Civil Rights - OR - Why Can't We Just Kill Everybody?

The title isn't really a joke; more and more, with the sheer number of willfully ignorant and hateful people infesting this nation, I think a zombie apocalypse or another giant asteroid might actually make things better.

So what has me pissed off today? I'm glad you asked, disembodied source of inquiry! There are two things that are really making me angry as of this moment. The first is the NRA and the second is the marriage equality debate, and both have to do with equal rights under the Constitution.

First off, the marriage equality debate should not be a debate. At all. The Constitution is pretty clear on this in the 14th Amendment, providing equal rights and protection under the law for all US citizens. Ever since Loving v. State of Virginia, marriage and all the laws/protections provided thereby are counted as rights for anyone willing to make use of them. This isn't quantum physics or an attempt to prove Toni Morrison isn't a repetitive and formulaic writer; things are pretty damn straightforward.

I will illuminate: According to US law, no citizen can be denied equal rights and protections under law. Also according to US law, marriage is a right that provides more than 1,500 protections. Therefore, since even criminals are still permitted to marry, there is quite simply nothing legally preventing homosexuals from getting married and any preventions thereof are demonstrably unConstitutional.

The only things in opposition to the very real legal imperative to permit marriage equality are the religious and right-wing lobbies. For some reason lawmakers are so scared shitless of these groups that they are willing to ignore unConstitutional laws being written into existence and to permit the obliteration of every principle upon which this country was founded.

The nation of the United States of America was founded on the principle of religious freedom. No religion could impose its rule onto the people of the nation. Should "Christian" laws get ratified by the Supreme Court, this nation will have obliterated one of its oldest tenets.

The only thing preventing our Supreme Court from doing the right thing is a combination of personal bias and fear of retaliation. If we had given in to petty squabbles and fear of a violent presence instead of standing as one, this nation would never have been founded. Every moment of hesitation on the part of the Supreme Court is another moment spent shitting on each and every person who died defending this country or who dedicated their lives to ensuring the survival and correct course of our nation.



Now, since I don't really have a segue, let's just take a moment and shift gears. From the legally-ensured right to the Pursuit of Happiness, let's move to the right to Life. Hey, that was a segue after all!

So the NRA have started sending robocalls into Newtown, just three months after the Sandy Hook massacre. Well of course they are; after all, how long do you have to take to get over your children's deaths? They're just noisy little bastards who aren't good for anything. You can't even get 'em to work since those silly child-labor laws got passed. Like any other possession, it should only take a month or two for you to get over it and focus on what's really important, like guns!

The Second Amendment is one of the least-contested of the Constitutional Amendments and for the life of me I can't see why. The entire point of the Second Amendment, as written into the Bill of Rights, was to ensure that the states could protect themselves should another nation invade or a civil war between states stir up. That was the reason for the first phrase in the Amendment: "A well-regulated militia." Well, now we have a well-regulated militia. It's called the National Guard. State militias have been outlawed, since heavily-armed groups with questionable sanity and morals are a threat to everyone else, so there's really no need for all these firearms.

Of course, the Supreme Court spat in the eyes of our Founding Fathers on that one, ruling that the well-regulated militia part of the Second Amendment was outdated and everybody had a right to guns whether they intended to defend their nation from invasion or just planned to kill their governors.

Gun violence in this country should have reached its saturation point last year with the sheer number of mass shootings, but sadly it seems that no number of dead children and loved ones can sway gun-lovers' hearts. Apparently a chunk of metal designed for murder is more important than the life of your spouse or parent or child.

The illegal firearms trade is inextricably linked to the war on drugs. By turning drug possession into a multi-billion-dollar black market, we've made it a requirement for all drug peddlers - from cartel lords to street pushers - to carry guns so they can murder one another and take territory. Basically we established an underground repeat of early-Renaissance mercantilism, and we all know how fucking well that turned out.

Honestly, I foresee that if the underground drug trade were killed through legalization, taxation, recuperation programs and the decriminalization of those users inadvertently hooked, the illegal firearms trade would all but dry up. There just isn't any other major money-earner for gangs that can be hidden and shipped so effectively, so gangs wouldn't have the income to continue buying guns and their rackets would be easier to shatter.

