Many Paths, Same Goal

So tonight – phone – had an interesting conversation with Bill Reader. He’s not a troll, and since we are friends he wouldn’t come to my blog to call me names, but he was making many of the objections made here over the weekend to the idea of working to take over the GOP.

We covered the reasons – mine and his – mine being of course the ones I laid out here. His being – his being younger than I – that he despairs of incremental gains, of slow victories.

Part of me understands. Honest. It’s a tough thing for people in their late thirties and early forties, who don’t really remember Reagan, and who just remember a slow slide to the left. (Ignoring much of public opinion has moved the other way.)

I had to tell him of the seventies, when it was assumed that Communism was right and the ultimate destiny of human governance and, in fact, the moral high ground. It was assumed by my teachers, in Europe, and it was assumed by the intelligentsia and the upper class here as far as the 1980s when I came here to live.

I mean, the Russians were brutal and uncouth and imposing by force a regime that would be great if we just slid into it.

Most of Europe bought it too, and have been doing just that.

This meant most conservatives older than I are … squishy. Not all, of course. Not nearly all. But most “conservatives” older than I assume things like the ACA are necessary and if not a good, at least inevitable for ‘civilized governance.’ Europe, needless to say assumes so – and are paying the price of it in stagnation, in lost opportunity, in slow decay (which they seem to wallow in. Go figure.)

And then there was Reagan. And those of us not old enough to remember Goldwater’s candidacy nonetheless got an idea conservatism/liberty could and would work.

The establishment got power again, afterwards, of course, the people who believed socialism was covalent with civilization.

And because the conservative/libertarian base was busy working at their jobs, raising their families and doing the other stuff we do, we slid back into the GOP thinking their goal was “sure, same result but slower.”

The momentum was already there, baked in the cake. And the left kept pushing. Harder, because they wanted everyone to forget that for one moment the USA had deviated from the European pattern of slow decay. (Does anyone remember the early nineties, everyone trying to portray the eighties as a horrible decade of unemployment and economic hardship?)

It worked to an extent because the left had an immovable wall of media: news, entertainment, teaching. All of it worked in tandem to proclaim the big lies: that Republicans were for big business and the rich; that the democrats were for the little people. If you noticed that the rich were more and more democrat and used politics to enrich themselves, you wondered if you were going nuts. There was no corroboration out there, no idea that your opinion wasn’t completely alone. No idea you weren’t insane.

This is something the left excels at. Or did. The centralized communications of the twentieth century were ideal, once they took them over, to maintain the illusion everyone agree with them and painting their opponents as crazy.

Now there are cracks. I’m not sure what the percentages are, but it seems most people at least know about Drudge. There are indie books and you might find suddenly the villain isn’t always a conservative and Libertarian.   There are blogs where the like minded meet and draw strength and knowledge to face the next battle.

And conservatives and libertarians of my generation – most of us – not only do not view communists as having the moral high ground and socialism as a rational path but – having seen the Soviet Union fall and been exposed to the shenanigans of our own left through the alternate media – view it as an evil to be fought at our costs.

Bill said “but this feels so paltry. It is just words.”

He is right. It is just words.

But we’re humans and we need narratives to guide our lives. The narrative used to be of a state run by “the best minds” which would take over more and more of the functions of life until it provided whatever you needed, exactly right, because “best minds”. If you don’t believe me, read a lot of the classic science fiction. Even those who disapproved of the idea viewed it as inevitable.

Now we’ve seen what an out of control state can do, and a lot of us are proclaiming the message of a state that’s kept small, starved, humble, a state that can neither give you everything you want nor take away everything you have.

And there are a lot of us, all over. And we know we’re not crazy.

Guys, if this were the nineties, people WOULD be convinced Obamacare is the best thing ever. I can just imagine story after story after story, its becoming part of major movies’ plots, etc, etc, etc.  In other countries “universal care” was given and almost immediately approved of.  Here, its approval ratings keep dropping.  People can get the real news, not just pravda, see.

The left has lost that narrative setting ability. It wasn’t an inconsiderable weapon. Arguably it was their largest.  Or at least they’ve lost most of its potency.  And we’ve gained a good deal of it.  And it will serve us well.

Because if we can change the narrative in people’s heads, not only can we restore the republic incrementally, but – heaven forbid – should we need to rebel earlier (I don’t think it will happen. In fact, I can’t see anything short of our own government nuking one of our cities that won’t be hushed, tamped down, and the few who rose portrayed as traitors. The media is still strong enough to run a distraction game while the few who moved get hanged to dry.  I could, of course, be wrong. If Net Neutrality hampers the net much, the millennials will rise for sure. They don’t know life without the net.)

The founding fathers spent a generation in broadsheet and public meet hashing out their ideas and more importantly propagating them. There was a small number who fought, but when they won and it came to creating a system, people were all (almost) on the same page.

A rebellion or debacle that happens before the culture is changed means we already lost.

We COULD end up with something out of Starship Troopers… maybe… only I don’t see even that. Historically, in that situation people go for the man on the white horse who promises to save and fix all, even if he is just a little man from Corsica.

The good (urgh) news is that I don’t think there will be a flare up, certainly not a widespread one. And I don’t think there will be a collapse. Yes, yes, I get those emails too “Banks about to collapse” and I have since 1990. There is a lot of collapsing a country as rich as ours can do. Venezuela and Cuba are still very theoretically solvent.

This is what I call the “Slide down easy” route. If we don’t succeed in getting some people who will fight for our rights in the capital or if the other side wins the day in 16, we will see the slide down easy. Things failing, things breaking, a general degradation of our style of life. Heck, we’ve seen that the last six years, though nowhere near “bad” yet. Just minor inconveniences, curbed pleasures (Staycations, not driving an hour to something because of gas, eating a lot of eggs because cheaper than meat, etc.) If it continues it has a long way to go to get to where we only have utilities some hours a day.

That’s a long long way down (longer some places than others.) We’ll have time to change hearts and minds and hopefully arrest the decline before it gets to that point.

People who want to take different routes? Go right ahead. Not the shooting route, because frankly if you’re screaming you’re ready to start shooting on a blog you’re either a government stooge or just incredibly stupid and surrounded by them. I think the third party route is insane, but then I don’t even think you’ll pull many votes. And there’s always Libertarians pulling votes on the right side (mostly.) (I’ll note Ron Paul was smart enough to run in the Republican party and as a Republican. He understood the dangers of third parties, and clearly he too thought it was worth it to run a quixotic campaign just to pull the GOP away from socialism.)

There are times when I myself will switch my ideas of how to do this so fast your head will spin: if mass arrests of our people occur; if the country gets attacked and our president tells us we deserved it, if… a dozen other events occur.

The thing about the right – even if people tried to tell me otherwise this weekend – is that we’re not monolithic. We are the proverbial individualists who failed to organize.

The only thing that unites us in fact is our love of liberty and individual freedom.

And if there are some among us who don’t love those, they’ll get overwhelmed.

The left has the advantage of being able to march in lockstep. It has helped them many times. On the other hand, the disorganization typical on the right is a strength too. They demonized the tea party, but they couldn’t personalize the demonization because there were no leaders. Part of their obsession with the Kochs is that they had to find someone to blame.

When a crowd comes at you each in an individual style, it’s much harder to evolve a strategy than when everyone comes at you marching in uniform ranks.

I? I’m going to continue working the culture vineyards. It’s self-serving in a way, but it’s what I can do best. Sort of utilizing my meager talents in the area I have them.

I know others of you who are more competent (and less health impaired) are doing the local level taking over the GOP thing. Others yet are fighting culture fights in games and literature (I do that a little too) and schooling and everywhere the long march has entrenched leftists.

And others of you are setting up groups, working in organizations, teaching the young.

Yes, as Bill told me, it all seems incremental and slow and just “ideas.” But the Jewish people had an heritage mostly of ideas and stories, and they have outlasted the peoples who built in marble and granite. Ideas matter.

And though – as with my never-ending clean up and fix at the other house – it will seem like it’s never ending, and a thankless task, I know from history and from other similar projects, one day we’ll wake up to find ourselves in a new world we build.

… with all the work to do to keep it so.

Because that’s how the world works.

I know it’s difficult and tiring and thankless, but it’s our job, and we can do it. We have to do it. It’s the only thing standing between us and darkness. Or at least the triumph of socialism and the eternal slide down.

In the end we win, they lose – we just have to make it so.

609 thoughts on “Many Paths, Same Goal

  1. Here’s my problem with that thesis, and I *am* old enough to remember Reagan, and a student of history who understands what Goldwater meant. In the 90s, the Clintons tried to pass Hillarycare. They got slaughtered on it, and spent the rest of their Administration acting like that mistake never happened. Bill went right back to being Mr DLC, “The era of Big Government is over,” and triangulating on domestic policy while more or less understanding where the true enemy was. Even if he was ineffectual dealing with it. Sure, there was Hillary’s “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy,” but Bill for all his faults, knew how to negotiate a deal and bend his convictions to get something of what he wanted. All in all, other than opening the door to the Sub Prime Crisis, it wasn’t a BAD decade.

    Then the GOP wins majorities across the board–and passes Medicare Plan D. A plan Hillary could’ve been proud of. They go to war with internet gambling, and run the youth right out of the party. They pass the Patriot Act, perhaps the most oppressive piece of legislation we’ve known since the Sedition Act. And essentially govern like the Nanny State is great, as long as the GOP holds the levers. Meanwhile the Reagan Conservative/Libertarian alliance, who helped elect Bush Jr, is told, “Shut up.”

    *THEY* made it acceptable to dismiss the ‘crackpots’ on the right. Obama took that lesson right up. We might realize Obamacare is bad now. But it didn’t pass in 94. It was laughed right out of Congress and became the springboard of the then-unthinkable GOP recapture of the House. It passed now, and we’re reduced to watching the party Reagan took over give us an ‘Ideological Free’ Supreme Court that confirms the monstrosity. And then watch as Boehner is hunky-dory with having his cushy-chair bankrolled by the Opposition.

    I’m fine with incremental gains. But I’ve been involved since 88, and aware since 80. It’s been absolute one-way traffic on the slide to oblivion since. And the GOP, far from having a hand on the brakes, has passed some of the worst offenders.

    I’ll ask again: How long before trying the same thing over becomes insanity? At the very least, we should be as cutthroat as the Establishment. We should make no bones that every one of the 76 turncoats who sided with Boehner and the Democrats should be ousted. By any legal means. Even if that means doing what they do, and vote the other guy in for 2 years. If we can’t even *punish* the Establishment for backstabbing us, then we might as well dispel the illusion of even trying to take the party over.

    1. As I’ve said in previous posts in the past few days: In the grand scheme of things, we never embarked on a long-term reform project before this. We always got some gains and went, “Yay! We won! Everything will go our way now!” and went home.

      NOW, people are and have been waking up to the fact that you have to keep the pressure on, and drive out anyone who strays too far from the stated platform of the party. We have never done that in a concerted effort before.

      It’s rather disingenuous, though ,to include Medicare Part D and the Patriot Act in this discussion. Those were passed partially because Bush was the product of the slide to the Left of the Party Establishment, and partly because he thought we had to give a lot of ground to the Democrats to get them not to go too hard on the WoT. And even with that said, he tried to take on things that were problems that led to much of the economic crisis that marked the end of his term, such as the Housing Bubble and Social Security.

      This has to be a LONG project. Not merely for a handful of diligent souls, but for a large portion of the constituency of the party.

      1. ” In the grand scheme of things, we never embarked on a long-term reform project before this. We always got some gains and went, “Yay! We won! Everything will go our way now!” and went home.”

