Respect is earned, never given...

Quick! What's the spin?

Is this a right-wing Christian values group?

Union blue collar?

Socialist liberals?



Well, the quick answer at the time of this writing is: I have no idea.


I don't know who is funding this push, but this simple and seemingly innocent lovey-dovey meme shared on my Facebook wall this morning went through me as a reflection on a lot of what's the core problem with our society today.

Let's break it down for every ounce of it's logical invalidity.


"Because I believe in family"

As Thomas Sowell stated, part of the core problem with our society is that "I feel" and "I believe" are considered fair substitutes for "I think" or "It reasons that..."  Believing something works for matters of faith, for matters of personal conviction, and in the context of this little button really isn't too terrible. The person is being asked to boycott X, but only because they enjoy Y. What strikes this as invalid in the applied usage, is that Y only correlates to X because of one misguided belief.  The second presumptive statement that I take issue with is a common political technique.  "Because I believe in family" instantly limits your opposition to taking the assumed stance of "not believing in family" whatever that would actually entail in practice.

"I pledge to not shop on thanksgiving"

The money line.  The "sacrifice" this person is willing to make, is to NOT go shopping.   Pay no mind to the reality of defining "going shopping" in an age of e-commerce, but pay attention to this level of dedication and effort to a cause.  This is just as ridiculous as the concept behind a "gas off" day where people skip a day to buy gas...as if you don't just have to turn right around the next day and fill up.

If you need the things you are buying on thanksgiving, you'll just buy them the next day...the store won't be hurting overall.

This brings me to the final "point" of this pledge button

"Everyone deserves a holiday"

No.

No one DESERVES a holiday.


Oh the other side of this thought is that minimum wage worker who can only afford the big turkey dinner the following weekend after payday...after they have gotten their bigger check from working overtime/holiday hours.  Even if not overtime, who are any of us to tell someone else when they should be too good to work?

Just because thanksgiving is a traditional family holiday, doesn't mean that the world stops. No more than for any other holiday.  The person working at Walmart on Christmas eve isn't  a poor downtrodden slave, they are working...earning a living...and trying to get by.  They don't need the idle patronage of random facebookers telling them they should go home instead, because they deserve it.

So Mr. Button pusher, I will do quite the opposite.  I will purchase whatever I feel like on any day I feel like it. The businesses that understand the free market have taken a calculated risk in opening their doors on a holiday, and part of that risk is paying the wages of their employees that are showing up to work, and doing their jobs as they are paid to do.

I will not not encourage and enable a society that "feels" like a certain day is cruel to work simply because a couple hundred years ago someone ate some turkey?

The same type of person, who would look you in the eye and say "You deserve to be off on thanksgiving!" is the same person who slides a piece of chocolate cake in front of you despite knowing you are on a diet.  "You deserve a piece, one piece isn't gonna hurt you..."


I recently had the pleasure of taking in a local production of Les Miserables,  the setting of the play in during the french revolution so I couldn't help but to conjure up images of Anne Boleyn shouting "Let them eat cake"

The line, for those unfamiliar, was in response to the queen being told the people had no bread to eat.

A few hundred years ago, people (French people mind you!) had the courage to fight and die in the streets, simply for the right to work for themselves and keep bread to eat.

Fast forward to 2013, and we Americans sit around and tell each other to have another piece of cake, no matter how fat, diabetic, and unhealthy we get.  Because, well, we deserve it.





PS:

With apologies to the friends who shared this button with zero intention to initiate a political/sociological rant

Oh hey, this thing's still on

Sorry I haven't been updating much, I've just been so busy spending all of the extra money I save on healthcare thanks to Obamacare!


Or...

Sorry I haven't been updating much, I've just been concerned over Syria...turns out there's pretty good evidence they have WMDs!

Or...


Sorry I haven't been updating much, it's just this Russian anti-gay thing is really just keeping me awake at night.  





Regardless,

Here I am.


Deal.

WARNING: This blog contains language not suitable for pussies

Contrary to statist belief, human beings are born with rights. These rights are inherent and not granted only by the good graces of Lord Government. There's a common problem among younger demographics that honestly believe that "I feel" is a valid replacement for "I think."  Combine these elements and that brings us to the topic of the day:  You do not have any inherent right to not be offended.  It is one of those rare things in life that no one can control other than the individual so there is literally no fair way to legislate it. Of course, lots of people "feel" that logic is mean or unfair so we get a society that tries to do the impossible and legislate "niceness." while maintaining free speech.

The current buzz is related to the Washington Redskins.  I won't bore anyone with why this is considered "offensive" since I'm sure you can figure out which group white folks are rushing out to be offended on behalf of, but suffice to say this is the most hilariously stupid idea I've ever heard.  Let's give some background on our spotlight pity group of the minute: "Native Americans."

First, they are about as "Native" as I am.  I was born here, my parents were born here, my grandparents were born here. You have to go back to the 1600's to find a branch of my family tree that doesn't root in US soil. There's this great image people have adopted as fact of peaceful Indian (somehow that word is still okay though) tribes that were sitting around petting deer and growing corn when a boatload of drunken white people showed up and started shooting them and selling their scalps for beer money.  There is not a single piece of land claimed by anyone on this planet that wasn't taken from someone else by force to assume ownership.  The idea that "white people", an awkwardly ironic racist generalization that is applied to anyone of fair skin from numerous locations in the world, came in and brought war, famine, and evil to a peaceful land of hugs is so naive and childish that it shouldn't merit a response, yet it is basically preached to children throughout their entire schooling. Did people land here and eventually push out another culture of people and take over their lands by force? Absolutely. Something that would have been done by those same people if they had the ability to do it.  I'm sure they just had axes, tomahawks, and bows purely for hunting animals though right?  I don't feel sorry for a group of people that just met with advanced weaponry, any more than i feel sorry for Somalian pirates being blown up by a cruise missile. Indians were some not peaceful people at their core innocent of any crime.  Need I reference the Indian massacre of 1622? Men, women, and even children were slaughtered by Indians under the guise of a peaceful trade. Had they been abused themselves? Absolutely, but by a single group of English colonists, and though there are varying accounts of barbaric acts, none seem sinister enough to merit a massacre including small children. The ultimate irony for bleeding heart liberals on this topic is that the Indians only lashed out violently because the settlers were under orders to "collect a tribute of food and wealth" that they felt was undeserved. In other words, they felt taxes were too high. But yes, I should be burdened with guilt and restrictions in my life, nearly 400 years later, because some people with "sticks and stones" as their most advanced form of weaponry decided to stand up to people with firearms and lose brilliantly. It was a noble act to stand up in defiance of the violation of their property rights, I admire the concept, but when your plan is "just go butcher the children" I'm not gonna shed a tear when you get stomped out.