And then, when the illegal gun trade is practically dead, perhaps people's eyes will be opened to the wanton slaughter perpetrated by psychotic alpha-types when they feel their authority is threatened, or by self-styled victims who decide to lash out.

We've created this mess, true, but we can still undo the horrors we've helped to bring into existence. We need to follow the moral compass provided by human empathy and common sense. It's not that hard; it's just inconvenient sometimes, and some people would rather a million innocents die than they be inconvenienced for a minute.

Goodnight, and stay safe.

Skyrim: A Political Fairy Tale

Allow me to first disclaim this: not only do I not own Skyrim or anything else produced by Bethesda Softworks, I do not claim the thoughts expressed in this post to be the thoughts of the programmers and writers. I am using this to make a point, nothing more.

BTW, SPOILERS

Now, with that out of the way...

The underlying conflict of Skyrim, beneath the dragons, is that the empire is on the brink of death. It faces a foe more powerful, patient and charismatic than itself, and is teetering on the precipice of annihilation. While this is going on, there is simultaneously a civil war occurring in Skyrim between the Nords and the rest of the empire. The Nords believe that they have the obligation to overthrow the Empire of Tamriel, rebuilding it in Skyrim, because the empire was not powerful enough to defeat the Aldmeri Dominion. The Nords - specifically, the Stormcloak rebels - believe that the entire empire deserved death in their defeat and that every day alive is a day of shame.

The civil war's impetus was the Dominion's primary agents, the Thalmor, being permitted to rendition away worshipers of Talos when the Dominion had outlawed the god's worship. Of course, while the empire had agreed to the outlawing, they simply moved all temples indoors and continued worshiping in quiet protest while they built up strength to overthrow the Dominion.

Then, Ulfric Stormcloak happened. Ulfric attacked the city of Markarth, which was at the time being run by the Reachmen instead of the Nords. He slaughtered every Reachman he could find and then began publicly executing every Nord man, woman and child who did not immediately take up arms against the Reachmen when Ulfric sacked the city. Ulfric then publicly demanded that the empire permit worship of Talos once again or he would kill every one of his captives. The empire relented, planning to arrest Ulfric as soon as he released his captives. Unfortunately, the Dominion found out and ordered the empire to allow Thalmor police into Skyrim to seek out sedition or the war would begin anew. The empire, unable to sustain another war without annihilation, relented.

This was the impetus for Ulfric's rebellion: a crisis that he caused, which he then says he can fix. Beyond that, he murdered Skyrim's High King even though the King, Torygg, would have gladly stood beside Ulfric and worked toward change. Ulfric's first goal in the civil war is to obliterate the neutral city of Whiterun, because as he frequently says, "If you're not with us, you're against us."

I genuinely doubt that the good folks at Bethesda intended to make a statement on the American political climate; rather, the theme seems to be to look beyond the surface. At first blush, the empire seems like the bad guys, since your character gets swept up in an Imperial ambush and captured with Ulfric, set to be executed without trial. So you go to meet Ulfric and then learn all this stuff and realize that he's the real bad guy in this civil war.

So it is with our two-party system. Beware the men who ride in on white horses who claim that they can fix all your problems. It's true that Democrats, like the Imperials, are not always right, but they're trying to keep everyone safe despite their failures. The Republicans, like the Stormcloaks, are crusading to end a problem that they created, but blame everyone else for that problem. Just as Conservatives lobbied for America's businesses to collapse, so too did the Stormcloaks wish for their entire populace to be slaughtered and enslaved rather than a surrender reached.

The Stormcloaks argued for religion when religion was never truly threatened, yet they created the very crisis against which they now campaign. Likewise, somehow the Republicans have turned this into a war on religion when no one is trying to take away religion. Conservatives have constructed their own Thalmor in their mind, some sort of secret thought police to prevent Christianity from being practiced. All the while, of course, they act to harm and outright destroy those of our populace who hold differing ideals.

Speaking of differing ideals, the Stormcloaks embody and frequently state that, "You're with us or you're against us." There is no chance for peace, no opportunity for diplomacy or reconciliation of ideals. Either you fall into lockstep or you are the embodiment of all evil and need to be purged from the earth. Does that sound familiar? The Republican-dominated Congress has been completely obstructionist, doing nothing to help the American people unless we cater entirely to their demands, at which point they MIGHT be convinced to throw us a bone of a job-creation bill or some other protection, but more than likely we won't get anything because we're not "true Americans" and thus are undeserving of any care or aid, just as the Stormcloaks refuse to aid anyone who isn't a "true son or daughter of Skyrim."

