Category: politics

Contempt

Poor Kim, she is being played for the victim and being left out to dry. Once the crazies are done fund-raising off of her, they will leave her high and dry to pick up the pieces of her broken life. She will scuttle back into obscurity to be randomly evoked as a bad joke.

Of course, a simple civics lesson might have helped educate her on how her job role and the government actually works. She then might have avoided be played for the fool. Sadly, that isn’t the case. And her willful ignorance is not going to save her, no matter how the crazies spin it. They want her to lose so they can hold her up as their new martyr.

As an elected clerk, she took an oath to uphold the law. You have the right as a citizen to have a religious belief. You have the right not to be persecuted by the government (and your employer when different) for that belief. You can even request a reasonable accommodation for said belief. However, you do not have the right to refuse to do your job based on belief. An important distinction the people taking advantage of her are deliberately obfuscating. The moment the SCOTUS ruled on the Obergefell vs Hodges case, it became defacto law. If she now feels she can no longer follow her duty/oath of office because it violates her "god’s law," then she should resign. You are not guaranteed employment if you feel your personal religious belief conflicts with your employment requirements.

Not only did she refuse to do her job, she also refused to allow any of the deputy clerks to do their job. The judge gave her a way to save face and not be in contempt and she still refused. [1]again, it appears based on advice from her representation with an agenda This negates any possible resolution through accommodating her belief. She has repeatedly and steadfastly projected her bigotry onto her subordinates. In the best possible twist of ironies, her employees could now sue her for religious discrimination. Wouldn’t that be lovely!? hehehe

Of course, the fundies might take her on as a spokesperson after she loses. Like previous made up martyrs, they’ll trot her around until the money-making dries up and then she’ll be abandoned. She’ll be the punchline of memes and jokes for awhile and after that forgotten completely. The annals of history will not remember her. And their failed (and marginalizing) attempts to align her with such great civil-rights activists such as MLK and Rosa Parks are frankly insulting.

References

References
↑1 again, it appears based on advice from her representation with an agenda

UnFriend

I discovered recently someone I know personally has unfriended and even blocked me on FB. We weren’t close friends but I can’t ever remember having a falling out of any sort. Granted, I didn’t even notice said person had unfriended me for quite some time.  The only recollection I have is that he and I often had slightly different political views. We disagreed a few times but it was never mean or rude. He would get rather upset with anyone who didn’t agree with him. I’m left to assume he got mad because I disagreed on something and blocked me. Oh well. He was clearly missed. /sarcasm

This last week I noticed I’ve also been unfriended a few times by folks who didn’t agree with my views on current events. It seems to be a growing theme on social media. Basically, people don’t want debate, they only want supporting comments or views that reinforce their own. Then they get super upset or bent out of shape if someone disagrees with them. If you don’t want comments from people who might disagree, either don’t allow comments or don’t post it.

For myself, if you can’t handle debate then I’m sure we wouldn’t be friends in real life anyway. Successful discourse  requires two way communication not just pontification of your own thoughts. I usually try to keep my discussions to the topic at hand without any personal attacks. I also try to refrain from name-calling and inflammatory comments. I say ‘try’ because even I lose my shit sometimes.

Anyway, I’m off topic a bit. If you friend someone  you don’t really know on social media, you shouldn’t be overly surprised if they don’t always fall in line with your view of things. Barring said personal attacks mentioned above, you should try to converse and debate vs just writing them off and unfriending them. You, or they, might learn something. You also have the added benefit of developing a deeper understanding of your own belief. Teaching or explaining concepts to others forces you to better understand it for yourself.

Rants

For a long time I tried not to talk too much about politics or current event sort of subjects on le blog. I just didn’t want to beat a horse that everyone else was beating. I go off on some things from time to time but I’ve always kept the focus of the blog squarely on myself.

These days, I find less and less need to fight my personal demons in this space. And while I’ll continue to blather on about my personal development, I feel it is time to start branching out. I think I have a good perspective on much of the happenings in the world. And as I love to harp, I’m good at seeing subtle but often important distinctions in things.

I guess what I’m saying is you, dear reader, should expect to start seeing more current event type rants here. Not everyday and certainly not the focus but I like to think it will add a good mixture to the chronicle that is my life.

Freedom

image

The recent fallout over the PR lady poking fun of AIDS in Africa and the phoney character from that stupid duck show both illustrate my point.

First of all, freedom of speech in our constitution is meant to protect citizens from government censorship. The first amendment is not relevant to either of these situations so whining about their ‘freedoms’ being violated just shows a lack of understanding. It also shows cowardice in trying to hide behind biased comments as “freedom of speech” in an attempt to avoid any repercussions for said speech.