There were many humanitarian crimes committed against Indians though, I'm not denying that.  The problem is that we expect society as a whole, hundreds of years later, to have their rights restricted because of individual crimes they had nothing to do with I didn't scalp any Indians, that I know of, in my life. I've probably never met a true 100% Indian, perhaps seen one that was toured around like an exotic animal in school at some point...maybe as some diversity fair. I've certainly never personally assaulted one verbally or physically.  Why should I be punished?

How am I being punished? Well, I don't care enough about the NFL to be boo-hooing over the loss of Redskins as a name, but it sickens me to watch idiotic humans with misguided visions tearing down free speech, something I love dearly, all in the name of guilt. If I wanted to live my life based on rules of illogical guilt and self loathing, I would not be writing this blog at the moment, but celebrating the election of my new Pope.  We should feel guilty and bad when we do something wrong. Not when someone else, unrelated in any way to us does wrong to someone else.  We shouldn't like it when someone is mean to someone else.  The problem with the modern world of political correctness, is that we try to scientificate (my word) a process that is 100% subjective. As if certain words, phrases, or actions are inherently evil by their mere existence.  If I say "Man, I cannot wait to see the Redskins game this weekend"  everyone knows I'm talking about football, there's nothing derogatory being said about Indians or anything like that.  Yet this has been deemed "offensive."  I have a wonderful practice anyone reading can do if they are offended by the name "Washington Redskins:"  Don't watch them. Don't buy a ticket. Don't buy a jersey.  You haves to all of those actions.  You do NOT have the right to tell me that I cannot do those things.  If the Redskins commercials were laden with "Come check out the redskins brutally rape and murder the children of the Dallas Cowboys this weekend while trying to avoid the small pox blanket of defense that is the Dallas secondary...." then you might be onto something.  This is a matter of assigning hard value to a word.  There's no such thing.  If there were hard values to a word, you would feel that same shadow of white guilt when Jay-Z busts out "Where my niggers at" as you would when Jethro stumbles into the room and says "Anyone seen them niggers?" The usage of a word, and the intent of the person using the word are what create insult, not the letter combination and phonemes themselves.   Furthermore, there are already harassment laws on the books.  If I'm following around an Indian going "Hey squaw, hey redskin, hey tonto" that's harassment and already banned at the workplace, and society as a whole will treat me like a racist piece of shit for doing so (rightfully so). We don't need to treat words like the Germans treat the holocaust.  Pretending these words never existed is not going to suddenly make some inbred redneck a tolerant and respectful member of society. The only thing changes like this do, as consistently reinforce the concept that we are not all equal human beings, but rather sects meant to be isolated for our differences. Again, the irony of that reality contrasted with the lovey-dovey  bleeding heart crowd is worthy of a mighty head shake.

Let me explain a little bit about how being "offended" works.  A person gets offended when they are weak.  How harsh right? But so true.  Shielding someone artificially from racism, hatred, anger, and other evils of the world by creating a false protective bubble only sets them up for the day they are bombarded by an unforeseen assault that leaves them shattered.  Think of insults like getting a flu shot.  We get a little bit of flu virus so that our body can build up an immune system and be prepared when the real thing comes.  That's how being offended needs to work.  Letting people go through life being vulnerable to suffering at simple words is like not immunizing your baby to chicken pox.   Now if the "I'm offended" crowd had it their way, words like "Redskin" and "nigger" would be banned. There would be some microchip implanted into our body that would shock us every time we considered using it or something of that nature.  If they had their way how much art would be lost? The same people that rally around the art world when Christians get up in arms about elephant-dunged virgin Mary want to rally behind banning words?  Where would the aforementioned Jay-Z be in his career with "Nigga" as a lyrical option?

We should not seek to bury and hide an ugly past by sweeping it under the rug. Much like the child without a chicken pox vaccine, putting it off until later is only going to make it worse.   Instead of hiding the stain, explain how the stain got there and what we can do to avoid another stain in the future.  When a kid goes "Grand-dad, why are they called the Redskins?" It's a great time to explain how people used to label other humans by their skin color and treat them differently based on it, the term now is used in a harmless game and demonstrates how we can turn the ugliest of words and sentiments into nothing more than a logo for a game, played with a ball.

As long as we keep seeking to protect everyone we can label as a minority, we will never rise above petty racism and the true evil behind those words. Being offended is a decision made by a person hearing a word, it is a reaction, not an action.  You cannot ban a reaction that is controlled solely by the person having the reaction.  Maybe in your culture/family saying "Hello" is offensive because it contains the word "Hell."  Should I be punished for saying Hello to you? Should I be forced to change my company's nametags that all say "hello, my name is ____" because you might be offended? Of course not. Because you're too small of a minority, you're a nut.  We only like to reward minorities that are big enough to be a political conquest afterall.

There's no logic in being offended. Your inability to deal with self esteem, ego, and other internal mental conditions is not sufficient cause to remove my right to use any speech I choose to use. So I'll leave with you a much shorter and concise version of my complaint that probably sums it up a lot better than I, take it Stephen:

Obligatory Gun Post

Conservative Slacker back with another original blog entry, this time with over 30% new material!

Yes, I realize my last entry was mostly filled with copy/paste but it was rather necessary to at least give a basis for my ranting. This time we'll move onto the hot topic of the day since the economy is completely fixed and everyone is back to work again   and dive into the most presser matter for the country: Gun Control!

Ya! Ya! Giddyup! We're wrangling us some of them there wild firearms today!

A few bullet points to knock out before we get started:

1) No, the founding fathers did not write the US Constitution and all of the clauses within it, and in the same breathe never conceive of guns that might be more deadly than firearms.  This isn't the jump from the telegram the internet, firearms improved more dramatically in the 100 years leading up to the revolutionary war than they did in the 100 years after it, so the concept that people like Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson couldn't imagine a world with deadlier firearms is just the height of intellectual fraud.