        And this is why while I advocate for reforming the Republican party, and fixing things from within, I don’t expect it to be successful. I’ve seen this over and over on environmental issues. We are the “special interests” people who actually have interests, whether those interests are hunting, logging, riding dirtbikes, or going out and picking wildflowers in the spring and mushrooms in the fall. They threaten our interests, and we band together, and spend all of our free time fighting to retain the right to do what we love to do. Then if we win the fight, we go off to do what we just fought for the right to do. Meanwhile they don’t HAVE special interests, or rather their “special interests” are protecting the environment from all of us recidivists that want to actually use it. So they don’t go off to do whatever, because what they want to do is prevent us from doing whatever, so they never stop fighting. Even if they lose, they consider it a partial win, because they prevented us from being out “destroying” the environment every second we spent fighting them. And our side, logically, can’t see an advantage to spending all their free time fighting the other side, either way they can’t spend any of it doing what they love to do. So after a while, they tend to decide, screw it, I’ll go spend this weekend doing what I enjoy, and if they make it illegal because I missed a weekend fighting to actually do what I’m fighting for, well I’ll have that weekend, and there is no point in fighting if you never get to do what you are fighting for; and if they make it illegal, I’ll just do it illegally.

        Frankly I see a lot of similarity on other political fronts, and I don’t see it ever changing. We are fighting for the right to do things, and so when we win we want to go do those things we are fighting for (even if they are things like choosing our own doctor) they are fighting not for their right to do things, but to prevent us from doing things, so win or lose, when one battle is over, they don’t go home, because they don’t have other things they want to do.

        And yes this is why we have representatives. Problem is it is hard to find people who will spend all their time fighting for other peoples right to do things, while never actually doing those things themselves who aren’t either a)out of touch with those they are fighting for b)in it for the power, and not actually interested in what they are fighting for c) burn out from the fighting or d) all of the above.

        1. You seem to have done pretty well with the gun rights. If you can do it with one issue you should be able to do it with other issues, even if it is only one issue at a time. Changing the general impression of something seems to be one of the keys here because then you can at least from time to time also get votes from the unaffiliated voters.

          But it will take decades. And that’s a conservative estimation, I think.

      2. It is not at all disingenuous.
        It’s what they actually did, and it cannot be rationalized away.
        Republican politicians had said for decades that they weren’t capable of doing much without both houses of Congress and the Presidency. But boy, when they finally got the opportunity, they’d sure take a weedwhacker to the federal code!
        When they finally got all three, what did they do?
        Certainly not shrink the size and scope of the federal government. And quite a bit of their expansion of the federal government, like the No Child Left Behind act to steel subsidies occurred well before 9/11.

        Remember that Bob Dole did more to defeat the “Republican Revolution” of 1994 than Bill Clinton ever did.
        And was rewarded with the Presidential nomination for doing so.

        1. Let me try it another way: It’s disingenuous to bring up things that happened, not merely when the country was in such a state as it was at that time, but also when hardly anyone was trying to get the party to move back to its stated platforms.

          I mean, that’s like blaming the dog for crapping on the carpet after the neighbor poisoned him with Ex-Lax and you never housebroke him anyway.

        2. When they finally got all three, what did they do?

          Had 9/11 dropped in their lap.

          My parents missed the kids’ baptism, because half their county was on fire. Guess what? Even though they promised, and said they’d be there for sure, I evaluate what was going on around it.

          1. And a Disloyal opposition ready to hamstring them if they weren’t bought off. As one example, look up the people advocating for making the TSA Federal employees. Democrats all.

      3. Well, there is the little Cincinnatus problem, namely that the sane position toward politics is that it’s a dreadful if necessary nuisance.

      1. In many ways, the primaries are more important than the actual elections. Primaries are where the MSM does it’s kabuki theatre to set up GOP candidates most likely to lose. They know that the battle is waged in the primaries, and it’s time for folks to wise up.

      2. Government is like Fire. You could, if you were young, healthy, vigorous, and highly skilled, get on without it. Maybe. For a while. And like fire, if you don’t keep a close eye on it, it will grow out of all bounds.

      3. Sarah, the 76 GOPest are already Democrats in all but name, they’re already destroying us. If we don’t use the same tactics on the Establishment they’re more than willing to use on us, they’ll win.

        We’re told to be pragmatic. But pragmatism in this case is short-term sacrifice for long-term suicide.

    2. “vote the other guy in for 2 years” – I don’t think slashing your own wrists to “show them” is a good way to win an argument with the REstablishment. Analyzing, primarying, replacing one-at-a-time, rewarding/punishing, throwing the fear of Tea into the remaining squishes — heck yeah! And then helping those remaining squishes to understand that doing the right thing does mean we’ve got your back, and will help ‘splain doing the right thing to their constituents – loyal support isn’t something the REstablishment has done well.

      1. Alan, the GOP Est disagrees violently with your idea of a big tent. To such a degree they’re willing to side with Democrats both on votes and in elections. They’ve ‘slashed wrists’ on conservative candidates at every level.

        Tell me, if they’d rather vote for a Democrat than a Conservative, what are they?

    3. . They go to war with internet gambling, and run the youth right out of the party.

      Huh? The Dems have been the “of course” party for “the youth” since my parents were” the youth,” and dad was one of the first folks that got redefined into Boomer– that’s because the Democrat message of “it feels good, and you owe me” is really appealing to the immature– especially if you wrap it up in dumping all of those restrictive social conventions.

      Part of what’s bringing people back is that they’re seeing the costs of that kind of BS, and it’s a lot harder to blame it on Those Big Nasties Over There. Some folks manage it anyways– my husband smacked down a relative’s friend who tried to “enlighten” him about how “objective” NASA is– but like I wrote down below, we grew up with the net. That relative is generation X, although on the young end of it. (Call it mid 70s.)

      Part of what drives people away is constant fussing about appealing to this or that group, and copying the Democrats to try to appeal.

      1. “Part of what drives people away is constant fussing about appealing to this or that group, and copying the Democrats to try to appeal.”


        1. Foxlier, Young Conservative unions were a thing in the 80s

          Hillary was a Goldwater Girl– that the groups exist doesn’t mean that they’re normal– heck, there have been anarchist groups, too. There’s a reason that “college libertarian” is A Thing that “leaning libertarian” folks like Sarah have to deal with– and no small number of those are in their 40s, still mentally college kids, and….well, my window in is the cousin who’s a bit further out than the folks Sarah mentioned who think the TEA Party and OWS are both delightful, and see no conflict between them. (The cousin wants to ban guns but legalize drugs; basically he’s totalitarian except for drugs and sex, where he’s “free me from consequences.”)

      2. Pardon my typo. It was not a Freudian slip. Just fat fingers. 😛

        But yes, the Internet gambling and Nanny Stating of the early Bush years helped drive the wedge between a lot of libertarian-leaning young Reagan Alex P Keaton types and the ‘base’ of the GOP.

        1. “Foxflier” is more common, but it happens a lot. I tend to not think much of it unless it is a pattern. (A lot of folks think they’re clever in mangling my ‘nom, while I think it makes’em look silly.)

          1. Well, it takes a fair amount of conscious effort not to type it as “Foxfire” myself.

            I blame my dyslexia, and anyone taking issue with that is clearly ableist. 😛

            1. Blame it on Yahoo!. I tried to sign up as “fire” at first, but it was taken– not sure if I actually did snag “foxfire” first and forgot the password, or if I’m confusing that with another address and it was another case of the Russian guy getting there first.

              The book series is awesome, well worth being confused with, even if the mispelling is what makes it so that folks are actually identifying me, instead of the tons of folks with the identical birth name.
              (How many tons? I was down the hall from a girl who had the exact name I was supposed to, including spelling, joined the Navy inside of a month of each other, same looks. That my mom lost a favorite relative was the only thing that made us have a different middle name…. IIRC, we even had a “last four” that were easily confused by the mail guys, because we met up with me trying to find who the heck was sending me mail from the DAKOTAS! 8/0, 1/7, 7/2, that kind of confused.)

  2. Good Piece! This is a continuum, not a destination, there is no Utopian destination point. I have always thought that the tension between the two sides is part of what makes this country great… but the discourse has been getting very uncivil lately. We are on the upswing!

      1. Can we just call them fascists? It carries the proper connotation for their behavior, is a better fit for their economics policy, and fits their racial theories pretty well. The only mismatch is their view of national sovereignty — though I suspect they’re closer to the original than not.

        (In that they view nations as a tribal thing, and despise the US in part because our foundation was not tribal, but based on an idea. Obama explicitly rejected this reality in his bizarre “exceptionalism” rant.)

      2. If you’re dealing with corporatists who rule by fiat and mob, through an explicitly racial lens, with nominally independent crony businesses that understand they can be destroyed at any time, and the progressive elimination of citizen rights through all of the above pressures…. there’s a name for that, Sarah. It is a leftist philosophy, but it is not communism.

  3. People seem to be throwing the word “incrementalist” around like it’s an insult. I’m sorry, but I remember many of the things that happened that brought us to this point, and none of them were a case of going to bed one night and waking up the next morning and suddenly we were in a socialist Utopia.

    We lost all that ground incrementally in the first place. It’s the only way we’re going to get it back. And yes, we do need to get it back.

    However, I’m going to disagree about the control of the narrative. While the internet holds a lot of sway, all things considered, there are a pile of folks who still get their news from the old fashioned sources, even if in new ways.

    For example, take the government shutdown. I used to work as a contractor on a military base, and a number of people from the base are on my friends list on Facebook.

    Now, the mainstream news kept pushing the narrative that the shutdown was all the Republicans fault, while at the same time reporting a number of cases where the GOP offered up bills that would keep the government going, and Democrats killing them. The Republicans were trying to keep the government open.

    However, when I tried to point out to some of them that the GOP was trying to compromise, but it was the Dems that refused, you’d have sworn I said the sky was green and the grass was purple. No amount of proof, even links to news reports from mainstream news sites, was sufficient for these folks. The only narrative machine still works pretty damn well, and part of that is because they’ve got people convinced that they’re the only “legitimate” news sites out there. Everything else is just amateur hour or something.

    1. Incrementalism is fine as long as you’re not taking two steps back for each one forward.

    2. The only narrative machine still works pretty damn well, and part of that is because they’ve got people convinced that they’re the only “legitimate” news sites out there. Everything else is just amateur hour or something.

      It words because of flash. Call the shutdown Obamadon, and you have a nice buzzword that ties it to Obama and another controversial issue. But we don’t.

      Ah, but that’s not “nice,” and the GOP doesn’t use it’s franking privileges to full effect, and none of us step up and call BS in letters to the editor or Facebook. And we seldom call bias when it happens with a “Why should we trust you?”

      1. none of us step up and call BS in letters to the editor or Facebook.

        Some do– or did. And when the Editor mangles it so that it says exactly the opposite, we drop our subscription. Go to facebook– or try some of those blogs our daughter keeps nagging us about. *looks at mom*

        It’s a bit slower, but it does eventually have effect.

    3. I’m pretty sure I mentioned it here– during that time I was in the doctor’s office, and a central casting Welfare Queen was howling about the shutdown– so I joined in, incidentally acting like she’d mispoken when she said the Senate was under republican control, and waxing poetic on how Standard Politician Reid is, and how horrible it was that “that guy– name sounds rude, Boe-something”– had passed a ton of bills and that Nevada jerk wouldn’t even let anybody vote on them.
      A shaking of mutters about the Mafia in vegas, too.

      It worked pretty well. They had the idea, Congress wasn’t doing their job. They just needed something a bit more precise about who exactly it was.

      Assuming they’d be willing to listen anyways, there’s a LOT of folks with too much invested– the Dem caught being a creep is the exception, the Republican is the rule, even if there’s thirty times as many Dems caught.

    1. Agreed. All change is disruptive and costly, even when in the right direction. If you want people who’ve built their lives around an adaptation to things as they are to accept your changes, maybe not hate you so much they won’t listen to your logic, then you’ve got to make the changes in small enough increments they can make the necessary continuing adaptations without too much pain. The frog-boiling illustration cuts both ways, you know!

        1. So what you are saying is pulling the pot off the fire and dumping it in the deep freezer isn’t the way to go?

          1. *casts wary eye at pot* Ya know, I think I’d better go see just what kinda critter it was that the biology teacher was missing this morning . . .

          2. No. Switching the frog to be boiled is the way to go. While preparing for the stochastic breaks when the current system cracks and fails in significant ways.

            You boil the frog, while laying the memetic markers and building the infrastructure to make each semi-collapse a wider defeat for the other side. You appropriate resources to do so from the public purse (knowing that it won’t last, in our case) in order to achieve this. You rely on superiority at the levels of politics you control for cover and funding. And you make it damn clear to your political class that their job #1 is to deliver it.

