’t Do.

Securing Pax Americana abroad by engaging in endless war, conspiracy and fomenting social and political unrest, particularly in the Near East.

Reducing spending by raising the debt ceiling.

And We Should Care What Mitt Said Because…?

Leave a comment

Buyer’s remorse? Another morsel of proof that Romney was perhaps the better choice? An aha! towards the naysayers?

A yes to any or all of those questions. And more to questions I don’t care to bother to think up. Big deal about Romney’s quip during the final presidential debate last year that proves he was right about what is now happening in Mali.

Anyone with half a brain could have seen this coming. They could have seen everything that’s happened in the last decade. The last twenty years. The last near-century since we decided to prop up Near East dictators so we could have access to cheap oil. Bush’s War hasn’t helped the matter either. Colin Powell was right at least on this point – that if you break it you have to put it back together. Well, we broke Iraq and our wise politi-crats in Washington still have no idea how to put it back together. Personally speaking, unless Islam goes through a fundamental ideological change, or the region’s religion coverts to something else, nothing will change except for which of the strongest tribes wields power.

I have a hard time understanding how Bush 43 and his Circus Administration wholly ignored the balance of power between Saddam and Iran. But stupid is as stupid does and stupidity bequeathed to us yet another Imperialist president who likes to foment the hornet’s nest of the Near East. Romney may have correctly assessed the potential for upheaval in Mali but he fell short of the question which begged asking: Why are we in Mali? I dare say we might find the least of wisdom in taking a hard look at the Washington Administration. I propose closing down all Embassies. Perhaps in the future when we feel we have State issues with a foreign nation, we should send an entourage over with a clear and specific purpose. Doing so just might save us the headache of yet another American bureaucrat taken hostage and/or killed.

Another Anecdote From Under The Class Warfare Umbrella

1 Comment

Last weekend I and five of my coworkers pulled four shifts in three and a half days at a warehouse just south of Louisville, Ky.

Needless to say, on the final drive back to southwestern Ohio, conversation briefly revolved around the Fiscal Cliff. I think because one of my coworkers with a fancy do-it-all smrt phone alerted us that the House turned down the initial Senate-passed bill.

Another piped up over the brief conversation about something to the effect of how the rich need to pay their fair share.

So Will, I said, how much is fair?

The same as the rest of us, he replied.

But which rest of us? The bottom fifty percent don’t pay anything! I shot back. Should the rich continue to pay the bulk of the tax bill so the rest of us can not only not pay anything, but also receive a check in the mail with free money? [That second part I wish I had said, but didn't think of it till a few hours later].

To ad to the infinitum of the cliché the issue is not wholly about how much in taxes Washington receives but how much Washington spends. We have the exact opposite problem as that of the 1780′s and -90′s. There is no other word for what Washington has done in the last one hundred years since the Federal Reserve Act was passed other than despicable. They’ve destroyed the money supply and are in the process of enslaving us entirely via “paying our fair share of taxes”.

Will Atlas ever shrug or is Ayn Rand both a false prophet and a horrible writer?

Another Year, Same Ol’ Schlop

1 Comment

Happy New Year to the Anyones and Everyones who read my opinions!

I enjoyed seeing that extra 2% in Social Security taxes taken from my paycheck. I’m patting myself on the back that I’m contributing a higher rate of taxes to a “retirement slushfund” of which I will likely never receive a penny back.

And finally. We have to take this picture to find out who’s in it.

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.