2) No, the founding fathers did not intend for you to have a personal arsenal able to rival any world military. The 2nd amendment was written so that you could take up arms against enemies both external and internal including your own government.  Now, in a line that may seem to contradict the previous statement, it's one thing for firearms to become faster, more accurate, etc.  I do not imagine the founding fathers considered briefcase nukes capable of leveling cities. So the right to arm yourself to a level to defend against the government has limitations. 

3) With apologies to Alex Jones, no one in their right mind thinks Joe Citizen should have a nuke.  That is what would be required if we armed ourselves with the equivalent weapons that are available to our government.  The line clearly needs to be drawn somewhere.   It is also completely naive and borderline retarded if you are clinging bitterly to that gun and bible (The PBR is in a koozie on the coffee table) and telling me that you need that AR to defend against you government...that government with trained professional soldiers with remote control drones and cruise missiles are not concerned about Crazy Jeb's Refurbished AK-47 he bought out of the back of Soldier of Fortune magazine. 

4) Can gun control nuts please learn what the hell they are demanding or rallying against before they go spewing talking points? Can you explain the difference between an automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle? If not, please go back to protesting nukes, or animal furs, or something else with less confusing terms for you, ok? I'm just a little annoyed when I can't even have an argument about gun control because the person doesn't even know what they want banned.

5) Let's say one heartless and oh so uncaring thing about school shootings, especially with the recent elementary school shooting:  If you decide to go make a group of  kids under age 10 your target, it doesn't matter if the only thing you are carrying is a wiffle bat and a fucking iPod, you will take out as many as you want. It doesn't matter if it's an automatic, a semi-automatic, or a pop-cap gun...they have zero defense. They are babies and little children, and if you are fucked up in the head enough to go after them, no law in the land is going to stop it. The sick irony is that the EXACT day Newton happened, across the globe a man butchered 22 children with a knife in broad daylight and adults had to helplessly swing brooms at the man to "fight him off".  It's almost like God reached down and said "I know those fucktards in the American Left are going to blame guns, so here's a guy with a knife...fucking hell they didn't even notice..."

So what do we do folks? Well first, we at least make some effort to remember why Obama is in office.  He's in office because of how much you hated George Bush. Remember? He lied, people died, etc etc. All on the same page? Good.  Why did we hate George Bush?  Well because he abused the powers of his office and exploited fear over a tragedy to produce war and restrictive unconstitutional laws such as the Patriot Act....remember...you know the one Obama continued...ah you know what that's another blog...forget that for now...The point is that the last thing you do after a tragedy is make wide sweeping changes to our freedoms because you are emotional.   

Now we back up and we look as objectively as possible at what happened. What would we do had this man went in with a knife and done the exact same thing (Please don't tell me he couldn't have as explained earlier)?  Any logical conclusion is that the gun was irrelevant. It should be banned no more than the car he drove to the school to commit his crimes.

What can be done to prevent bad people from happening? Well frankly nothing. Without a lobotomy, bad people will always exist because we have free will.  You can ban every item you want in the world, and the bad people will find another way.  The intent to commit the crime is the problem, not the tool utilized. Now, if we put everyone under 24/7 government surveillance and station armed military patrols at every corner in America, we might be able to prevent this type of tragedy, but short of  this 1984 approach (which may be fine by many Statists) children will die, and other disgusting tragedies will occur.

I know Donna Reed, and you're no Donna Reed.

Well well, I believe that is long enough of a delay. Allow me to follow up on my promised full "review and analysis" of this trash passed off as legitimate writing that Liza Long vomited into existence in response to the Connecticut school shooting.


Adam Lanza's Mother:

From the title we know a few things things:  Liza is a liar, and the lowest form of attention whore utilizing (within hours) one of the most tragic shootings in this nation's history to get a few blog hits under the guise of "helping" to draw attention to mental health concerns. You cannot expect myself or any rational human being to believe Liza didn't know her misleading title was meant to suck in every google search being done on that fateful day trying to gather real facts and "juicy gossip" of this tragedy.  Congrats for the increased blog hits, you godless whore.


Moving on to the content of this essay of filth:

Written by Liza Long, republished from The Blue Review

Friday’s horrific national tragedy -- the murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut -- has ignited a new discussion on violence in America. In kitchens and coffee shops across the country, we tearfully debate the many faces of violence in America: gun culture, media violence, lack of mental health services, overt and covert wars abroad, religion, politics and the way we raise our children. Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Ok, a decent setup to what might be a good article, nothing here to gripe about yet.

While every family's story of mental illness is different, and we may never know the whole of the Lanzas' story, tales like this one need to be heard -- and families who live them deserve our help.

I'm of the mindset that no one "deserves" help from others in most capacities, but again nothing wrong to this point.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

Oh Liza, what a wacky story this might be. Thank you for changing to a comedic tone for such a light hearted subject.  Ha ha, the wrong pants you say?! How funny! Please go on.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

Ah, let's start here shall we?  Your 13 year old son just called you a stupid bitch.  In my childhood, this would have resulted with getting my face busted in about .3 seconds. But as I'm sure Liza got from her Dr. Spock pamphlets, she tried logic and reasoning with the 13 year old boy.  She is quite the harsh matriarch though is she not? Clearly we can see a small peak into the discipline tactics that have surely left young Michael with such a balanced and healthy approach to discussing disagreements with his mother.  No electronics FOR THE REST OF THE DAY, holy shit, why not book a trip to Guantanamo you heartless whore!? He was just expressing himself!

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

Probably because you have demonstrated zero capacity for parenting thus far and you probably deep down understand that he knows you're a shitty parent too.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

Now your 13 year old is threatening you, himself, and apparently his siblings with a knife. Now let's give you some benefit of the doubt that your son is truly mentally ill, apparently violently so, but you've chosen to leave him in a situation where other young children are at risk and you clearly have little to no control over him.  Amazing parenting on display once again Liza.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

Liza here is apparently trying to convey (with her description of the officers and paramedic) that her 13 year old is so fiesty and powerful that 4 grown men were required to hold him down.  Again, this is the same child she doesn't mind being around her other young children and herself.  If Michael is truly this dangerous he has no business in the home, period.  Yes you love him. Yes he is your son. Every vicious murderer, rapist, and other criminal has parents too, and many of them with parents that loved them very much too.  I'm not allowing "but I love him" to justify putting your two other children (that you should probably love as much, I'm assuming) in danger because you want him to have a "normal" life.   Now how exactly, without medication or "beds available" did they get him to "calm down nicely" in the ER?  Oh, I'm guessing he got bored or was ready to go play with his electronics.  Oh and don't forget, here's a pill! That'll make him learn how to behave in just a quick 50 milligrams of "attention" Why do any parenting when they make a pill for it, am I right?