The Stormcloaks fight to chase all the other races out of Skyrim. From their own descendants - Breton, Redguard and Imperial - to the elves who have never done anything to harm Skyrim. Ulfric's father opened the gates of his city to the dark elves, since thousands of Dunmer were left homeless and destitute after natural disasters in their province. Ulfric's father was a font of charity and goodness. Ulfric segregated his city of Windhelm the moment he inherited the throne, turning the Dunmer into second-class citizens. Anyone who is not a Nord is presumed to be a seditious traitor until proven otherwise; non-Nords are often beaten, murdered, or kidnapped and tortured.

Do I even need to continue to draw parallels to the Republican party? George Romney was a man of integrity who lost his party's presidential primary because he would not stoop to the seditious and evil demands of the radical Right. Now his son stands for everything that George did not. Willard Romney upholds the principles of separation, inequality and privilege for only the few.

What I find truly amazing is that I still don't believe that Bethesda was out to convey a political message. I think they were just trying to envision the most deceitful, semi-believable militant bigots possible and put them into the game as the objective "bad" side, yet not defined as such by everyone. I'm certain that the writers for the Elder Scrolls series were just as surprised as I am that the Republican party has come to embody every evil of the Stormcloak party, from their leader to their principles.

However, just as in the game, striking down Ulfric and breaking apart his treasonous slaughter of fellow citizens is not the end of the troubles, and neither will a defeat of the Republican party in November be a full-stop win for America. However, without people trying to kill their fellow Americans, denying medical care and employment to people for not having been born into some arbitrary group, we can perhaps start to rebuild what we have lost.

Our own real-world Thalmor and Alduin the World-Eater may hover above us in the form of global economic damage and political upheaval, but if we can stand as one people we have a far better chance of surviving the onslaught than if we remain in conflict or slaughter/disenfranchise anyone outside of the Republicans' narrow definition of a True American.

Pros and conned

The recent Chik-Fil-A controversy has unveiled a disturbing number of gay-haters, many of whom try to disguise their bigotry - even to themselves - with rhetoric and differing arguments. The "pro-" movement has existed for a long time, and is most often utilized by the ignorant in an attempt to positively or negatively charge a debate.

Take some of the most common (and inaccurate) terms: Pro-Life and Pro-Family. Pro-Life is just a blatant lie. If life is sacred, why is it only sacred until birth? After that, Conservatives work to strip healthcare from mothers and children, stating that programs such as welfare and Medicare are only a drain on society, and it's every person's duty to take care of themselves. Of course, this is why Ron Paul, one of the biggest supporters of abolishing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security makes excessive use of all of them for himself and his family. Apparently only those capable of easily supporting themselves deserve handouts, because why should those with the ability to do so actually do so?
People who are Pro-Life also frequently favor the death penalty and leniency in killings with laws like Stand Your Ground, so again life is sacred only until birth, then they don't seem to care if people die or are murdered. Truly, Pro-Life is simply Anti-Abortion trying to make itself appear friendlier.

Pro-Family is another laughable concept, if one actually takes a step back. Those people who claim to be Pro-Family stand behind representatives who are adulterers, who hate their own family members for being different, who divorce their spouses or abandon them to die, and numerous other atrocities against the concept of family.
The entirety of the Pro-Family argument is basically "pro-anything that's not gay." Gay children are shunned, and gay people are hated. Many of homosexuals' detractors say that gays are "anti-family" or "anti-traditional marriage." This implies that they wish to abolish marriage or tear apart families, and where has one advocate for gay rights seriously come out and said that gay marriage should be the only marriage? I'm seriously asking for a single recorded statement, on the record in a press release, saying that this is the goal.

Now for two actual "pros": First is Pro-Choice, which does nothing but acknowledge that it is each woman's, and each family's, choice. If Pro-Life doesn't care that parents torture and violently beat their children, and calls for the deaths of people every day, how can they claim the moral high ground over a movement that just says that a person's body is his or her own?