            1. Careful, even Glenn Beck got burned that way. He tossed a plastic frog into a pot of boiling water and people still insisted it was real and he was an animal cruelty monster.

        2. The frog isn’t dead.

          And frogs leave the water if it heats up fast enough– the only way to boil a frog is to either force it to stay in the water as it heats up, or to throw it in an already hot pot.

          I don’t know about cold blooded animals, but the way you kill someone who has hypothermia is heating them back up too quick, and people die every year from having a heart attack when they leave the 120-full-humidity parking lot and enter the 65* shopping center, so it probably works that way for frogs, too.

          1. Hell, now that stupid false metaphor is stuck in my head– frogs leave the water when it gets too hot, if it’s fast enough or not. They’re cold blooded animals. It’s HOW THEIR BODY WORKS. There’s a damn reason we don’t find baked frogs on rocks all the time.

            1. “There’s a damn reason we don’t find baked frogs on rocks all the time.”

              Ummm… because somebody else ate them first?

              1. Kinda like the so-called “exploding” frogs in Europe 10 or so years ago. Everyone screamed “global warming’ and it turned out to be wading birds that had hit on a new (apparently) way to spear the frogs that led to the frogs hyper-inflating as they died.

                  1. Am I sick and twisted to find that a humorous visual?

                    The visual of Al Gore bent over staring at a hyper-inflating frog, and it blowing up in his face and covering him with various internal froggy bits has me laughing so hard I can barely type this.

                    1. I’m still laughing too. I’m sure AGW pissed off the wading birds, causing them to do this.

              2. I thought that was toad in a log? Or was it under a rock?

                Never did get much into English cooking; have a vague notion that it’s something like S@%t on a Shingle….. (Thick white sausage gravy on toast.)

                1. “Toad In The Hole” is the name of the dish; fairly sure that no toad is involved. OTOH, it IS English “cooking”. 😎

                  1. So I finally went and looked it up… . I guess if it was served on toast, it would be pretty close to s%#t on a single, especially with how link sausage was is more expensive than loose sausage when grandma was making it. (I’d like to blame the name on the Army, but I have a heck of a time picturing my moviestar-looks, banker-job, guys-still-called-him-Sarge-at-his-death grandfather cursing for something silly like that.)


                    Sausage baked in an egg-and-flour gravy.

                    1. Hey now, I didn’t say *I* was worried about it. Just some folks are.

                      That whole “not dying” thing has something going for it, apparently.

  4. …it all seems incremental and slow and just “ideas.”

    Without a solid foundation of shared principles and ideas we will get nowhere. These are the rocks on which the framework of government will be built.

    A President once noted that without a solid foundation the house won’t stand. He was referring to an illustration that was commonly known and understood. These shared stories, etc. are important.

    The founder’s generation had to find common threads to bind themselves together. This was not just an agreement on what they did not want to continue, or even what they wanted once they were free of the crown. They had to build a consensus on how to achieve their goal before they could successfully create a new nation.

    All of that took decades. I could go farther, and note that once built you won’t be able to sit back. People of conscience have to stay engaged. (Without constant maintenance neither the house or the foundation will last.) To cite one of the founders who on being asked what kind of government was given, ‘A republic, madam, if you can keep it.

    1. “A President once noted that without a solid foundation the house won’t stand. ”

      Eh, the observation’s a lot older than him.

      Stories are important. I note the big educational function of stories as opposed to non-fiction is to educate the sentiments. Not to show that courage and dedication are right, but that they are admirable. As C.S. Lewis warned in The Abolition of Man, rational knowledge needs the aid of the sentiments, such as the rush of horror one feels on hearing of tyranny.

      1. I think her observation was that he made that statement, knowing that the vast majority of his listeners would be familiar with the story he was referencing. He was actually building on a foundation of a much older and well known parable.

        1. And it says a great deal more about the incremental battles that we’ve lost – in large part because we never tried to fight them – than does any piece of legislature, that this humble little parable is barely known. Look around: when was the last time you heard or saw the little red hen? Or any of the other tales from the Yankee tribe?

          Sarah is spot on, as was the late much lamented Mr. Breitbart – until we can stop having our stories – not our news ( though that’s an issue too ) but our stories – killed dead, we will never reclaim our country.

          “It’s the culture, stupid.”

          And as a libertarian- leaning (sorry but the distaste i feel since the rampant judenheisse displayed during der gulfkrieg 2 has still not worn off ) imbedded in the heart of a so- con community ( mixed marriage. It happens ) you folks are dead wrong in thinking “gay marriage” is at the heart of “let it burn.” GM is a heteronormative boondoggle on a par with legislating that the sky is green, or prohibition. It’s small beer – the big issue is how it’s getting passed and the ancillary fallout. Frankly, if sharia becomes normative, GM couples better hope they haven’t succeeded in driving the radical Christian churches underground, because those are the only communities who will be willing to risk dying to hide you in their basement.

          Privileging full acess to sexy-fun-shenanigans over stopping gummint fascism strikes me as crazy pants, but only I figure it’s up to each individual to decide what matters most to himself in the end.

          Since I suspect this is a forbidden topic, I won’t go any farther than to name what in fact does drive single- issue, implacable, so- con fire. The “let the devil have the governing of US/the culture/western civ” mentality. Because it’s been a horrific fight. Every gain is blocked – usually by our allies (I am with them 100% on this one though it was actually an atheist libertarian who convinced me to go all in) – by the Feds. Every media portrayal is either subtle or vicious propaganda. The only wins seem to be at the personal level, individual women convinced, word- of- mouth, grass roots stuff. Yup. Ab*rti*n. ’nuff said.

          1. “GM is a heteronormative boondoggle on a par with legislating that the sky is green, or prohibition. It’s small beer – the big issue is how it’s getting passed and the ancillary fallout.”

            Hurray!!! What he said…

      2. Exactly. He made the reference with the assurance that the audience would understand — it was a commonly known story.

  5. In the 90’s, Hillary Care convinced nobody. It wouldn’t pass. Then the House passed to Republicans for the first time in decades. But another commenter already got that for you, so you can read him.

    Don’t spin progressive incremental change. It doesn’t happen.

    You want to see seismic shift? Start following Arkansas politics. We just flipped the entire state D to R, but the “not so fast” crowd has already delayed needed change in the name of “being reasonable” and “governing with compassion.” I stopped “being reasonable” when a state judge approved gay marriage.

    Nós construímos esta nação com 250 anos de sangue. Ouça a nós.

    1. I’ll grant you that the Left support and celebration of Gay Marriage ueber alles is annoying, but I’m not sure it’s wrong. The Gay subculture strikes me as seriously deranged, but a lot of that is its tacit acceptance of serial infidelity and backstabbing. Once I reach that conclusion I have to face that I can’t very well criticize Gays for infidelity if society does not offer them the option of a recognized stable partnership.

      Which brings me to the Civl Unions vs Marriage debate.

      I started out backing Civil Unions. The I caught a news story out of an area where they were trying that a, and where such Civil Unions were supposed to have the same legal status as Marriage. And a Gay couple was being given crap by a Utility bureaucrat (I don’t remember if it was electric or water or gas) about putting the account of one under both names. And it struck me that the Bureaucrat in question didn’t even have to be anti-Gay, he just had to be the kind of bureaucrat (and we’ve all met them) who behaves like and asshole because the act of clenching up like a sphincter gives him pleasure.

      Even with legally recognized Gay Marriage, the Gays are in for a decade or so of that crap. Make them stick to Civil Unions and it will be two decades or more. And the cold fact is that if they are stuck at Civil Unions, in fifty years time everybody but a few outliers is going to be calling them Marriages. That’s just how language works un the U.S..

      I’m sorry if this offends, but all the arguments I read against legal recognition of Gay marriage seem to me to boil down to “My religion says it’s wrong” and “I don’t like Gays, they’re icky”. I don’t think either is a good basis for policy, and I see no reason why a Homosexual who desires a monogamous partnership should not enjoy legal protection from one that does not, but lies about it.

      1. And that’s why anyone who thinks I favor a purity test for GOP candidates is delusional, because on that issue alone, I probably wouldn’t pass. I agree with you completely.

        I have argued, however, that the trick on civil unions is to make anything performed by the state a civil union and anything performed by the clergy a marriage. Gay or straight, doesn’t matter. There ARE ordained ministers who would perform weddings for gay couples. We see that now. Plus, if John and Sue go to the court house, they get a civil union, so it’s equal to what gay couples get. They need to be equal in the eyes of the law, however.

        Plus, like you said, they’ll all get called marriages anyways, and if there’s no legal difference, there’s no real reason to argue the point.

        1. I agree that getting the State the hell out of the “Marriage” business would be ideal. I don’t really expect it to happen; the State has been mucking around in that social issue essentially forever. I do note that I am told that Argentina managed to separate State Marriage and Religious Marriage, but I don’t know of my own knowledge (and don’t speak/read spanish, so my ability to check is limited).

          The State does a lot of things that only make sense if the State owns everything and everybody, the way they used to when we had Kings who ruled whatever land their armies could keep.

          1. Civil marriage (involves a contract) and the religious ceremony are separate in many civil law countries. I speak from experience having been married in France. However, it would have been unlawful for the priest to marry us in church unless the civil ceremony had been performed. (And unless you have a lot of time, energy and money to deal with the demanded paperwork … Let’s just say I have more than a couple of stories around that happy event. ☺). So, maybe not the model you had in mind…

          2. AFIK, the State has one unique interest in promoting and protecting civil marriage: the progeny thereof… for continuance of civil and military strength into the future. Pretty much all other benefits of marriage accrue via religious or subtribal norms. Gay unions may qualify under the “subtribal norms” standard, but confer no benefit to the State.

            1. Ayup. Stick tab A into slot B and you risk producing viable offspring. The state has a legitimate interest in both enforcing and privileging ( carrot & stick ) marriage as a result. It’s the *only* reason. Yes, may seem more likely to do so effectively and charitably if it’s doing so as a Christian institution, but since an institution is “Christian” only so far as the people in it are faithful believers, why are we trying to skive off our responsibilities to the gummint? ‘Cos that’s worked soooo well with “feed the poor”

              Folding triples, gays, furries, what-have-you into marriage by legislative fiat is foolishness. It’s one good effect is to allow gay families to more successfully copy the biological reality, billions of years of evolution and recalcitrant human nature notwithstanding.
              I wish them luck with the project: once your only route to sexual satisfaction is something not part of the standard biological procreative menu, you’ve got a hard row to hoe.

              I could go on, but if you think that the only objections to redefining marriage are “gays are icky” and God said so, you’re spending way too much time in the echo chamber with the dinosaur media.

              But that’s not my hill to die on. Nothing those poor saps can do will screw up marriage for any Christian who trusts in God. His Spirit is what keeps the crazy Western practice of one-man- one-woman- kids- precious-far-beyond-any-mere-utility alive past the immediate biological reality. And there’s a lot of ruin in an institution, as has been pointed out elsewhere.

              Personally, I was mildly pro-civil unions since the ’90s, especially for families that have had to rebuild in non-standard forms after crashing on the rocks of the sexual revolution. (GM! Because the only acceptable way to form a family is biological! Bah.) But since the left decided to use these poor folks as a stick to beat consevatves with, I’ve had to take a harder line: Danegeld, yanno.

          3. I agree that getting the State the hell out of the “Marriage” business would be ideal

            Yeah, because everyone knows that family court is just wonderful and not prone to abuse at all– let’s make it the standard, rather than what is required when people have kids without getting married first!

        2. That’s how it is in Portugal. That’s why Dan have two wedding anniversaries. We had to be married legaly for the church to perform the wedding in Portugal.

          1. I’m just want to point out that “Religious Marriage” and “Legal Marriage” are already separate in the US. What confuses people is that the various states allow Clergy to “sign” the Legal Paperwork.

        3. “I have argued, however, that the trick on civil unions is to make anything performed by the state a civil union and anything performed by the clergy a marriage.”