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

In other words, you can't find anything actually wrong with him, and you've tried doping him up with every drug known to man and wonder why he acts a little strange? You're so smart Liza, and have I mentioned what an incredible parent you are?  Let's go back to the only one you've mentioned by name (Though we can only imagine the other drug cocktails you've infused your son with at every chance) Zyprexa:  Known side effects: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0045200/#DDIC602547.side_effects_section

To pick out a few highlights:  "Loss of appetite"  "Increased Appetite"   "Loss of interest or pleasure" "Change in personality" "Trouble with concentrating"   Sounds like Liza has made yet another informed and educated decision on the health of her beloved son.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Don't worry about that IQ Liza, I'm sure if you keep doping him up you can have him completely zombified before long. I'm starting to wonder if jealousy is a root cause of Liza's troubles, as from this example I would put young Michael about 20 years ahead of Liza on intelligence.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

And there's the money shot, huh Liza? That's what you're looking for, someone else to toss your son onto because you can't be bothered to actually do some parenting.  A free public babysitter as "The district's MOST RESTRICTIVE BEHAVIORAL PROGRAM"  That's how that young mind can be sure to flourish, how smart and wise Liza is.  Nothing says "Expand your mind" like a nazi concentration camp surrounded by other fucked up kids of fucked up parents. Let's bundle all of the miscreants and derelicts into one "program" so they can learn that surrounding yourselves with such great influence in these developing teen years.  I wish my mom had sent me to serial killed summer camp when I was put into gifted classes in 7th grade too!

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

Typical child, seriously.  You meant o tell me you got a fake apology with the only goal of getting his stuff back? How unique and baffling!

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

That's right you staunch disciplinarian, 24 full hours! You stick to your guns, you stupid bitch...

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

What does "calculated rage" look like exactly in a 13 year old?  Oh my, a child threatened extreme response for wanting his toys back, never seen that before...next thing you'l tell me this crazy unique child will starve himself to death rather than eat his cauliflower!

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.
“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

Michael here is probably correct.  I cannot imagine being a 13 year old boy, shoved from doctor to doctor, pilled up from who knows what age, being taken to another facility where people in lab coats will ask him about his feelings and medicate him.  Michael probably doesn't like flying over the cuckoo nest.  But I will at least give Liza credit for actually sticking to a promised punishment, of course if I promised to lobotomize my child the next time they asked "are we there yet" on a car ride, I shouldn't get a lot of parenting points for following through.

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

So wait a minute, 4 grown "burly" men are required to bring him now but you are "Still stronger than him, for now"  which is it Liza? Is he a roving Juggernaut of destruction which no man can contain or is he a 13 year old boy, prone to temper tantrums from shitty parenting and what seems to be lack of a father figure (could be wrong but I don't think Dad ever gets mentioned here)

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork -- “Were there any difficulties with… at what age did your child… were there any problems with.. has your child ever experienced.. does your child have…”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

You ignorant, lying, propaganda spreading, agenda pushing whore of a shitty parent.  That is 100% false that "No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing" unless she is referring to raising her child for her, in which case she is correct.  What Liza is really saying here is that her "freelance career" is probably similar to all of those "freelance artists" I went to school with that doodle things and post them on facebook trying to sympathy sell them to friends for $10 here and there while collecting some form of government handout to get by on.  She is implying she gave up some dream career or took some sort of pay cut, but I'm betting that's far from the case.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying -- that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

So far, in one public account by your own hands, you've been caught lying multiple times...he's probably quite correct. You just wanted a few days free with another "restrictive program of babysitting"

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

There are plenty of options, one that springs to mind quickly is...and I know this is crazy so please put the Zyprexa away as I won't be taking it, DO SOME GOD DAMNED PARENTING.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

Why did the color of skin come up here? What possible reason does it even have to be mentioned? What does gender or skin color have to do with mental health? By these provided numbers we have 61 mass murders (who knows the parameters they used, but I'll accept that number for the sake of argument) over the last 30 years. In the country of  300+ million that means 0.000020333333333333334% of the population has acted on mass murder.  Clearly this is a massive problem that we should consider a massive government involvement at high costs to look into.   

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise -- in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

Well Liza, gee, I wonder if a higher number of incarcerations of the mentally ill is because "Mentally ill" is a "valid" defense used in court to avoid higher punishments.  Nah, let's not let logic get in the way of our agenda.  Now the other part of this comment that's amazing to me:  "The Chaotic environment exacerbates Michael's sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn't deal with the underlying pathology"   You mean...maybe like pumping him full of mental meds and taking him to a mental hospital every time he acts up?  Brilliant parenting work again, Supermom.

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill -- Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

Because that's what you do with people who are too crazy to be trusted not to kill everyone the first time someone doesn't put whole milk in their cereal instead of 2%, dumb fuck.  You lock them away from society where they cannot harm you. It does suck to send a 13 year old to jail, what sucks more is that a bright and high IQ'd boy had to have such a shitty parent that his mind has been drug-fucked into a psychotic frenzy beyond repair and having that child let loose on society because "Mommy loves him too much!"

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

There's the agenda again, it's "broken healthcare system" What the fuck is broken about our system. The system you've already blatantly lied about earlier in this same essay. You've managed to get your son pumped full psychotic meds for years now from your description, that doesn't sound like denied treatment to me...though for his sake I wish it had been. The "stigma" on mental health is because so many people, like yourself, use it as a crutch to excuse not having to do anything difficult in raising your child.   People get sad and start popping anti depressants instead of dealing with their issue and overcoming it, they bury it under a fog of Zoloft, Prozac, and Ritalin.

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

Nah, why not prescribe the entire country a few dozen pills...i'm sure that's a better way to heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

Agreed, because the more people like Liza we have regurgitating their ignorance on the internet the higher the odds are that more people will believe it as fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One final note, for anyone who may think I'm "attacking" Liza and poor "Michael", this is what happens when you lay your situation out as an argument for something. Arguments are meant to be debated. You don't get a free pass on debate because "That's my son! Who are you to judge my parenting! You haven't been in my shoes! Etc. Etc.