If you’ve been living under a rock, a PR lady for a rather large umbrella company posted a tweet making fun of going to Africa and inferring she wouldn’t get AIDS because she was white. She was fired from her job for it. Many felt she deserved it, others felt she didn’t really say anything wrong. The latter being based on an erroneous belief that Africa has a large percentage of HIV+ individuals that are black. As if that makes her heinous comments about being white ok.

The other example, a completely contrived character from a ‘reality TV’ show went on a long nasty tirade about gays and religion in an interview for a magazine. He was kicked off the show for it. Several side drama stories have ensued as well. The show might even get canceled because now the other phoney characters are threatening to boycott filming. Oh what a tragedy to our national IQ that would be. /sarcasm

Getting fired from your job for making racist or homophobic comments, however innocent you might have meant them in your ignorance, is not a violation of your first amendment rights.

The moral boys and girls?
Words have consequences, good and bad. Think before you speak.

Russia

I rarely discuss current events here as one, not really what my blog is about and two, successful discourse these days seems to be all but impossible. Having had several discussions with friends and even a few blog readers asking my thoughts on it, I thought I’d weigh in.

First, there is no clean answer. It is a sticky convoluted problem. Every answer put forward so far hurts someone. So if you look at the least amount of harm caused vs potential success then you can sort of see a way forward.

The boycott of companies. I don’t support a boycott. Primarily, because it won’t do any good. Put – head doesn’t care about the fallout or damage he causes, he only cares about furthering an agenda. He doesn’t care if we boycott one company or all of them, he will continue his agenda unabated. This is Russia we’re talking about. It’s history speaks for itself. Frankly, I don’t see that we do all that much business with Russian companies to begin with. I’m sure we have some but as a consumer I just don’t see it. I also don’t believe that they have any influence at all over their government. They don’t have the lobbyists like we do here. They don’t have the buying power like greedy corps here. The vodka company has been a decent supporter of gay rights before and after this incident. Why is it fair to punish them when they have zero influence over their government? Plus, boycotts are becoming so common as to be pointless and ineffective IMO. Even if they make further strides to support us, I still don’t support our methodology. The end does not justify the means if we give up the ethical/moral high ground. I don’t see the extra media attention as justification either. Said attention could have been garnered in other ways.

Boycotting the Olympics. Why, so the Russian athletes can take home all the medals? No thanks. Many of these athletes work their whole lives for this. To deny them that would be just a wrong as what is being done to us. How does wronging others do us any benefit? If anything, I think it would create more animosity towards the LGBT community.

Moving the Olympics. I would support a measure if there were time. From a very pragmatic approach, there isn’t and they wouldn’t even consider it. It takes years to plan and prepare for said event. As much as I’d love it if they were willing to move it, it’s not gonna happen. Too many ripple effects for a cause that is not near and dear to their hearts. If it were an option, this would be the one to go with. It would embarrass Russia and Put – head in a major way. Sadly, I just don’t see it as a real option.

Banning Russia from the Olympics. While still causing harm to their athletes, it would send a very powerful message to the government. While I still don’t like the idea of denying athletes, many of whom are probably gay, it is the least damaging of the previous options. Sadly, I’m not even sure that would work. Put – head has some pretty hard line policies and I can’t honestly believe he’d change his mind.

Pressuring sponsors. This is probably the least likely to cause harm but also least effective. I’d support the effort but I’m having a hard time finding a positive net result.

I would push other countries into a united front against Russia. Then if they didn’t budge the IOC could resort to banning Russia from attending. To me this seems to be the most effective way to make a positive change before the Olympics. Granted, any athletes that get arrested for ‘propaganda’ would set off world wide repercussions. While I’d never wish that on anyone, I’d support any athlete who did it! And sadly, I am worried it is the only really effective way to make a difference over there. *sigh*

Cognitive

My big word of the day, Cognitive Dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is basically when a person(s) hold simultaneous beliefs or ideas that conflict thereby creating dissonance. Our id will not tolerate too much of said dissonance and often times something has to give to resolve the conflict. A good example is the whole fight over nudity here in SF. [1]The gun issue going on right now is another glaring example  The issue has really been good blog fodder. Not only the issue itself but also some of the observations surrounding it.

It is my opinion that many involved could not resolve the idea that someone could be both against public nudity and be progressive or liberal. Others couldn’t resolve the idea that gay men who love Folsom, Dore, and all that comes with that could also support the ban. I would call that a pretty clear case of CD. Being unable to resolve the conflict resulted in lots of name-calling, outlandish statements, and overall disgust at how SF has become fascist, Republican, and/or conservative. This created an enemy that didn’t cause conflict, could be blamed, and thereby restoring balance in the id. Oh, and any gays who were vocal about supporting the ban were also labeled as uppity, prudes, outsiders, greedy, and/or selfish. Same result different variant. [2]And I am not saying there weren’t some valid arguments. There were. The problem is said arguments were never going to be strong enough to gain public support.  The very idea that you could be both gay and for the nudity ban was simply inconceivable to many. Some expressed their outrage just over that very fact.