          This. I’m not going into a long drawn out explanation of my reasoning here, because we seem to beat this issue to death about every six months and anybody who has been on this blog long is probably sick and tired of rereading my reasoning. 🙂

      2. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

            1. Stable Gay relationships, if possible, will benefit society at large to the same degree that childless but stable heterosexual Marriages do. And if they aren’t possible, then Gay divorce statistics will demonstrate, once and for all, that the Gay lifestyle is a poisonous one.

              I believe that they are possible. I think that the Gay male subculture has been damaged as much by “coming out’ in the decade of sexual excess that was the 1970’s as it was by the long time in the closet. A lot of people reacted to the sexual revolution by spending the ’70’s acting like military school cadets let out for vacation in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. The Heterosexuals got over it to a degree, what with the Herpes epidemic. The Gays don’t appear to have.

              1. Herpes epidemic? LOL.
                Dude: auto-immune deficiency syndrome. Some of us spent the 70’s/80’s in the nascent silicon valley when Lockheed was a major employer. There’s a reason the IT sector is depraved.

                As for gay marriage, don’t believe those are founded on fidelity, For what reason would a coupling founded on eroticism remain monogamous? Love?! LOL

                1. The straight community was beginning to mock the “free love” excesses of the ’70’s soke years before AIDS hit the big time.

                  And why should there NOT be same-sex partnerships based on long term compatability? It isn’t like a lot of heterosexual !arriages aren’t founded on the quicksand of eros … And those do tend to blow up spectacularly.

                  We won’t be in a position to say that Gay Marrages aen’t stable until we have some time on the clock with them being possible.

                2. I too have gay friends — not love necessarily, though that too, but a desire for stability and companionship and mutual support — same reason marriages between heterosexuals, meant to be childless from the beginning (yes, many) are stable.

                  1. Again with the childless marriages. A non-normative example, no matter the prevalence of that minority, does not create a novel argument for adjusted expectations for marriage and more than the success of a stupid man recommends stupidity.

                  1. I am not particularly interested in addressing the straw-man icky argument, but let’s go there, just for giggles.

                    Male gay eroticism generally involves anal sex, which carries many health risks over an above vaginal penetrative sex. Likewise, female same-sex eroticism usually involves cunnilingus, again, introducing risks over and above vaginal penetrative sex and even manual stimulation. These “icky” risks are “icky” in part because they elicit a disgust response to real health risks. Your accusation that such response is irrational errs.

                    Moving along, it is only because you have misapplied the word “marriage” to a non-sexual relationship that you can argue Republicans block marriage. If my hypothetical gay relation or friend announces his imminent marriage, why would I assume he would marry a man? That only makes sense if you countenance the definition of marriage includes two men in an ongoing erotic relationship. Else I would justly conclude he has found a woman with which to conceive children and has agreed to a lifelong commitment to her and their shared progeny. Why else marry? Fornication and cohabitation is lawful, as is any diddling two consenting adults pursue (see above).

                    Oops. Tax benefits. As the US Supreme Court case established.

                    1. Because calling it a “straw man”, then proving it was dead accurate is really the great way to answer it.

                      I think I speak for us all when I point out that we appreciated the funny.

                    2. I’ve clearly outlined my argument based on child welfare. Your silence regarding that is deafening.

                      Now, the plumber’s done here at the house, so I’ll bid ya’ll adieu. “No luck” with that incremental change, now that I know what ya’ll think’s so important.

                      Otherwise, I wish you well. I’ll unsubscribe to Hoyt so ya’ll can wallow in ya’ll’s self-righteousness.

                    3. I didn’t mention the child welfare argument because it was beyond ridiculous, but whatever.

                      Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

                      I’m sure I speak for a number of us when I say that you will not be missed.

                3. There are multiple reasons for people to enter relationships, and those are their business.

                  The effect of according them the same societal endorsement as what has been most successful in raising kids is another question.

                  And how we handle people using the law to hammer acceptance into endorsement is yet another.

                  1. ttncleod, I saw you liked my comment. That first sentence was aimed at your ridiculous assertion that gays don’t base relationships on anything but eroticism.

                    1. No. The point was that gays don’t base *sexual fidelity* on anything but eroticism, and then everyone went down the rabbit hole.

                      Like all the rational arguments in favor of every Western institution, those for marriage cannot well be turned into a bumper sticker. Try explaining why smashing up free markets, free speech rights or the rule of law to a caring ill-informed liberal and you’ll perceive the problem with trying to hash this one out on a blog, even one like Sarah Hoyt’s.

                      Though I would expect the “but I want it and it’s NOT fair” crowd to be more respectful of the “this radical change is going to have dangerous unintentional consequences” set on a conservative site.

                    2. “No. The point was that gays don’t base *sexual fidelity* on anything but eroticism, and then everyone went down the rabbit hole.”

                      This is the second time someone’s argued this, and offered not a lick of proof. This is especially amusing in light of a number of gay people I know in monogamous relationships based on love and commitment.

                      Look, you don’t want gay marriage legal? That’s your right.

                      However, when you begin to attack an entire group of people, some of which are regulars here, you need to take a step back. Like it or not, that comment IS an attack, and it’s out of line.

                  2. Well, we could always start societally disapproving of people, of whatever gender or orientation, that make a great public fuss about their sexuality.

                    Or, as I’ve been saying to my Gay acquaintances for years; “”If what you do in bed together is none of my business, please do me the favor of making sure I can ignore that aspect of your relationship. If you insist on wearing your kinky bed gear in public, human nature being what it is, I’m going to imagine what you do with it in private, and I don’t want to.”

                    Gays are a tiny portion of the population. If they get over the need to play “Shock the squares” in public, we can all ignore them. There are lots of tiny subcultures whose beliefs and practices I prefer to ignore. I assume that many of them feel the same way about me.

                    As for the acceptance vs endorsement argument, I think the real problem is a leftover of the “Playboy Philosophy” whereby we have got it in our fools heads that we must endorse all forms of sex. I would much prefer an attitude of “Oh, you’ve figured out how to play. Good. Keep it to yourself and selected adult volunteers or we break your knees, Hmmmm?”

                    1. Oh, I’m all for “let the States sort it out”, and getting the Feddies to allow that is a major dream. Looks like pushing on Pot legalization is the entering wedge there.

                    2. Sorry, I should have written “whether or not gay couples base sexual fidelity on etc.” – and heck if I know. None of my business. But that was the original question. If the only rationale for marriage is a powerful romantic love, how DO you make the case for sexual fidelity? Why would you? Not my problem to solve, but if it interests, there’s more fun to be had in thinking the thing through than pitching invective past each other.

                      And, no, sorry I wasn’t aware that this was an explicitly libertarian blog (ala Reason Mag.) thanks for letting me know.

                    3. Pretty sure Sarah’s a small-l for similar reasons to what you’ve mentioned for being “libertarian leaning.”

                      I’m further out than y’both, being at best “libertarian sympathetic.”

                      The big-L type hardliners tend to be treated as idealists who haven’t gotten it shaken loose yet.

                      Speaking of brands that need serious work….

              2. It might also be the difference between male and female attitudes toward sexual relationships. Lesbians tend toward much longer loves than to male homosexuals. Since both male and female homosexuals are male and female humans first and foremost, the male tendency toward greater promiscuity still exists, even though none of their unions can actually produce children.

                But yeah. The 70’s culture didn’t help, nor did the rejection of homosexuality by traditional moralists, which meant that homosexuals would be despised whether they behaved with sexual virtue or viciousness.

              3. I find it funny that gays are destroying the ‘institution of marriage’. Sorry, heterosexuals destroyed marriage 3 or 4 decades ago.
                My only objection is the pushing of the envelope. I definitely think it is wrong for the State demand that a professional photographer work for a gay wedding. I think it is wrong for the State to demand that a baker must sell a gay wedding cake.
                But this too is a progressive tactic across the board. Take a reasonable injustice, and immediately push into the unreasonable demands that the other side must stop arguing once it becomes ‘law’.
                Several years ago, I supported gay marriage (based on Andrew Sullivan’s reasoning as incredible as it seems); however, if I had been asked; “Will you support gay marriage understanding that any business related to marriage must be forced to comply with the law despite the business’ legitimate religious views and possible moral conflicts? Then my answer would be heck no.

                1. Well, there’s this about the photographer or the baker; they are in the business of providing services to customers. We decided a while back that if you were in business your rights to refuse to serve people you didn’t like were limited. I’m of mixed mind about that. But those ARE the rules on the ground.

                  IF we are going to tell Muslim cabbies they are legally obliged to pick up guide dogs (and we are), then the situation with the baker and the photographer seem to me to follow.

                  I admit that I would be a great deal happier with the Usual Lefty Suspects on this if I thought for one fat instant that hey would require a Black photographer to take pictures for a KKK rally.

                  1. One big problem with that, they are changing the rules midstream. That baker/photographer went into business with neither the intention nor the requirement of servicing gays… providing services to… eh, contracting employment with gays. Then the government decides to force them (against there constitutional right to practice their religion) to do so.

                    You know all those signs on the front of businesses that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?” Yeah, they are lies, they don’t have that right anymore, the government took it away from them.

                    And frankly, yes I do believe the Muslim cabbie should be able to refuse to pick up a guide dog.

                    The next big problem is as you point out, the Left likes to selectively enforce their laws. Look at this
                    and tell me how much trouble this baker is going to get in. And what little trouble she is having is simply from pushback. I certainly haven’t heard of her getting forced out of business by the government. (in fact this story has been totally hushed up since the first few articles about it)

                    1. I’ll go along with the cabbie, of the cab company can fire his behind for doing so. Make it a condition of employment.

                      But the present legal standard goes the other was, and I don’t think bringing it up now is a winning strategy.

                      As for the baker and the photographer, damnit they’ve had to deal with all sorts of heterosexual idiots before this. I’m sure they’ve worked for weddings they knew were going to weather the first storm aboit as well as a klenex umbrella. Did they or did they not provide services of marriages outside their faiths?

                    2. There’s a difference (to most religious people) between providing services for religious marriages outside of their own religions and providing services for Same Sex Marriages.

                      You and others are expecting them to support views (by providing their services) that not acceptable according to their religious views.

                      But apparently it is OK to force people to violate their own religious views.

                      After all You Know What’s Best. [Sarcasm]

                    3. “But apparently it is OK to force people to violate their own religious views.”

                      Contrariwise!! I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason I please. (That includes, especially, the federales.)
                      I extend that right to everyone else.

                    4. Religion is different and freedom of religion means no compulsion in religion. For bakers… it’s a little different, I think it’s what he’s saying. And he’s not endorsing it, just saying it’s the crap we’re stuck with and that’s what needs to change.

                    5. “I’ll go along with the cabbie, of the cab company can fire his behind for doing so. Make it a condition of employment.”

                      Oh absolutely, and if the baker is an employee and his boss tells him to bake the cake, his boss should have every right to fire him if he refuses.

                    1. Growl!

                      Go write 500 times on the blackboard: Islam is not a race.

                      Can you tell my mom was a teacher? 😉

                  2. The Muslim cab driver and the Bakery Store owner are not the same thing, unless the cab driver OWNS the cab, in which case he is perfectly free to refuse to carry anything his religion objects to. Otherwise, as an employee, he is bound by the rules of the company he works for.

                2. Back before it got crazy, I’d have traded abolishing no-fault divorce ( including restoring crim. con.s) for redefining marriage to include same sex couples in a heart beat

                  1. Hey, I still want someone to bring a case requiring New York to recognize my TX CHL if Texas has to recognize their gay marriage licenses under “Full Faith and Credit”.

                3. I’d argue for perhaps longer than three or four.

                  The level of societal trust that permits corporations to be used as a business organization instead of families goes back a ways.

                  Once marriage was no longer a way to generate a blood relation, so that one could trust someone enough to have a business relationship with them, people lost awareness of the context, and were freer to come up with all sorts of crazy theories.

                4. Marriage wasn’t destroyed, though it was damaged.

                  You might want to consider the reasoning for it, too– a small number of people who couldn’t find sufficient cause to divorce, so we redid everything around making it more fair for them.

                  If you think that “heterosexuals destroyed marriage,” then you should be fighting to fix it– not to do more damage.

                  1. Indeed, the twin problems of no fault divorce and if it feels good, do it have caused much of the destruction. Overall, the need to teach people that they are responsible for their actions in general would assist in getting heterosexual marriage back on sound ground.