It's the ultimate defense mechanism.  It's ok to exploit your story for YOUR argument and for YOUR agenda, but if I start tearing your argument apart like a vicious dingo with an Australian baby then I'm "attacking your personal life"  

Don't use your personal life as propaganda if you want it immune to criticism. Especially when you can't form a coherent argument to save your life.

Here's hoping Michael survives your shitty parenting and can become a productive member of society, though it's probably too late for that.

Michael probably summed it up better than most, displaying his advanced IQ:

Liza Long: You're a stupid bitch.

Teaser Trailer

I'll be back soon.


Explaining why "Adam Lanza's Mother" is one of the most disgustingly pitiful self-serving exploitation of tragedy I have witnessed in my life.


Yes, if you're reading this and you know what I'm referencing, you should feel ashamed for "Sharing" that article.

New York's Biggest Criminal

More worthless legislation than you can shake a stick at.

Mayor Bloomberg brings us New York's latest brand of fascism, a proposed ban on sugary drinks of over 16 ounces.

In a time when jobs are scarce, crime is up, and a laundry list of actual problems face society dear Mayor Bloomberg has pushed forward this brilliant piece of garbage.  Now let's pretend for a minute you actually think for some bizarre and possibly insane reason this is a good idea in theory, and skip right to asking "How in the hell is this going to curb the issue of obesity?"

1) Anyone with a pulse knows an arbitrary unit of measurement placed on a ban like this will just lead to the same company that offered a 32 ounce Big Gulp to offer you a new and improved 16 ounce pair of sodas or a million other simple workarounds. This does NOTHING to curb any sugar intake by anyone. This is simply a further attack on business, period.

2) I can honestly say I have never in my life bought a Big Gulp in these massive sizes being targeted by this bill, and while I have had my share of super-sized sodas from fast food places, that was only as a side effect of wanting the super-sized fries, and the attempts early on to tell the cashiers "Can you just give me the drink in a medium cup so it will fit my cup holder?" Just led to the same mastery and efficiency as when you order your sandwich as anything other than "As it comes" or "Plain" so I would just begrudgingly take the mountain of soda as well.  Are we supposed to believe that after I chow down on my triple bacon cheeseburger and large fries that it's that evil soda that's causing me to be fat?  Are we concerned that health conscience people are being confused? "Yes, I'd like a grilled chicken salad, a side order of fresh fruit, oh and a 64 ounce Pepsi to wash it down with, I'm training for a marathon you know, gotta stay hydrated!"

3)  Is this is a sensational decoy? Probably, get the conservatives worked up over a trivial bill..I gotcha...but at the same time...it's also real legislation...how are liberals able to justify trying to push legislation like this now?  Like usual, it comes down to control.  People make poor decisions, can't accept blame, so it's the evil company that put that 64 ounce soda in your fat sausage fingers every day. To hell with your fat sausage fingers.  I have ran the gambit from normal weight to chubby to morbidly obese in my lifetime and I was never at a loss as to why the weight was going up or down.  If a person is too stupid to understand a 64 ounce soda is not a healthy choice, then let them die because we certainly don't want that brand of stupidity breeding.


A completely ineffective, expensive, fascist bill pushed by one of the most liberal cities in the country.  Color me shocked.

I'm really just surprised he didn't take the opportunity to blame guns for obesity as well.

North Carolina equally as rednecky and backwards as similar states...like California

Alright,

This is gonna be a quicky but just want to touch base on a few things here.

1)  North Carolina voted to ban equal rights, bravo North Carolina

2) Let's stop painting them as ignorant rednecks when California beat them to the punch by a wide margin in voting down equal rights and no one was running around talking about those ignorant backwoods hillbillies in Cali-forn-i-a.

3)  This is a reality check folks and for you big government types what more of an example would you like now that big government has once again trampled on rights?  Marriage is not in our consitution.  Marriage as a state sanctioned event is something we do not need.  Stop fighting for government approval and fight for removing government from your bedroom, not just when it suits your side of things. This is EXACTLY why you want government doing as little as possible. Social cons haven't died out enough yet, you can either wait another 30-40 years and hope that shifts in another direction or you can do the right thing and help people remember that you don't need Uncle Sam to make your love for another person be official.

4)  To be clear, if we're going to have state sponsored marriage I prefer it be offered to everyone equally. I don't think it is right to tie certain legal benefits to an event, and then bar people from participating in that event based on religious views about those people. But then how would the politicians get you all riled up and excited without social issues to pull at your heartstrings with that they won't actually do anything with. You know like abortion, gay marriage, legalizing pot, and all of these other things that get people worked up, that aren't changing other than token bones tossed out from time to time.

5) Let's not pretend that Obama is doing anything other than trying to sling anything he can out there to get the conversation away from the economy.  Let's not pretend that the man that campaigned on "Marriage is between a man and a woman" suddenly had a revelation a couple months before election.  Stop pretending any of these politicians care about your rights, they care about power and growing their source of it, government regulation.

How could marriage rights be an issue if government didn't sanction the act of marriage?  There's a solution that leaves the social cons happy (their churches could refuse to do gay marriages. I'm not interested in hearing "Oh but we want the right to a church wedding..." No. You don't have the right to force a religion to go against their religion for you.  You do have the right to be with anyone you like, and call it anything you like.  If you want to call it marriage, go ahead.  Now the social cons can govern "christian" weddings however they see fit.  The homosexual community can open as many marriage churches/centers as they like.

Oh crap, a solution that reaches everyone's goals, penalizes no one's right to live their life the way they want?

Oh man, but where can we tax that?

Autonomobots Roll Out

I often feel that culture, society, and people in a general sense argue and debate political theories not because of an inherent disagreement in goals, but a disagreement in base philosophy of life.  I want to take a moment to explain what my personal goal in any political context aims to be.

Autonomy

That's the key to everything.  In my opinion this was the ultimate goal of the founding fathers when they laid out the constitution and the bill of rights.  We want to live in a society where any individual determines their own life path as much as possible. I don't hate big government because I hate poor people. I don't hate big government because I believe people shouldn't be able to have a quality of life. I hate big government because it takes away this very idea of autonomy.