There were many other issues at play here but this was something that struck me in a profound way. It was also very divisive. I had friends on both sides that were very passionate over it. Once I realized what I was seeing, I actually pulled back a bit to watch things unfold. It was like a weird science project. I swear I should have been a psychologist because I totally dig it. Lol Then you have the problem of filtering out the conspiracy nuts, the ignorant, and all of the personal bias. The latter being a mountain unto itself. So many were just randomly spewing nonsense. The mob mentality online is bound to be a thesis for someone somewhere.

Back on point, I don’t have a clue how we can work to better this. Belief is a powerful thing, as evidenced by the grip that organized religion has had over society for centuries. The problem I see these days is that belief seems to no longer be reliant on facts. For myself, without knowing the facts or details, I try not to go all holier-than-thou. That in itself would solve a lot of problems. I also try to be honest with myself if I have a personal bias over an issue. For example, on the nudity thing, some people that know me were very surprised at my reaction. They assumed I’d be all up in arms over it. And I’ll admit it did give me pause. I see no harm in nudity, or sex for that matter. I think our puritanical culture here in the US is extremely biased against sex in general. But as mentioned, it was more about a lack of respect IMO than the actual nudity. I also recognize a need for boundaries and respect for others.

The idea that a father of a slain child could be heckled by gun fanatic is another very striking and shameful version of cognitive dissonance. It was also a lot of other very shameful things but I was very sad to have read it. Anyway, the point of my little ramble today is it helps if we try to look outside the box from time to time. Instead of ignoring facts, we should embrace them. We should also realize that labels do not define us as individuals.

References

References
↑1 The gun issue going on right now is another glaring example
↑2 And I am not saying there weren’t some valid arguments. There were. The problem is said arguments were never going to be strong enough to gain public support.

Gubbmint

I am soooo tired of the shrilling over the guns in this country. Seriously, even some of my own friends have fallen off the deep end w/some of their comments about gun rights. And the cognitive dissonance to trump up reasons to avoid enacting stronger controls is just dazzling to behold. As a preface, I grew up on a farm with plenty of guns. We had a variety of rifles, shotguns, and occasionally even a few handguns. I also work for a law-enforcement agency. I am as pro-gun as can be. That being said, I am also pro-responsibility.

You do not need a high-powered weapon that pumps out bullets in microseconds. You cannot come up with a single valid reason, other than selfishness [1]or naked male insecurity to validate a need for such things. There may have been a time when we as a society could live w/o such restrictions but that time is long past. And for that matter, the 2nd amendment does not give you unrestricted rights to any type of firearm. It refers to a well regulated militia, keyword regulated. The government can and has regulated the types of weapons that are legal/carry in this country for decades.

POTUS is not “after your guns.” This is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard so far. The conspiracy theories I’ve heard are beyond crazy. For the record, this POTUS has done less than any recent sitting prez in memory regarding gun regulations. The fact that he has been pushed into coming up with some sensible gun regulations after repeated tragedies does not make him ‘after your guns.‘ Many of the proposals put forward were already in a previous assault-weapons ban that expired recently. The world kept turning and people still had guns while the ban was in place. The rest helps close loop-holes so felons, mentally-ill, etc cannot get access to weapons they shouldn’t have. Getting a background check for all weapons sales is not unrealistic in any fashion. You’d think this would be a no-brainer.

Then we hear the argument, if we take the guns away, the killers will still kill. Really? So should we also do away with laws that prevent murder? People are still getting murdered so why have a law right? Again, this argument would be more relevant if we were talking about banning all guns. We aren’t. You can listen to all the rhetoric and lies being pumped out by the NRA and the crazies, or you can look at cold hard facts. Restricting access to types of weapons in no way infers the government is after all weapons. You’ll still be able to legally buy a gun to protect yourself. You just won’t have access to weapons that pump out rounds and rounds of bullets every minute.

Lastly, the only possibly relevant reason you could argue for keeping assault weapons would be to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. Sounds simple on it’s face. But let’s look at that for a moment. When the 2nd amendment was written the government was on equal footing with its citizenship when it came to weapons. Beyond cannons, the government had pretty much the same weapons as everyone else. It took minutes to load said weapons and the range was quite limited. That couldn’t be further from the truth today. The reality is your ‘gubbmint’ has enough automated firepower to wipe out entire cities w/o a single soldier setting foot on the ground. If the government really wanted to come after its citizens, it could. We haven’t lived in an age of equal footing regarding armed rebellion pretty much since the civil war. Those days are behind us. And to think otherwise, is more than foolish. So this idea that you need assault weapons to protect you from the government is flawed logic at its finest.