                    Progressives are always for ‘do it for the children’, yet they championed these laws that destroys the stability and life of the children. When selfish adults with no sense of responsibility use the children as a weapon against their ex… pity the children.

                    1. Like usual, they just define away any failures of their theory, so the kids that are damaged would have been worse… theory requires it. :/

                      Really annoys me, though, because it tends to be thrown at people who have been fighting to get marriage away from being “until I don’t feel like it,” basically because they try to save people instead of just doing lawfare.

                  2. We’re from the left and we’re here to save you!

                    You’d think gays would look at the state of American Blacks and federally recognized Amerindian tribes and think: huh. They’re offering US this shiny apple. What are the odds it’s poisoned? It’s because I’m rather fond of my gay friends (and also because I owe a debt of gratitude to the frequently-demonized bitter-clingers who are my friends and neighbors, but that’s a story for another day) that I have blown my entire day’s free time posting here. The opposite of love is indifference.

                    The point of redefining marriage is … Redefining marriage. I realize that it is slightly easier for me to pull up academic journals and articles in the advocate, than it is for most, but i recommend running-and-finding out on this one if you can. It’s instructive. You’ll find that the set that regularly uses “transgressive” in their paperwork want stable, child-centric, self-sacrificing partnerships dead in the water. It’s all there in the literature.

                    Organic, bottom-up change is anathema to these self-appointed guardians of sexual right-think. Acknowledging trade offs? Competing goods? Pfui. Non bio families face challenges that one size fits all doesn’t well address. I get it. But redefining marriage isn’t the answer, just a trick. It’s been so with every economic solution the left proposes, why does anyone assume that this time, for this thing, it will be different?

              4. I think there’s a slight incremental (that word again) benefit to society from childless stable hetero marriages over similarly stable gay ones. Has to do with modelling successful adult hetero marriage to young people – in too many cases, their parents’ relationship isn’t the best model and shouldn’t be the only one they see. It’s a counter (slight, but extant) to one of the influences that lead people to reject marriage completely. And a stable hetero marriage is the best foundation for species propagation, thus a social good.

                1. Having done my poor best to comfort a Gay friend or five through nasty breakups with cheating sonsofbitches I would argue that encouraging stable same sex partnerships is of strong benefit to society. Serial infidelity is corrosive.

        1. Yes, and that’s wonderful if that’s what you believe. I know the left thinks all of the right are religious fanatics, but some of us have different beliefs, and at any rate TRUST ME you don’t want a theocracy. TRUST me. Or study history.

      3. I think that for many on the right, the problem is that they can see the inexorable slippery slope. Most conservatives have gotten to the ‘even if I think it’s immoral / sinful, what two consenting adults do together isn’t my business’ stage, but they feel that this will inexorably lead to ‘you can’t call this legal behavior immoral and must accept it as normal’, which we’ve seen.

        I think more on the right than the left would go for a grand constitutional amendment compromise of the ‘the government legalizes gay marriage, but guarantees the right of private individuals to respect their own freedom of conscience with regards to this issue, including allowing private businesses and groups to not have to consider this a ‘right’.’

        For me, I’ve read enough Heinlein that the idea of allowing alternate marriage forms recognized by the government doesn’t give me any problems, but I balk at calling any particular union a ‘marriage’ a right, and I seriously oppose forcing this onto private individuals and groups.

        1. I think more on the right than the left would go for a grand constitutional amendment compromise of the ‘the government legalizes gay marriage, but guarantees the right of private individuals to respect their own freedom of conscience with regards to this issue, including allowing private businesses and groups to not have to consider this a ‘right’.’

          I would vote to dress this up and pass it, except for one issue:

          1.) As pointed out by my sister the law school graduate this morning, the Constitution only has meaning when the courts give it one. So all the courts would have to do would be to decide that not requiring the business owners to recognize it meant that they could refuse to show up at the ceremony, and would still have to offer their goods/services regardless. Basically, this would have the exact opposite effect of what was intended.

          That and the fact that I don’t think you could pull enough of votes on the left to ratify the thing.

          1. I tried to avoid too much legalese when spelling things out; I think you could, with enough effort, make it court-proof, but it would probably be as long as the rest of the Constitution. Then again this was merely a theoretical exercise for discussion.

            I agree about the left not going for it. The whole point of my argument is that what the right’s really worrying about is the fallout on their own liberties once the government gets involved, and to the left their ability to rub it in to the right is more important than the ‘rights’ of gays.

            1. There’s not such thing as “court-proof”. You can’t possibly be more clear than the 10th Amendment, and yet the courts openly flout it.

              1. The courts do not openly flout the 10th. The Amendment specifically gives the federal government to powers granted it in the Constitution, such as regulation of interstate commerce and anything necessary and proper to execute its enumerated powers.

                The 10th amendment doesn’t say anything about broad interpretation of vague constitutional language.

            2. Given that a major case in front of the US Supreme Court essentially boils down to whether a section of text means exactly what it says, and the popular belief right now is that four of the justices will vote that the text does *not* mean what it says…

              1. Which is exactly my point; I don’t mean this as a realistic solution but a theoretical illustration of the difference between the two points of view.

                1. The problem with the two points of view, is that one side thinks the other side is naive and that side thinks the other is evil. Hard to work out a reasonable solution when the two points of view refuse to talk.

          2. “the Constitution only has meaning when the courts give it one.”

            Or, in plain English, the Constitution is unconstitutionally vague. You should have those rights under the constitution that a reasonably prudent man using ordinary judgment could work out were protected, and no others.

          3. also a VERY BIG reason to not let the leftoids run things into the ground, SCOTUS appointments. The “To hech with the GOP and I don’t Care what happens” folks forget that allowing the Dems to stack the court is a very bad thing. Things are bad enough with what we have …. add a few more Sotomayers and Ginsbergs to it… ***shudder***

          4. Or we could change the rule of divorce so that it was at least as hard to get out of a marriage contract as it is to get out of any other kind of legally binding contract.

            And watch the Left collectively lose their wa.

              1. Hear. Hear. Do this andbyou can marry a birch tree for all I care. … Though if I were a kindler person, I would. Ah well…

        2. A while back, Ann Coulter said something that started for me a train of thought on this topic. She said, (OWTTE) “If you’re going to overturn thousands of years of tradition and law, it’s incumbent upon you to make the case for it, and not simply argue on the bases of emotional pique and convenience.” I don’t believe I’ve heard the case made — on the national stage (I have heard it in private, from individuals) — on other bases than “But we’re in LUUUVE” and “You hater! You hate us!” Being conservative in outlook (if libertarian in political beliefs), I tend to resist headlong change made on such trivial grounds.

          Now, follow on to that. The key argument made is that “Rights ought to be equal; we ought to have the right to marry equally.” To which, I reply, “You do. You have the same right as everybody else to marry anyone of the opposite sex who’ll have you. Because that’s what a marriage **IS**.”

          The argument FOR gay “marriage,” as I see it is founded in mendacity, category error, and begging the question — all dishonest practices, which — in my mind are instantly, automatically, and dispositively disqualifying.

          Come again?


          1. Marriage as implemented by government is, ultimately, a social construct, and one that at least one major culture defines differently than we do. The states themselves vary as to the permissible consanguinity in a marriage.

            For me, it is logical that if the majority of the people in a governmental area were to suddenly, say, decide polygamy was acceptable, it would be fine for the government via the legislature to change the definition of marriage as applied to government law*. However, the courts have decided that marriage is a right (and since it’s a government benefit it’s a positive right) and the definition of marriage is something other than what a majority of the population believes. Positive rights by themselves are bad, courts making them up out of nowhere against the will of the people as expressed by the legislature is a horrible precedent regardless of how I (or anyone) feels regarding homosexuality or gay marriage. The fact that this is spun by defenders of the change as ‘you hate gay people’ is merely a distraction from the real issue at hand.

            * I also start having massive objections to forcing this definition change on private groups.

          2. Spot on.
            They’re running into Chesterton’s Gate.
            Homosexual acts are as universally taboo as cannibalism and incest. That didn’t just happen.

            1. Had not heard of that, so went to look it up and find, at Wikipedia, this oh-so-meta bit of commentary:

              This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

              There is so much to say on this, which runs aslant of a desire for brevity. I will say I believe that, were a thing to be truly unnatural, it would be impossible, which disposes of half of the arguments FOR the taboos, here. It’s not so much the acts, preferences, culture of homosexuality that I have a problem with as the willy nilly rush to redefine the dialectic in manners that seem (to me, at least) to be dishonest, and therefore distortionate of truth, reality, objectivity, und so weiter.


              1. Also that the real criminals involved here are the myrmidons of the Left, who have hijacked what might, in other circumstances, might be a worthy cause of liberty, but — given the Left-lie distortion of the terms of the argument — becomes one more drive toward tyranny.


              2. Mark, and all this runs aslant the fact my kids’ generation just doesn’t care. And no, it’s not indoctrination, it’s the pill working itself out. When marriage doesn’t necessarily or even likely mean kids, then they fail to see the difference.

                1. I agree with Sarah here. In my interactions with younger people than me, the whole marriage topic usually ends up so far into the “don’t care” category that it becomes irrelevant. And that “don’t care” line seems to be moving further and further into older folks as topic fatigue sets in.

                  As a result I’m thinking this may not be the hill to make an all-or-nothing stand on, especially as there are a number of libertarian, or at least anti-centralized-control, political streams of thought that are poisoned by this one issue. If we can make common cause about less spy-ey government and gun rights and tax reform by moving on past this issue, I think the result would be a stronger coalition.

                  1. See I see the opposite in the younger generation. They are very silent on the issue, and do tend towards more of a “I don’t care what you do in the bedroom” stance. And so it is naturally assumed that they line up with those in the older generations (from about mine to Sarah’s) more vocal (and note that it is taboo to oppose SSM so most of the vocal ones support it, with those opposing it only vocalizing their opinion if they are among friends they know agree with them, they feel EXTREMELY strongly about the subject, or they are actively looking for a fight/attention). But from my personal experience when asked the younger (late teens to mid-twenties) generation actually seem to have an overwhelming opposal to SSM, it is just that their opposal is due more to libertarian grounds, than the Icky grounds that any one opposed to it is immediately accused of. They don’t care about gays, they do care about being told they must support and applaud them.

                    1. Too many “Pro-SSM folks” (elsewhere) do seem to belong to the “you must support and applaud gays” school of thought.

                    2. That’s the way it should work but in the Leftish world, we’re to “love” gays especially when the gays attempt to “gross out the straights”. [Sad Smile]

                      Of course, there’s also the problem of when “gays” are acting like jerks, it’s “gas-bashing” to call them on their jerkish behavior.

                    3. Ditto.

                      The folks informing us about what we think wouldn’t listen if we did say anything, so why bother?

                      The little high-school cousin who did dare speak out, rather gently, got attacked quite viciously– and irrationally– by her friends.

                      Both ends of Millies have lots of reason to not draw fire unless it’s a must.

                2. Yeah, and as a Boomer, my opinions are only semi-relevant at this late date.

                  But they should care, for the same reason my cohort should have cared more when so many of us were hopping into beds with red sheets (or red socks sticking out from under).

                  I can’t marshall just the right quote, there are so many — from Orwell’s “…truth-telling is a revolutionary act.” to calling Satan “The prince of lies.” Permit yourself and your polity to be taken over so handily by lies and you’ll live to rue the day. Take that from an old fart with plenty of mileage on him.

                  Kids used to be a bit more adamant about hating lies. The whole gay marriage disaster (which I’m not saying IS a disaster on account of the gayness of it or the marriage part) is being forced on the country in a campaign of lies.

                  And, you’re right, sadly, Nobody cares, not even gay folk, who ought to be royally PISSED OFF at being so nakedly used by … do I sound like a broken record … proponents of the greatest evil ever encompassed by the mind of man.


                1. One definition of “natural” would be the evolutionary one.

                  IE behavior that’s more likely to produce the next generations is more “natural” than behavior that’s unlikely to produce the next generations. [Very Big Evil Grin]

                  1. That’s more a definition of “fit” behavior than “natural” behavior.

              3. I will say I believe that, were a thing to be truly unnatural, it would be impossible, which disposes of half of the arguments FOR the taboos, here.