When a change or law is debated, the first question I ask is one I believe we all should ask.  "How does this restrict my ability to control my own destiny?"  We're not supposed to debate from emotion. We debate from logic.  The entire concept that separates humanity from a puddle of amoebic goo is that we can think for ourselves, beyond our instincts.  Logic is our strongest mutant power, and far too often we throw it away to emotion and whims.  Hell, I'm a pretty emotional guy in general to be honest. I have a temper that, slow to raise, is horrendous when it arrives. It's not that we can't spark a debate with emotion, but when the emotion fades we have to be able to justify that decision through logic, or it is typically a bad decision.  There's a reason we don't let victims of crimes determine the punishment for those crimes.

Though the quote is probably overused, it remains a good one.  "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything away." I use the example of a general hot topic as a perfect illustration of this.  Gay Marriage.  While the left is busy fighting for "gay rights" to be married in the eyes of the government; Social cons fight to protect their definition of "marriage" in the eyes of the government. A sane person says "Why do I need government approval to dedicate my love life to another consenting adult?"  There's no reason for government to be involved in our life, so how about instead of fighting so hard for a government stamp of approval, you fight to get government out of all of our bedrooms.  When you force a new law on anyone that they don't like, whether they like or dislike it for valid reasons, there will be resentment, bitterness, and future problems.  What's the problem there if it's a fair law that respects autonomy you may ask?  The problem is in practice.

Let's face it, there are a lot of stupid people out there.  We created this problem by letting our emotions control us.  I think most people accept evolution at least in part as a valid theory.  I'll let the social cons hash out their beliefs of "macro" vs. "micro" and such, but especially in the "left" evolution is a very widely accepted theory.  Yet we fight every day to buck this theory and go against every bit of scientific data we have.  We do our best to make sure the weak survive. On average, with of course many legit exceptions, the less educated you are, the more kids you have.  Don't mean to offend any Duggers out there, but social studies have shown this to always be the case that the more poor and uneducated a person is, it is far more likely that they will have more children. When we coddle these people, we ensure that their weaknesses grow.  You don't see sickly lions hand fed by the strong lions. They are eaten and killed.  I'm not suggest we round up our impoverished for a cookout featuring longpig-a-plenty, but I am showing how we, as a society practice principles that directly conflict with nature itself, and irony being that it's typically the side of the aisle associated with protecting nature itself. When you ask for a governing body, at force of gunpoint, to control behavior you hand the keys of autonomous life over as well.

I want to choose my bedroom partners without a law telling me I can or cannot. The only time government should restrict my actions, is when my actions restrict another person's autonomy. Case closed.  End of discussion. That is it.  You have no right to use military force (which is what government is) to control my behavior on anything that does not affect you or your life.

There are many conflicting theories on most political hot topics that would allow debates like this to be handled logically. However, we don't get to see that do we? Both sides play on the emotions. Republicans love only the wealthy and hate women, babies, minorities, puppies, and anything that isn't a 40 year old christian white male.  Liberals hate responsibility, hard work, the bible, accountability, and anything that resembles a 40 year old white christian male. That's all we hear.  For every intelligent person that can see through this bs, there are a dozen on each side repeating the lines they've been fed.

You've been lied to if you think your vote matters, assuming you fall into the intelligent category.  Because no matter how much time you waste pondering the pros and cons of any topic, there are busloads of sheep waiting to mark the box they've been told to mark on both sides. This is why you cannot empower government to restrict people's lives.

The stupid will always outnumber the intelligent, and we really smart people have decided voting majorities gives the best results.

Moo.

Master System didn't even have an "A" button, kid

As the clock drudges forward I realize my Emerald Nuts must be lacking because I'm passing out at the dash.  So I think to myself, "Hey let's see if OADS has any new blog entries, boy that guy can be entertaining!"  Not only did i find an entertaining entry, I found Slacker Conservative to be at the focus point.  At first, I was in blissful shock. Then, as I began to really take in the splendor that is this Great White Shark of blogs, I noticed something...

The guide says this is the best spot to feed from

Allow me the pleasure of filtering your spacious tank OADS:

An Open Letter to Weapon Mods




Dear Lamprey,

     Jealousy? Bitterness? Attention? Any of these would be understandable and believable reasons for the egregious actions committed by the staff at Weapon Mods. Recently, a writer from your staff took a break from his scarves, iPod, and strategic application of "The book was better" to any modernized form of media he could lay his eyes upon to piggyback a Pulitzer caliber creation from the soul of OADS. I could spend minutes pretending to care  about a lack of creativity in it's writing so apparent that even Uwe Bol says "pass." More importantly is the subject matter at hand though, which leads us to the core of our response.

"Go Fuck Yourselves" -   This from the guy that spent a week trying to re-align the planets to perfectly balance a series of intricate mirrors to reflect beams of the sun's energy onto sleeping caterpillars to clear a path for his beloved Mario? Pfft, "beloved Mario" of course to a man that didn't even meet mario until later in life. A child that scoffed at Mario and said "No thank you, I'm busy shooting the same nondescript tower ad nauseum on Space Harrier!" Now, past his prime, he slithers up to the warm bosom of Mario, hoping to suckle from the teet of nostalgia only to find it dry and bitter.


We know you are false. 


    Since you had no past with Mario, I suppose no one can fault you for not knowing the controls...I mean it's not like there was a magical toadstool at the beginning of the level telling you that you need to use your Slam (with giant McDonalds Employee style pictures of the button to trigger "Slam") attack to defeat them. No, not you, you weren't going to fall for that obvious trap! You have have avoided humiliation at the hands of "A," but at least I didn't try to sell someone on the masterpiece and genius and originality of the door puzzle that requires use of the official Mario Abacus and a Nautical map before having someone else figure it out for me by reading a placard on the wall that says "PRESS A BUTTON TO GO THROUGH THIS DOOR THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW" 

     I hope the future offerings of Weapon Mods are prepared with more professional acumen and less geared towards reminding Michael Jordan about that time he missed a Free Throw in 8th grade.

Fuck yourself,

-SC

Hey look!

I do remember this exists!


That is all.


Be back soon.