Next is Pro-Equality, a common term for the gay rights movement. As the name says, the movement is focused on equal rights, not on superiority. Gays only want the same rights as any other Americans, the ability to visit their loved ones in the hospital and to share the precious commodity that is health insurance, among other things.

As an addendum, I truly do not understand the hatred of gays. Homosexuality is not condemned by the Ten Commandments, nor by any sacred covenant between God and His people. How do the religious Conservatives justify permitting violators of the Ten Commandments, the very building blocks of Christianity, to hold rights that they would keep stripped from gays?

Obamacare; or, What Happened to our Yam-Head?

It's no big secret that I supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 bid for Democratic presidential candidate. I thought that her experience in the White House, as well as having her husband's knowledge to draw upon (Bill Clinton was the last president to leave us with a surplus, a staggering surplus at that, which Bush burned through and got America nearly a trillion dollars in debt in his first term) would make for an incredibly capable president. I believed that her no-nonsense attitude would also be beneficial, as her track record included far less BDSM-style submission that Democrats misconstrue as compromise.
However, Obama won the nomination and then the presidency, and I supported him as I view anyone with apparently good intentions as being vastly better than the exploitative vultures in the Republican party who would have all money and resources funneled directly to the rich. Unfortunately, his administration has been one of waffling and surrender to the point where I'm surprised the birthers don't think he's from France instead of Kenya.
Guantanamo, Afghanistan, gay marriage; all of these major issues the president has either simply let lie or, in the case of Afghanistan, actively aggravate the situation by pushing more troops into an area where US presence is a prime cause for terrorist sentiment.

Above all else, however, it is this abomination of Obamacare that will forever blight the president in my eyes. It is his "No Child Left Behind," a presidential mandate that will doubtlessly begin to tear apart those least fortunate. The original proposition reviled by Conservatives as Obamacare was an ingenious concept and a transitory phase to universal healthcare like every other first-world democracy has: it would have the United States government implement its own health insurance plan that citizens could sign onto if they lacked the funds to get healthcare from the private insurers. Obviously, the idea that big business might lose income from the unemployed - those rendered jobless by the Bush housing market collapse and subsequent stock market implosion - switching to a public option sent Republicans into a panic and Congress, now controlled by Republicans because Americans were too goddamn stupid to realize that two years isn't enough time to fix eight years' worth of bullshit, shot down the bill like nobody's business.
Fast-forward two years, to this landmark Supreme Court decision over the newest incarnation of Obamacare, the one that Mitt Romney is vowing to slay even though forcing the public to buy from private insurers or else was his fucking idea back in Massachusetts. This Obamacare is a travesty, an order for all Americans to purchase health insurance or be fined, yet it has no impetus for insurers to lower their prices for those below the poverty line. This is exactly like No Child Left Behind, wherein the least able schools are further penalized because they can't educate their students well enough with what meager funds they have, so Conservatives' solution is to cut their funding further. Only, unlike NCLB, there is no real way to cheat the system and fake test scores to get out of paying for insurance or paying a fine.

I believe that this act will go down in history as one of the worst governmental mandates in history, only helping the rich to get richer while the poor lose what little money they have. I can bet it won't be too long before some rich bastard is offering deals to the poor like a feudal lord, where they can live on his thousand-acre estate in return for endlessly working for him.

However, in this latest presidential election I will still be voting for Obama over Romney. I'd rather have a spineless, idiotic wimp in power than someone actively working for the bad guys and promoting prejudiced, even genocidal, sentiments.

Temptation my white Irish ass

What's the best way to prevent someone from doing something? Obviously this answer will vary and there is no one universal answer, but if you said that a good way to keep someone from undertaking an action is to treat them as intelligent and lay out the negative consequences for them, trusting them to do the right thing, there's a good chance you're right.
If you said that the universally best way is to just shame the person into submission and tell them that they don't know well enough to be trusted with their own lives, please take this moment to apply a stapler to your groin.