                Except that’s not what is being talked about when the term “unnatural” is used. It’s about the nature of a thing, not “is it possible in creation.”

            2. If by “universally taboo” you mean “in Western, Christian society”. Most cultures above the tribal level manage to shun cannibalism. Many have rules about incest. Far fewer say much about homosexuality. The Alexandrian Greeks prized homosexual partnerships above heterosexual ones. Which doesn’t make them right, but it does make the taboo far from universal.

                1. Historically I would say many more had rules about homosexuality than about incest.

                  1. Our degree of preference for exogamy is certainly not the rule for all mankind.

                    1. Or one could review, say, the seven habits of highly effective civilizations, and see what they had in common. That would be interesting. When I was doing a massive review of the available literature on the Jewish Holocaust several years back, I discovered that nearly all the histories went at it from a “we have to figure out what went wrong” tack. Whereas it seems to me, “how did some groups ( and notably Denmark ) manage to get it right?

                      It’s a huge proggie blind spot, and it’s so deeply imbedded in western academe and the popular narratives it’s like water to fish. Even conservatives have to catch themselves, and realize, that in an entropic universe, with stubbornly recalcitrant human nature (religious types call this original sin) things ought to fail. Go badly wrong. End up in a nasty mess. But, some shining, wonderful amazing times, they don’t. Figuring out the why ought to be a priority, and goes a long way toward explaining why conservative types tend to be chary of tearing down most long standing institutions.

          1. Exactly my point. The left has been winning because it can frame the debate as ‘look at these ignorant Bible-thumping rednecks oppressing the poor LGBT people’ (insert stereotypes as appropriate) when there’s a serious debate about the role of government and the freedoms of the individual expressed across multiple issues.

            One of the good trends has been the decentralization of the media has allowed more people to start noticing the extreme cognitive dissonance at work. It’s hard to make jokes about getting the right out of your bedroom when the left is demanding each person have a team of lawyers draft up the paperwork for your activities there…

      4. If a culture of serial backstabbing and infidelity being given marriage could destroy it, it would already be gone because of Hollywood. Hollywood and gays are about the same proportion of the population — 1.something%. Mind your marriage, and stop worrying about other people’s. I’m very tired of this issue being considered “all important” for the right.

        1. They’re about the same proportion, both populated by Leftists, and given influence out of all proportion to their size.

          I’m starting to see a pattern here.

          1. not all gays — not nearly — are leftist, though a lot are out of being LIVs. It’s mostly the loudmouths. I mean, you might as well say all Portuguese-Americans are leftist. It’s hard to survey and Larry and I are the only loud ones who aren’t. (Using hyphenation out of convenience. I am of course American-American, but easiest way to convey idea.)

            1. Okay, ignorance question.

              I’ve seen LIV used here a few times in the last couple days, what does it mean?

              1. Low Information Voter. The guy who only pays attention to politics between the national party conventions and the general election.

      5. So did you re-rethink your backing of Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage when you heard of the bakers in Oregon who were bankrupted by a $150,000 fine? If not, why not. Your choices seem to be: 1. Call it Civil Unions and a few bureaucrats will give a few gay union couples crap about stuff like joint electric bills OR 2. Call it Marriage and the radical gay political machine members will run around the country bankrupting cocially conservative Christian small business people who have anything to do with marriage ceremonies and aren’t willing to betray their conscience, suing small, shallow-pocket rural school districts across the country for not showing 1/3 of the married couples in their text books to be gay men and another 1/3 to be lesbians, and so on until they finally get Catholics declared unable to adopt children because of the danger that they will teach their hate-group prejudice that gay marriage isn’t marriage to the adopted kids. So, yeah… I can see where you’d weigh the two options and decide that inconveniencing gay couples over their utility bills was the more pressing civil rights issue.

        And don’t tell me I’m paranoid because it’s already started, and surely you know in your heart that while MOST gays may not support the latter things happening, you don’t need most of them to… only enough of the rabidly political ones to make it happen.

        1. Let’s be careful here.

          While I firmly expect some on the Left to support forcing Churches to marry Gays, I am also tired of “Blue On Blue” fights.

          IMO there are Good People here who support the idea of Gay Marriage and I’m not wanting to see a fight *HERE* about Gay Marriage.

          1. Also, I’m sick and tired of an issue that affects 1.6% of the population being obsessed over.
            I have gay friends who vote with us (and read this blog) — DO YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN DRIVING THEM AWAY? Why? Their votes are the same as anyone else.

            1. Sarah, I’m trying to “cool things down” on this issue so please help me.

              1. Yes, I know. Guys, cool it. There’s so many things actually in the constitution that MATTER for this country more than gay marriage or lack thereof: mutual defense, not using the commerce clause as a tetsubo, etc. Let’s leave gay marriage to those for whom it’s a critical issue, and no, that’s not constitutionalists which I hope we all are.

                1. Here’s one for my so con friends: GM is a symptom, not the problem. If we can retake the country, and restore the constitution, freedom of conscience issues take care of themselves.

                  As for consensual fornication being virtuous gee whizz awesome sauce vs 8th circle of hell despicable: oh please. Excluded middle anyone?

            2. I won’t condemn them for facing a temptation that the vast majority of us will never experience.
              Nor will I fault them for succumbing to their baser urges. There is no one without sin.
              But I draw the line at calling evil “good”.

              I support their ability to arrange their affairs however they wish through freedom of contract.
              But Marriage is not a contract. It is a Holy sacrament, in which two souls are joined by God.

              If this stance is enough to drive them away, I must conclude an alliance is not worth the cost.

              1. If you think sex between two consenting adults is evil, your moral compass is in serious need of calibration.

                If marriage is a Holy sacrament, it has NO place in our legal system. What part of the First Amendment confuses you?

                Frankly, I’d rather have Sarah and her gay friends than you. Have fun in your party of one.

                1. “If marriage is a Holy sacrament, it has NO place in our legal system. What part of the First Amendment confuses you?”

                  Hey, look, we agree. So why are you supporting expanding that violation of the First Amendment?

                  1. The First Amendment says nothing about establishing a legal mechanism to promote monogamy and/or procreation, nor about being dumb enough to give such a mechanism the same name as a sacrament.

                    As for getting the government out of marriage, I have no particular problem with the policy per se, but I see it as a great way to alienate the LIV’s – AKA most of the country.

                    1. They also didn’t have to define what “child” meant, so as to rule out someone’s house-pet, or that “himself” was the generic form, not the “exclusive to males” form — heck, they thought “natural born citizen” was plenty clear enough.

                      If you would seriously like to make the case that as a rule they did not view marriage as monogamous and procreative, go for it, but argument from silence is silly.

                    2. You’re missing my point. We as a society have brand latitude under the Constitution to define marriage or change the name. What the Constitution forbids is basing our definition on any religious text.

                    3. The first is not what you claimed, and shall I add the second to the list of things you’d need to prove?

                      That’ll be a tough row to hoe, seeing as the document relies heavily on natural law, and that same theory is the source for heterosexual and monogamous marriage.

                    4. It is, actually. But since you apparently have difficulty with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” let’s just grant that this topic turns your brain off and reduces you to sub-literate book-thumping.

                    5. Good grief.

                      Project, much?

                      “Establishment of religion” does not mean that.

                      Thanks ever so much for showing that not only does it make your brain utterly fail, it makes you act like a total ass.

                    6. What an interesting reading of the Constitution. [Sarcasm]

                      Of course, like too many Pro-SSM types, you ignore that marriage (in history) has never included SSM.

                      Plenty of cases in history of multiple wives and a few cases where a group of men married one woman.

                      It’s one thing when people want to expand the definition of marriage to included SSM, but another thing when idiots try to imply that SSM existed before the “evil” Christians got started.

                    7. I saw your “cease and desist” after I made that comment.

                    8. Yeah, following the text as written is quite novel.

                      Look, if you want to argue against SSM based on tradition, that’s one thing. It’s not a great argument – humans have long traditions of all kinds of unpleasant things like slavery, famine, and being ruled by our betters. But the argument “the Bible says so” is a legal nullity.

                2. “If you think sex between two consenting adults is evil, your moral compass is in serious need of calibration”

                  Actually, that is a religious belief that is more common than the more vocal counterpart of “do what you want, with whoever you want, whenever you want, as long as it’s consensual, it’s all good.” Note: politically and legalistically I agree with the latter, morally I agree with the former. I’ll only deal with three major religions, the ones I am most familiar with. Christianity, Islam*, and Judiasm all condemn sex between two consenting adults who are unmarried as evil, even when it is heterosexual sex. Notice, I don’t want a theocracy, I’m libertarian, I think many things I don’t morally support should be legal. But I shouldn’t have to support or applaud them either. That is the whole libertarian vs. Liberal-tarian (thanks Foxfier) mindset.

                  I would hesitate to accuse someone else of their moral compass needing calibrated, seeing as a whole lot of people would deem it was yours that needed recalibrated.

                  *depending on circumstances, some religions only regard it as evil for some participants.

                  1. And if one or both are married to other people, they’re more evil.

                    The only grounds for divorce laid down by Christ was adultery.

                3. If you think sex between two consenting adults is evil, your moral compass is in serious need of calibration.

                  No, because I don’t set my morals by The Jeff Standard.

                    1. I’m not the one putting pornography into the same category as Hitler and Stalin.

          2. “I am also tired of “Blue On Blue” fights.”
            That’s true… if the ELoE went to war with the cyberpope and his albino assassins then it would only benefit the SFWA.

          1. I think she was replying to cspschofield who stated that he “rethought” his stance on gay marriage.

          2. Actually, that was addressed to cspschofield’s comment above, sorry for the confusion.

            I agree that when (I’ll avoid saying ‘if’) the activist court problem is under control, or marriage definition ceases to be a gov’t role but I don’t see that happening in the next millennia, then the problem goes away. But just as you said above: “A rebellion or debacle that happens before the culture is changed means we already lost” the order in which things happen can have a huge impact on whether it turns out well or horribly. If there are any Log Cabin Republicans who would be very disappointed or inconvenienced that their paperwork said ‘union’ instead of ‘marriage’… at least until the activist judges are no longer pervasive, then I’d hope they’d tolerate that in the understanding that they’re saving untold numbers of their fellows from a contstant stream bankrupting lawsuits by their sacrifice and perhaps we could all agree to get them some sane fiscal policy and simpler, fairer tax code as a consolation prize until then. Or, you know, maybe some new legal machine guns. Whatever they like. In the spirit of compromise I’d be willing to overlook my linguistic distaste for throwing yet another perfectly good word on the faggot, gay, queer, etc. pile once that time comes.

            As for blue-on-blue and driving people away… I’m not the one who ever brings the issue up first. I just point out this problem whenever some other fellow conservative or libertarian brings up ‘why shouldn’t we get on the gay marriage bandwagon’. Then when I pour an unpleasant realistic answer into their Cheerios ™ *I* usually get accused of trying to start a fight or obsessing over something that honestly I don’t really care that much about. I just don’t want our side to be blindsided when the wave of lawsuits destroy a bunch of perfectly nice people/businesses/small town school districts and somebody say “why weren’t we told about this”. Let’s at least go into this with our eyes open about the personal cost that someone (most likely not us) will have to bear.

            Now what was the topic? Oh, yes… to quote one of the other side’s ‘prophets’:
            “Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.”
            ― H.G. Wells
            or something like that.

        2. The problem lies in the implicit assumption that the government has the right to prevent businesses from discriminating amongst customers, not in acknowledging gay marriages.

          1. Bingo. There were societal reasons why charging the government with forcing businesses to play nice with people the owners might not like looked like a good idea at the time. I have my doubts about the wisdom, but it isn’t something that is going to be changed right now. Later, maybe. The social pressures that might tilted the economics of serving Blacks have changed, hopefully for good (but don’t count on it).

            1. The reason they had Jim Crow laws was that businesses in the early 20th century frequently would not discriminate on their own. Take the bus company in Montgomery. It had defied the law until the police started randomly stopping the buses and arresting the driver if he had allowed blacks to violate the seating law.