Max Force and Hitman aren't going to like this...(Part 1)

Believe it or not, most of my political leanings don't come from parents, religion, or some news channel.  Most of my gut feelings are based in my undying hatred of hypocrisy.  Let's get this out of the way now: There is no way for anyone to live their life without being slightly hypocritical here and there.  We can strive for it, but we are human and we will screw up from time to time.  That being said, I do try to do just that: strive for a life without hypocrisy. Since my last blog entry caused so much controversy with my millions of readers (believe me, the countless letters I have received have been overwhelming; even the ones from far far away) I thought I might remind readers of some of my "softer" social stances.

Marijuana

Why in the world is this illegal? There's basically no good reason for it.  I also refuse to really hear out any reason that doesn't begin with explaining why I might have to turn down the TV's latest stream of beer commercials to hear said argument.

I like to drink socially, it can be fun and relaxing. In the right atmosphere it can promote a good time, in darker times it can provide a comfort of sorts to drown your sorrows away.  While I'm not an advocate of the latter, I can respect its limited medicinal purposes as well.  As someone that, in spite of the nature of my career, tends to be a bit anti-social and a struggling "mingler," I can completely respect the idea of loosening up with a drink or two.

I feel like I'm insulting the intelligence of the reader to lay out some of these comparisons, but we might as well start at the top.  We have a country full of hypocrites on both sides of the proverbial aisle that refuse to right this wrong. I can go out, get completely shitfaced if I so choose, and it is legal and for the most-part socially acceptable. Smoke a joint in my own home and spend the evening watching TV? Hardened criminal!

Can you drink too much in one evening and die? Yes, as the thousands who die every year from this can have their families and loved ones attest to.

Can you smoke too much pot in one evening and die? No, unless you asphyxiate from a comically large amount of smoke. The same way you would die from smoking too many cigarettes in an hour or too much coffee.

Who hasn't had an out of control drunk friend that was trying to fight, brawl, scratch, and claw everyone around them?

When is the last time someone was on pot and got uncontrollably angry and dangerous to be around?

News articles you won't see anytime soon?

"Man high on marijuana murders family of 4"

"Woman "stoned" on marijuana is taken to jail after assaulting someone at a bar"

Look, I'm going to spare the comparison, we all know it's bogus. If you don't know it is bogus and you are reading this blog, let me sum it up for you quickly: Marijuana has never killed anyone, it has a fraction of the known side effects of alcohol and countless other legal drugs. It has less harmful chemicals in it than a can of Coke or Pepsi.

So let's get to the course of action shall we?

From Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale." absurd lie to "When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point" from our current president, we have a culture of amazing hypocrisy. Now supporters of BHO might go "See Pat, Obama is on your side here!" except for the fact that he has spent his first term in office cracking down on California marijuana law and will not support any movement at all to legalize it, same as gay marriage I might add....but that is for another day...

Ah social cons, how I love to despise you. But it isn't like they are to blame, not really.  Sure, I've listened to my own grandmother tell me a story of how a young man she knew overdosed on "pot" and died.  Yes, social cons certainly vocally lead the charge.  But Roe V Wade tells me that when this country decides to stand up for itself, we don't mind telling the social cons to go to hell.

Well guess what, it's time to tell them to go to hell again.  In the upcoming blog post I will lay out my plan for the effective legalization of marijuana.   You see, it unfortunately is not as simple as "Yay it's legal now, go!" There has to be a structured plan to it.  It does need to be regulated and controlled the same way alcohol is controlled.  We don't need 6 year olds sparking up. We don't need parents getting their kids stoned (We apologies to those who enjoyed this boon growing up, but let's be honest a young developing mind does not need to be stoned).


Part of this needed change needs to have honesty on both sides.

As much as the social cons are stupid, the complete potheads will need to be squelched as well.  You can't sit around smoking up every day and getting handouts, you cannot expect workplaces to lax their policies anymore than they can on alcohol.

Pot makes you lazy, it makes you lose ambition, and when used habitually it can cause serious problems in your life. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, just used as yet another measuring tool in society.  No one minds the employee that drinks socially on the weekend. But the one that goes home to a handle of Jack every evening and rolls into work smelling like a bar at 9am is an issue.

You aren't going to be able to smoke in the streets because unlike with cigarettes (this is just to prepare for a future blog on tobacco) the second hand smoke has an immediate demonstrable  effect on a passerby that would potentially cause unsolicited effects on their state of mind.

Stay tuned folks, the next blog gets a lot more number-crunching intensive and preachy, this one is just laying the groundwork.

Homosexuality not a choice? Tell that to Commander Shepherd...

You cannot save the galaxy until we cuddle, commander

STOP!

Right now.

Stop fueling up the engine of anger on the jet of vigilant truth and gearing up your usual suspects of bible-thumper thwarting one liners and zingers.

Good. Now let's lay this out shall we?

In brief, I do believe homosexuality is a choice an individual makes.  No, I don't remember the day I chose to be straight, but I still chose it and continue to choose it every day.  Free will folks, it's a bitch. Let's explore the possible options:

1) Homosexuality/Heterosexuality is a social choice that a person makes.

2) It is an inherent trait that you are born with and cannot control.


Let's first explain why I think the latter is bunk. If this is a genetic issue, that is to say there's some "gay" gene that makes you decide to not be attracted to the opposite sex then let's get this gasp-inducer out here now:  From a purely scientific standpoint, this would be an abnormality.  A mutant gene, or something that in following evolution would be a negative trait.  If a species is trying to procreate and survive, a genetic mutation that causes an individual to not want to be sexually active with the opposite gender would be a deterrent to survival. So since it is an abnormality, a mutation if you will, wouldn't a cure or treatment be something we should strive for?  I realize how brazen that may seem, but that is precisely part of my reasoning of why that simply cannot be the case.  If this was a genetic "decision" made on our behalf, it would be like any other "abnormality" and certainly someone born with this abnormality should receive medical treatment as any other abnormality.  If you could determine a "depression" gene that was going to cause your child to grow up with severe depression you would want to treat it, right?

So I've given some reasoning for why it is not a genetic mutation/disease, but what makes it so clearly a choice?  If I didn't choose to be straight, then I didn't choose to like redheads. I didn't choose to be cynical, I didn't choose to do basically anything.  Let's brush up on some determinism.