In case you haven't yet guessed, this post is riding the coattails of Coattails in reference to policy and rhetoric. In the barest essence, abstinence teaching doesn't fucking work. If you protest, look to the person whom Conservatives hold up as the proof that abstinence does work: Bristol Palin. She got herself knocked up and is still unmarried. And that last part seems to be the real thing about abstinence: its proponents seem to believe that "abstinence" means, "if you fuck you gotta get married," rather than the real origin word, "abstain." Then again, how can one expect Conservative thought to make any goddamn sense? In that vein,

Hypocrisy


Family values. The fuck are "family values," anyway? Nobody in the Romney or Bush or, hell, ANY camp can tell you what family values are. It's just a term they spew over and over like a moron with a word-a-day calendar trying to sound smart. Speaking of family values, how about we look at Newt Gingrich? How many wives has he ABANDONED TO DIE now? I think the tally is four. As soon as one of his wives falls ill he starts banging some other broad and once his wife is terminal he outright leaves her for this new model. This is not a one-time event, either. It's happened, like, three times now. Check it out for yourself.

With family values still firmly in mind, how about Larry Craig or any of the dozens of Republican congressmen and senators who have been caught in the act of performing or soliciting gay sex? Considering that one of the only definitions of family values that Conservatives can agree on is "not homos," that's a pretty fucking big issue, eh? In fact, let's use another heading. I have more to bitch about and it needs a separate section:

"Temptation"


The idea of temptation is easy enough for anyone to understand. You find yourself drawn to perform an act that is either sinful or not-good in some other way. Be it a hot chick when you're married, the opportunity to shoplift, or the urge to stab your fucking seventh-grade English teacher for exploiting your autism to abuse you (or maybe that last one was just me), something tempts the average person almost every day.
Now, straight males, tell me this: when is the last time you looked at another man's ass and had to resist the nigh-overwhelming urge to release a noise like a gorilla whose nipples are aflame before leaping upon said ass and pounding it until it resembled Jennie-O ground turkey? The answer, for most of the world, is "never," followed by, "what the fuck is wrong with you for asking that kind of question?"
That, my friends, is the difference between genuinely straight people and "straight" Conservatives. I bullshit you not, jump to any religious pundit or politician babbling about religion, particularly on Fox News, and just wait for one of them to mention "resisting the temptation of homosexuality" and how difficult such resistance is. In actuality, for those whose brains are wired for heterosexuality, there is no temptation, because we aren't wired to find those of our same sex attractive. I have watched my openly gay dorm-mate in college prance about in naught but his underwear and my only comment was to put on a damn shirt.
Find yourself a Bible. Open up to Leviticus, the book most Conservatives reference when put to task to actually give a point as to where it says not to be gay. This book also says to kill children who talk back and that rape victims must marry their rapists, among other things, but notice the term for lying with a man as with a woman: "it is an abomination." Not a sin, an abomination. Look at what else is an abomination: wearing clothes made of more than one fabric or color. If you've guessed by now that an abomination in the Bible isn't so much a monstrosity as something that's not a good idea to do, you've got it in one. Leviticus was written during the time that the Israelites were still numbering in the double-digits and were, like the rest of Western humanity, barely better than bonobos. If they could fuck something, they would. This would result in low reproduction and they'd all die off. Now look at Idiocracy, the Mike Judge cult classic. It's easier to tell stupid people that you can talk to plants or that, "I'm God so what I say goes" rather than trying to explain the intricate details to your flock while they're trying to bone their camels.
The Old Testament also has God ordering His people to rape the women of a conquered city and mount heads on spikes in His name, so maybe we shouldn't be following that particular half of the Bible so closely these days...
To make a long tangent a bit shorter, it's seeming to me that many decades ago the Conservatives' forefathers made a big damn deal about homosexuality so their children repressed their urges, since it appears that nearly every mainstream Conservative is at least bisexual from their "struggles with homosexual urges" that nobody else in the country really has to deal with.

Think on another section of temptation as seen by Conservatives: have you ever wondered how these groups, in their protests of things, come up with such perverse and insane ideas on their projected "slippery slopes"? To reference homosexuality again, one of the common protests is that if gay marriage is allowed it's only a short trip to people fucking and wanting to marry chickens. To me, this is evidence that Conservative perversion extends deep and they're afraid that if they're given permission to be gay they won't be able to control their actual twisted sexual urges, fucking barn animals or running through the streets violently raping people. In my opinion, we should all be very afraid of what twisted fantasies run through the minds of Republicans in power.