              Some businesses did. Colleges, for instance, did for the same reason they discriminate in the opposite direction now; insulation from the consequences. And others did because whites would not use the business, but I doubt that’s still an issue.

              1. Indeed. The government, on the basis of the Progressivism of around a century ago, reformed the scandalous behavior of businesses in serving racially-mixed clientele, by forcing them not to,, with attendant acts of armed robbery (fines).. Then the government on the basis of the Progressivism of a full Strauss-Howe Cycle (four generations later) proceeded to reform the scandalous behavior of businesses in refusing to serve racially-mixed clientele, by forcing them to do so, with attendant acts of armed robbery (fines). All the while, the Left simultaneously bleated their praises of their wise leadership, while venerating Woodrow Wilson — one of the Democratic Party figures who pushed racial segregation on the Federal level.

        3. No. I’m sorry if it bothers people, but when I oder a cake, I don’t expect my religion or lack of same to affect the Baker a whole lot. If I walk into a bakery and want to celebrate something they think is tacky or wrong, I expect them to sell me the damn cake and go mutter about me to their caffe klatch like normal people. I get the the Gay marriage issue gets peoples’ juices flowing, but get a flipping grip. I came to you for a cake, not marriage counseling.

          I feel a little more sympathy for the photographer. A little. I’m sure he (she?) has been asked to take pictures of some notably un-photogenic people, but on the other hand he (she?) does have to interact with the event in question.

          And, as I’ve noted elsewhere, I would be happier for the self-styled champions of tolerance if I thought they would be just as outraged at a Black professional who refused to work for the KKK.

          Maybe in a perfect world merchants and such-like would be free to refuse service to all and sudsy, and then take the financial hit involved. But that isn’t the world we live in. That isn’t the legal state of affairs that exists.

          And, for the record, if the Gay couple had come to the bakery BEFORE Gay Marriage became legal, sought to but a wedding cake for a non-legal (not illegal, just not legally binding) same sex marriage, and the baker had refused them on religious grounds, I would expect them to sue, and I would expect them to win.

          If you feel that goddamned strongly about your religion, open a church. It’s. A. Freaking. CAKE.

          1. OK. Either I have freedom to associate, or I don’t. As long as I can’t call the cops to prevent someone else from baking a member of whichever group a cake, I expect them to respect that and move on down the road.

          2. “And, for the record, if the Gay couple had come to the bakery BEFORE Gay Marriage became legal, sought to but a wedding cake for a non-legal (not illegal, just not legally binding) same sex marriage, and the baker had refused them on religious grounds, I would expect them to sue, and I would expect them to win”

            Which is exactly what happened in Colorado, which is I presume why you brought that example up.

            I have been refused service because I was a male (at a hardware store, believe it or not) and they were having a “ladies night” during regular store hours. Now I don’t generally shop at that store any longer, but I certainly didn’t sue them to force them to sell me the couple bolts and nuts I wanted to pick up on my way home.

            And seriously I doubt any suit would have been successful, since I am a white male and therefore can’t be discriminated against. The bottom line is that I don’t believe any such suit should be successful, they ought to be able to decide as business owners who they wish to do business with; and that is even without the protection of the First Amendment. Which as far as I can see only currently protects non Judeo-Christian religions.

          3. IMO an adult would have walked out of the Bakery and found another Bakery, not sue.

            Gays suing a Bakery for not making a Gay Wedding Cake are a bunch of kiddies wanting the world to revolve around them or are wanting to “punish” their own parents (using the Bakery as the target) for not accepting them.

            Your precious Gays are behaving as if the World Must Approve Of Them.

      6. Blacks managed to maintain stable relationships in slavery without the blessing of the state. Many slave women’s children were all full siblings.

          1. Yes. But males and females are different. Many Lesbians (until TV pushed otherwise) maintained stable relationships. males, without a gatekeeper tend not to. Giving them the incentive of a promise made before family and friends might help. Solve it? No. Males and females are different. But maybe slow the waltz a little.

              1. Well, playing Devil’s Advocate here, because they likely ARE different? In brain chemistry, anyway.

                Of course we are always, always, ALWAYS dealing with populational averages. Under carefully controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, etc. the individual organism will do as it damn well pleases.

        1. Due entirely to the “blessing” of their owners. There were slave owners who were merely following common practice and tried to treat their property with as much compassion and kindness as possible. Then there were breeder farms where children were wrenched from their mothers as soon as they were a salable commodity. Same goes for husbands and wives. A benevolent owner would do everything possible to keep them together, a cruel or simply greedy slave holder would do whatever had the most profit regardless of family relations.
          Personal kindness may present itself in the most evil of situations. Does not mean it’s something one might depend on.

            1. True – although, humans being humans, if said benevolent owner maintained a stable workforce with a mix of genders, I’m guessing there would soon BE couples.

                1. That’s a matter of women paid less for children if there’s a husband around. Along with women being paid more if they have more children.

                  IE the Welfare system was apparently designed to destroy couples.

                2. Circular; one of the defining points of the underclass is income, three of the major factors in causing low income is single motherhood, irregular work choices* and gaming the system for income, and one of the very well publicized and common ways out of poverty is to finish school, get married and have a job.

                  *one of the guys I served with was an example– he use to be a drug dealer. Joined the Navy because the income wasn’t regular enough, and he had a son he wanted to take care of.

              1. Which is exactly the point– couples happen unless it’s actively, and viciously, discouraged.

                And, as the existence of the wives of sailors showed, spending only a tiny amount of time together isn’t enough.

                1. “And, as the existence of the wives of sailors showed, spending only a tiny amount of time together isn’t enough.”

                  *refrains from making comment*

                  1. Yeah, I know the stereotype.

                    It’s held about female sailors, too.

                    *gives Bearcat The Look*

                    Willing to accept my professional word that it’s a matter of folks finding what they’re looking for?

                2. I wonder… I think you’ve got a free dissertation topic here. Do couples.. Moderately long term, that is long enough to enable even short term successful progeny, non-golly-it-sucks-to-be-female couples… Just happen? That is does it take vicious suppression to stp them, or some kind of happy accident and-then-a-miracle-occurred, or heavy institutional bias to foster them?


                  1. Hard to get data– besides the human exceptionalism aspect, even.

                    That said, if we look at it historically, the fact that common law marriage even exists supports that it does indeed “just happen,” and that the legal system was only needed for abuses of that understanding.

                    Of course, this is all in a cultural framework that has a lot of assumptions, too.

                    1. That said, if we look at it historically, the fact that common law marriage even exists supports that it does indeed “just happen,” and that the legal system was only needed for abuses of that understanding.

                      I suspect it’s not an either/or situation. Some people will end up in committed couples relationships regardless. Some people would have to be dragged in kicking and screaming and will get out at the first opportunity. A lot of people are at some point in between. The more “incentive” (whether legal, economic advantage, social pressure, what have you) there is to join into committed couples the more of these “in between” people will form such commitments.

                    2. Goodness, yes.

                      Side note, I suspect that the way the folks who want nothing to do with being “tied down” or responsible for their offspring tend to leave a trail of pain behind them, then either die horribly or take yet more from the group, contributes to the “you must settle down” idea.

                      The “have sex with lots of women to spread your genes” theories only work if those kids are able to survive– and a solo mother is not going to be able to manage that. Heck, solo couples would be hard pressed in a survival level situation.

      7. Okay, folks: You need to think politics on this rather than what you think is right. The MSM supports same-sex marriage, but ask yourself why. Is it because they think it’s right, or because they think it can marginalize conservatives? Many conservative Christians left the Democrats because the DNC basically said they didn’t want them anymore, so it’s a given than conservative Christians will not support SSM.Since the MSM and SJW don’t like Christians, conservatives, or the GOP, this is a three-for-one deal: Make SSM a rallying point, and it becomes a dividing line heightening differences between the parties, then a standard MSM propaganda drive to further marginalize all three. And if the GOP response by coming out in favor of SSM, then it’s guaranteed that most GOP Christians will walk, just as they did with the DNC. That means this faction either sits out the election, or goes third party, both with the same results.

        There is one thing the MSM had forgotten, or assume is of no consequence: Christians still in the DNC, in particular those old Civil Rights leaders. For when one black Democrat in a Southern state compared SSM with the Civil Rights campaign, those old black preachers paid him a visit and explained his error.

        Now, due to years of rhetoric and a general leftward political stance, it’s doubtful that Christians left in the DNC will migrate to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. But they can make things might uncomfortable if they stand up and voice their opinion, like those preachers did when they visited that politician. That is fracture point, and it can be exploited by merely asking can they support a candidate that does not support the Word of God.

        Now, before there’s umpteen yah-yah posts on both sides of the SSM issue, or about religion, the issue is politics and not what you think is right on this issue. And though the MSM thinks it can marginalize the GOP, it has the potential of splitting the DNC apart.

      8. I began opposing gay marriage when the movement pushing it revealed they’re totalitarians drawing on the example of Mao.

      9. I have to face that I can’t very well criticize Gays for infidelity if society does not offer them the option of a recognized stable partnership.

        I expect adults to have at least the maturity of teenagers old enough to date, and I sure wouldn’t cut a 16teen year old slack for not having a state recognized partnership if they cheated on someone that they were Going Steady with, and that is way below adult partnerships.

        I know heterosexual couples who are common law married but not civil-married; same thing. (Well, other than that I’d know where to not look so I could avoid the corpse if one of them did get caught cheating….)

        Heck, part of why there are so many annulments granted is because a lot of people enter marriage without intent to actually act married, and sometimes no notion about what it would mean besides a tax break.

        It’s the same mistake the Dems keep making– they mistake markers for causes. Kids who have Solid Goals at 13 tend to be successful– let’s make everyone write down a Solid Goal!

        1. +1

          I guess I skimmed right over that statement. I can’t believe I’m actually going to use this saying, because I’ve always hated it, but it fits well here. “A ring doesn’t plug any holes.”

    2. Okay, the Portuguese won’t cut it and makes no sense. The blood was spilled, yes, but not in the name of rapid change.
      I’m not telling you to be reasonable or govern with compassion. I’m telling you to take over one side and use it — do it as fast as you like!

      1. You ask us to move slowly when our opponents move quickly. That is not a tactic for success.

        [You may correct my grammar, in this or any other language.]

          1. “And because the conservative/libertarian base was busy working at their jobs, raising their families and doing the other stuff we do, we slid back into the GOP thinking their goal was “sure, same result but slower.””

            “The founding fathers spent a generation in broadsheet and public meet hashing out their ideas and more importantly propagating them.”

            “A rebellion or debacle that happens before the culture is changed means we already lost.”

            “We’ll have time to change hearts and minds and hopefully arrest the decline before it gets to that point.”

            “Yes, as Bill told me, it all seems incremental and slow and just “ideas.” But the Jewish people had an heritage mostly of ideas and stories, and they have outlasted the peoples who built in marble and granite.”

            I’m just confused by your references to long time frames when you argue for changing the culture with ideas.

              1. And changing the culture will take longer than taking over the party. Which means lasting change takes much longer. To be blunt, liberalism NEEDS to stop being a mark of “high class.”

                1. I think one of the big problems in the cultural aspect is their ideas are Easy and ours are Hard. “Let the government take care of you” is easy. “Take responsibility for your actions” is hard. Part of being an individualist is taking personal responsibility and until we can get the importance of that hammered into the culture the culture isn’t really going to change IMAO.

              2. I.e. – don’t oversimplify the job. Changing the GOP is purely political only for the first few percent; after that, it’s hearts and minds… culture change.

              1. Culture changed dramatically beginning 1960, shifting in one generation. The only similar shifts in US history would be post civil war and post WW1 boom.

            1. This is part three-ish in a recent response to the “we didn’t get everything we wanted in one election, let it burn” group.

              We don’t aim for slow, but we have to accept that “fast” isn’t likely to fall in our lap, and trying to force it to happen will blow up. Badly.