If you add all the civilized countries on the entire planet together, we still out-number them in gun deaths almost 10-1. You can lie to yourself and others about your reasons, but common sense will prevail in the end. It may not prevail right away or even during this administration, but it will eventually. The question is how many more people (and children) have to die needlessly before we wake up as a country and act responsibly?

References

References
↑1 or naked male insecurity

Gone

I feel like I’m reaching a crossroads of sorts. I’ve noticed a couple coworkers who I’m pretty friendly with that are on a tear about voting for Mitt Romney. Normally, I’m pretty ok with people who vote differently that I do. It’s a free country and we all have a fundamental right to support whatever political agenda we choose.

The problem is I find that I’m less and less interested in engaging said individuals knowing they are for Romney. My feelings toward them have gone from good to bad. I’m disappointed obviously, but even more so, I’m actually a little hurt. This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, it’s an issue of fairness and equality. They’re supporting someone who claims to want to make my very existence a crime.

I understand part of it stems from indifference. My issues really aren’t their issues. They aren’t gay so the fight for equality is not high on their radar. I get it. But what really makes it a kick in the teeth is when you delve past the surface they clearly are ignorant of the facts and just seem to be repeating a lot of the completely false rhetoric being spread by the whole repug talking heads! It would be different if we just disagreed on how to reach a goal but it isn’t. I’m fighting for my right to be treated equally under the law and you’re pissed because you might end up paying a few extra taxes.

Working for a City gov, politics at work is completely off limits. We don’t hang out socially so I guess maybe I might be worried over nothing. Clearly, we aren’t that close so maybe I shouldn’t care that I’m moving further away from a friendship with them. I wish I could look beyond it but as hard as I try I can’t. I can’t be friends with someone who can’t support my right to exist and be who I am. Ignorance and/or indifference is not an excuse. The repugs make no secret about their plans so you know damn well what their planning if they win.

I realize they can choose to vote for whomever they wish, but I can also choose not to associate with someone who supports a fake liar who wants to make my existence a crime. Maybe I should be the bigger person and overlook it but I can’t. It’s hard to overlook a choice that affects the legality of my existence based on a genetic predisposition.

*sigh*

Boycott

I thought for sure I’d rambled on here about boycotts but a quick search of my stream showed nothing, so here goes…

I’ll keep this short and sweet. There is a lot of brouhaha over the boycott of Chick-fil-a in the news lately. First, I’ve been avoiding them for almost two decades. My first experience with said company was back in my early 20’s and once was enough. I smelled their crazy right away and haven’t eaten their since.

As I was writing this, I stumbled across this post on Towleroad. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

They may have the right to donate to causes meant to make me a 2nd-class citizen (or worse), but I also have the right not to give them my money. I don’t care one whit if my lack of support puts them out of business. Sometimes, the message is more important than the outcome IMHO. Conversely, I try to support those who stand up for equality, not just for myself but for all.

What else needs to be said?

One

Unless you’re living under a rock you know that yet another horrible discriminatory amendment passed in North Caroline recently. The fundies managed to rush thru a smear campaign of lies and scare tactics. They’ve discovered the latter the only way they can effectively get people to vote to enshrine discrimination into their state constitutions. It was a sad day for the LGBT folks in NC. Ironically, the last time NC amended it’s constitution was to ban interracial marriage.

We all know where this is headed. The fundies know they can’t get a federal amendment passed so they are working in as many states as they can to keep us 2nd class citizens as long as possible. They also are all-in on trying to get Obama ousted next term. They are so desperate right now they would vote for anyone that gives them lip service. Overall support for us is growing more and more every year and they are quaking in their boots over that. Eventually, a federal law will pass nullifying all these hateful anti-gay measures. It will be years before we see it happen but I am confident it will.

However, it is important now more than ever that we continue to vote and make our voices heard. I’ve been somewhat disappointed in President Obama; however, he finally made me proud by making a symbolic statement for equality. I believe this was his strategy all along. If anything, I’m surprised he came out in full support of gay marriage before the upcoming election. And while I am extremely proud of him, I hope that it doesn’t hurt his chances at reelection. Another glaring reason why you need to vote. If you aren’t registered, please do so. It is times like these that we must make our voices heard. We must continue to hold those who are elected to represent us to represent ALL of us. Those who hate us are motivated and organized and if we don’t step up, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Anyway, I’m dismayed yet another state fell for propaganda, racism, lies, and fear-mongered even though I’m not surprised. I send my love and best wishes to all those there who will have yet an even harder fight toward equality now.