 I've never been a big fan of hard determinism.  The concept that everything we do is pre-determined by some cosmic "umph" that kicked everything into gear and set all of the cogs in motion.  Though it has compelling (and frustratingly difficult to disprove) arguments, hard determinism goes against every reason for living.  If it is all predetermined, why even bother to care? There are those that go so far (Popper) as to be outraged by the idea of prisons because those poor people had no ability to control their destiny of being criminals.  I feel that if for no other reason than to justify human existence and thought that we have to reject this level of determinism.  That being the case, how can we argue that something as personal and intimate as the people we are sexually attracted to is out of our hands?

Where do we draw that line?  If a person "cannot choose" what they are attracted to, why do we have bestiality laws? Child sex laws? Consent? BS, consent is an arbitrary age that we decided a person becomes an adult, in reality every generation gets "mature" younger.  In ancient times there was nothing wrong with having a 12 year old spouse, anyone against this natural attraction is nothing but a bigot, right? Every psychology I've ever heard drum up sympathy for child abusers claims they typically come from an abusive past themselves.  Why is this so readily chalked up to childhood abuse, but try that same logic with a gay man that grew up with a father that left at an early age, or was touched by a relative, etc and all of a sudden it is offensive and bigotry?

I subscribe to a concept of "Diminishing Free Will." In brief, we begin life with a blank slate, we are given impulses, ideas, and patterns from the world.  Parents obviously play a huge role in what we become, how can this be debated? We are individuals but we get our blueprints to adulthood by the role our parents and other influences have on us.  We never know what seemingly minor event changes a person forever.  Did you know that I have a friend that gets utterly repulsed at the idea of chewing gum? Did you know that when I was in 3rd grade my teacher had me tell her a new joke every day because it was how she got me to interact with the class and be less afraid of speaking? Some of you may know I was a fairly bright kid that got into a lot of advanced classes, but did you know it was in part because my grandfather would sit down with me and have me read the encyclopedia for 2 hours every day when I wasn't even in school yet? There are major influences in our life that sometimes are easy to correlate. Sometimes, not so much.  Why am I overweight? It's because I eat too much sure, but it's also because I lead a fairly sedentary lifestyle but why do I do that? Well because as a kid I was every bit of 5 foot nothing until basically my senior year of high school, so I was always a runt and even though I loved sports, competing with kids my age became near impossible so I began to get more involved with video games and computers, they tend not to hold the ball over your head and laugh....We all have little chains of events that make up who we are.  I can put a positive spin or a negative spin on any of them, many of them I don't even know or realize, some if pointed out to me might, for whatever reason, offend me and cause me to lash out and deny, but it may still be true...or not.  But these are the forces that shape who we choose to become. Did we choose to go work extra hard at being the best 5 foot tall basketball player we could be, did we call it quits and give up, or did we simply realize our limitations and choose another path? Any of these answers fit a different person, and help to define the person that we are and that we will become.

For all of this talk, the following is the most important concept to remember:

Ready?

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THIS CHOICE.  Just because I think it is a choice doesn't mean it's a bad choice or something to be frowned upon.  I don't want a completely obnoxiously "flaming" individual to wear their sexuality on their sleeve and remind me every 4 seconds they are gay.  I don't think that's being a bigot, if my straight friends ran around wearing a big emblem of heterosexuality and couldn't go 4 seconds without going "Boy I tell ya, i sure do love vagina" that conversation would get tiring quickly.  That exception aside, I don't give a damn about your sexuality.  Can you just shut up about it when it is inappropriate to discuss? Without attempting to "out" anyone or anything, just using my own facebook friends as an example I have several known gay friends. One I get along with and chat with on a semi-regular basis, the rest are hidden.  The ones that are hidden are hidden because literally a day would not go by without some mention of their sexuality.  Attention whores come in all shapes, sizes, and sexual preferences, and I don't want them in my life.

So should gays be allowed to marry? Absolutely.

Should gays be allowed to have rights to share benefits like heterosexual couples? Absolutely* (In the grand scheme of things I have issues with having to have a spouse to utilize this at all, it punishes those that choose to not participate in religious tradition of marriage, but as long as we're gonna have that system, it should allow ANY couple, not just straight ones)

Should a gay man have every right a straight man has? Absolutely, his personal choices in the bedroom should not affect this.

From what I've seen there is little proof or evidence that this "gay gene" is out there. This is an alternate theory for how something comes to be.  Debatable? It is 100% debatable, but it's not "insulting" and it is not like trying to argue the earth is still flat, there's just as much evidence in psychology/medical science for my theory as there is for the "no choice" theory.

Teaching tolerance and acceptance should be about respecting the choices people make, not about begrudgingly accepting something because it was pre-determined.


As a final note in a more practical sense: We have to learn to respect the challenges of integrating homosexuality fairness into various situations. Let us never forget that one thing that is inherent in humanity as a whole (not the individual) is that we are greedy, sneaky, and we love to abuse things.


Your thought experiment/assignment for the day


The bathroom:

A men's and women's bathroom at an office or place of business is common practice.  Which one does the homosexual need to use? The reason we separate these bathrooms is for the sake of privacy and it is divided between men and women for reasons that I really don't think I need to explain here. So if a genuinely gay man needs to use the bathroom, why shouldn't he use the women's room? Which obviously would be embarrassing for the guy since it is called the "women's" bathroom, but quirkiness of the example aside, what should we really do?  If he is genuinely attracted to other men, I would feel uncomfortable using a urinal beside them the same as a lady would feel uncomfortable with me sharing the stall beside of her. So should they be "People who like vaginas" and "People who like penises" restrooms?  What is the actual fair solution to this? A gay man is no less a "man" but take the semantics from it and what possible reason should he use the men's facilities?  A gay woman isn't going to slide up to the urinal, but should she be in a private personal environment with people of the sex she is attracted to when they are in such vulnerable positions?  Why should we not react with the same righteous indignity we would respond with if you saw me (a straight man) following a lady into the women's restroom?

So with that all being said, now how do you tackle the people who will say they are gay just to be able to go into the women's restroom?


Not every problem is cut and dry, it's not always that there is a "gays only" fountain to drink from...sometimes there are major and genuinely difficult concerns with integrating homosexuality as an "accepted" choice.  The answers are not easy, and we as a society need to begin handling these decisions with maturity and rationality instead of raw emotion and back and forth attacks...

I'm sure we'll get on that as a culture right after we colonize the 8th galaxy of the galactic republic.