        1. Beg to differ. One of the consistent things we can depend on is the lib/progs tendency for over reach. Most of our real losses have been when they incrementally change the rules, move the playing field in their favor. When they make sweeping changes that even the LIF cannot fail to notice they always get a reaction they never planned for. Of course it doesn’t hurt that their grandiose changes are always ill thought out and doomed to fail, based as they are on the fantasy that socialism can actually work in the real world. They will achieve temporary successes on occasion, usually by throwing massive amounts of cash at a bad idea. Green energy, multi-generational welfare, open borders, “sensible” gun control for example.
          And it’s always the same story. They claim credit for trying because they care so much. That they created terrible damage must not count because their intentions were good. Their incredibly stupid disfunctional program whatever it was would have worked if we had just tried a bit harder or spent a little more.
          Eventually, as I said, even the most clueless start to notice the massive fail and the lib/prog must back off and let that subject lie dormant for a while until the majority forget or are distracted by something more immediate.

          1. Thank you for your examples. Let’s please examine a few programs and you can tell me which have been withdrawn.

            Social Security
            Income Tax
            Food Stamps
            Public Housing
            National Health Insurance Mandate
            Criminalized Ownership Gold Currency
            Agriculture Subsidies
            Minimum Wages & Employer Obligations
            Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Regulation

            My favorite: the telecom tax to support the Spanish-American War.

            And those are just the few that come to mind readily.

            When income tax is repealed, we will have made progress.

            1. Yep, all examples of ham handed over reach. Only one done away with was the gold thing, under Nixon if I recall correctly, though once taken off the gold standard it’s no longer currency but a commodity.
              One you did not mention was the Assault Weapon Ban of 1984. Desperately desired by the left and so loved that they were willing to include a 10 year sunset clause in the firm belief that the ban would make us all so much safer that it would be renewed without objection. Instead everyone, even the usual suspects, admitted that the ban had absolutely no effect on crime so it was allowed to expire without a serious effort to reinstate.
              On a similar note, the proposed BATFE ban on common 5.56 rifle ammo met with such a response that it has been shelved, at least for now. Again, over reach as the ammo did not meet even the laboriously twisted definitions of BATFE for armor piercing handgun rounds. Many believe it was a toe in the door test case to see what else they might get away with. Fortunately, not bloody likely. Those of us who pay attention raised a red flag and our politicians still remember the aftermath of the afore mentioned AWB on the party that shoved it through.
              As for the rest of your list, all likely candidates for either modification or outright cancellation should the right mix of honorable citizens regain control of our government. Or we can simply wait until each ill conceived program crashes and burns of its own weight. I am sure those here are aware that the cash flow on Social Security turned negative last year, right? Went from being a cash cow cheerfully milked by our bureaucrats into a permanent drain on the Federal budget.

              1. Small correction. The AWB was 1994 to 2004, enacted under Clinton and sunset under Bush. Maybe my next computer will be able to print what I meant instead of what I typed.

              1. It depends on how you define failure. If I recall correctly the largest lobbying group in Washington is the NEA. From THEIR perspective the DoE is wonderful. One stop shopping.

                Oh, you mean improved education? Well, that’s just silly. That would mean the government was there for the governed.

    3. You want to stop the creep of government power over the lives of the individual, and you want to make sure that the government disallows gay marriage. And you don’t see any contradiction between these two positions?

      1. If that is the best you can accomplish by way of argument then I have your answer: dissolve recognition of marriage from government law. When marriage is not recognized as a privilege subject to government regulation, then all marriages become private agreements subject to terms of a contract, and all the government tax benefits (paid at taxpayer expense) vanish, along with your arguments for equal treatment under law.

        I would gladly see that.

        1. That’s kind of a major point to gays, or to anyone who has gay loved ones. I keep emphasizing “anyone who has gay loved ones” because, while only 1-10% of the population is gay or bisexual (depending on the definitions used), those gays and bisexuals have straight family and friends.

          The best argument the Republicans have are “We are for the liberty to do what one wills that directly harms no one else.” Focusing on keeping gays down undercuts that argument (and is also profoundly philosophically inconsistent).

          If I were gay and loved a man, knowing that the Democrats would let me marry him, and respect our marriage as much as they would a heterosexual one, would be a powerful incentive to vote Democrat. I do have two lesbian sisters, and one of them considers herself married to a woman, while the other is in a very close years-long love affair with a woman to whom she might as well be married (essentially the equivalent of a common-law marriage). If it wasn’t that I were very much aware of the larger context (which would among many other things include the persecution of my sisters by the victorious jihadists),, that might tempt me to vote Democrat, simply because I love my sisters.

          You should consider that they may be many in my position who are a tad less aware of the larger context.

          1. You’re arguing poll numbers based on a minute fraction of the population. That argument only works if you rely upon misplaced empathy for that fraction of the population. And the empathy is only justified if you support and encourage that empathy for what was, until very recently, considered a sign of madness and potential criminality. What I argue is that conciliation is and has been counter-productive: we have not profited from our kindness. Perhaps we ought reconsider that tactic.

            1. And, in the process, you’re actually doing a better job of pushing me BACK to a third party than anything the “let it burn” or “dump the GOP” crowds have managed.

              So, congratulations, I guess.

                1. Oh, I didn’t say I was going. Just that he was doing a better job than those who actually have that as a goal.

                  The fact that he’s an ignorant, self righteous prick isn’t enough to actually give him what he’d want: a GOP without gay marriage proponents.

                  1. Good grief, woman! I’m not the one carrying on and on about marriage equality as if it’s the one and only issue on which everything depends. Other commenters have already voiced their lack of Republican loyalty based on this issue alone, while I’ve merely argued against it. For me it was a final breaking point, and probably the issue that handed Arkansas to Republicans – for whom I voted this go-around. Perhaps that’s worth some discussion!

                  2. Sadly, I’m finding the Pro-SSM folks (even here) are also “Gay obsessed”. IE it’s the Most Important Issue to discuss.

                    Sarah, you want Anti-SSM folks to be quiet? Better get the Pro-SSM folks to be quiet as well.

                    1. Paul — we didn’t bring it up. I think it should be left to the states. It will solve itself in thirty or so years anyway. I think you’re rising to the bait of an agent provocateur, and that this topic is so far irrelevant that that’s all we should answer him.

                    2. Sorry Sarah, but I haven’t seen the PRO-SSM folks here ignoring it.

                    3. We were trying to get an obvious agent provocateur to leave. And what he was saying was the sort of thing the other side tars us with “I hate teh gayes because of what they does in bed” — this is stuff that can be lifted to be used against the whole blog. If you don’t understand the importance of stopping it, I don’t know how to explain it.

                1. But, if you do not, then please. Keep voting for non-Republicans.

                  In fact, I’m actually OK with you taking the others who think gay marriage is some kind of a litmus test with you.

            2. That argument only works if you rely upon misplaced empathy for that fraction of the population. And the empathy is only justified if you support and encourage that empathy for what was, until very recently, considered a sign of madness and potential criminality.

              Both my lesbian sisters have, at various times, directly helped me when I was in trouble. One of their mates has also directly helped me when I needed help. My personal loyalties take precedence over my political ones; if it were not for the fact that I have studied enough history to know that the power creep of the Democrats ends in the fall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire, I might wind up voting Democrat oln that basis alone. Telling me that two women I love dearly and who have treated me well are “mad” and “potential criminals” is not a good emotional argument; nor is it particularly logical, either.

        2. “I would gladly see that.”

          Hear! Hear!! Get the government out of… well, just out!

          1. The problem is that as soon as you propose it the vileprogs will declare you to be anti-marriage and John and Jane Q. LIV – who like their marriage just fine, thank you – will turn away.

            It’s a nice idea, but there’s no way to get there from here. We’re going to have a hard enough time convincing the LIV’s that opposing a Department of Education that has spent trillions with literally nothing to show for it isn’t anti-education.

            1. Careful experimentation has shown me the only way to convince LIPs of anything is repetition, carefully dispensed over a long period of time. This works regardless of how good or silly an idea is.
              In most cases logic is futile.
              I believe the vileprogs make full use of this.

              1. This is run, and I’ve been seeing more and more drumbeats for the “get government out of marriage” position.

                On the other hand, pretty much every society has some form of marriage ritual, which indicates to me that there is a distinct survival advantage.

      2. You know he is a raving idiot, and totally ignores the argument that would rebut your statement. So I’ll state it for him, the federal government legislating (or actually more commonly, doing so by Court decision) in direct contradiction to what most of the states have decided to make their laws (the majority of the states where gay marriage is legal, it is legal only due to court decisions overturning laws passed either through the legislative process, ballot inaitives, or state constitutional amendments) and taking that power away from the states IS creep of government power.

          1. “Rather, I should say it is creep of Federal government power.”

            The stealthy tread of the federal creep.

                    1. That’s why it’s a brilliant disguise! People would be so distracted that a wooden duck was begging for cookies, they would never suspect the truth!


      3. Only if he’s an anarchist. Though I expect a case could be made for abolishng the federal highways and the US Navy, failing to make it doesn’t mean I’m unreasonable for opposing the ban on say, toilets that work.

      4. You want to stop the creep of government power over the lives of the individual, and you want to make sure that the government disallows gay marriage.

        You want to stop the creep of government power over the lives of the individual, and you want to make it so the government can force recognition of sexual relationships? Especially when there is no overwhelming gov’t interest involved, the way there is in promoting stable child producing relationships, and dealing with what that does to property?

        Why aren’t you promoting something like a “household” contract, that formalizes the issues involved in forming a household with no reasonable expectation of children? We’ve got folks buying houses with close friends, for heaven’s sake– it would solve an actual problem without handing a giant hammer to a tiny group that’s shown they’re willing to use and abuse it.

        1. It’s simple Foxfier. SSM is the Right Thing To Support and only evil people don’t support it. [Sarcasm]

          1. This. I think that family law was quietly adapting to the ways which non bio families were shaking up until the vile progs got bored with their melanin enhanced constituency and went looking for a new hammer. No one wins though some gay families will enjoy some short term benefits until America’s grand nuclear family experiment crashes and burns. Both the politically active religious right and the progs have no idea how unusual many of our institutions are or how fragile the underpinnings of our society may turn out to be.

    4. Or, if you want to see things from a more pragmatic point of view …

      … Imagine that you, or someone whom you love, is gay. That means you might have a gay sibling, child, or very good friend. And this person wants to marry. But the Republicans are blocking gay marriage, under the theory that gays are evil perverts who should not be allowed to contaminate our gloriously pure society with their icky gayness.

      Guess what. You have just been handed a very good emotional reason to support the Democrats. When the MSM tell you that the Republicans are the party of hatred, rejection and no yummy cupcakes for cute little pink ponies, you will be inclined to believe them.

      We are facing a Democratic Party who wants to take away our freedoms and turn us into at best a European social democracy, with certain opinions forbidden at law. A Party who wants to carry out diplomatic and military policies that will leave us at the mercy of the jihad.

      And you’re focusing steadily on — gay marriage?

      You would have us go down to tyranny, but with our heads held proudly high and our last words “Well, we lost our freedom for a thousand years to come … but at least we stopped those gays from getting married!”

      Except that we wouldn’t. Because the Democrats just won and they institute gay marriage anyway.

        1. I’m tried of this but I’m going to say this.

          My problem with Gay Marriage is simple.

          The Left doesn’t want anybody to hold different views on it.

          I understand quite well both sides in many ways.

          The Problem is that it is very hard to be rational about this subject when a Bunch of Assholes want to *FORCE* everybody to have the “Correct” view on this Subject.

          Emotionally, I find it hard to care about innocent gays when Bigoted Gays and the Left have a Free Hand in Suppressing Other Views.

          So my final comment now is a call for all sides *here* to shut up on this issue.

          1. Emotionally, I find it hard to care about innocent gays when Bigoted Gays and the Left have a Free Hand in Suppressing Other Views.

            Would you have voted against the American Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the atrocities committed by the Mau-Maus in Kenya? Emotionally, you might have found it hard to care about innocent blacks while Bigoted Blacks and the Communists were torturing British settlers to death in Africa.

            1. Only if the Mau-Maus lived next door. Since they didn’t, you might need to order more straw.

            2. SHUT UP!!!!



              SO WHY SHOULD I LISTEN TO YOU????

              1. Actually, I can’t speak for Jordan but I do see what some pro-SSM idiots do.

                I also see what some pro-2A idiots do, but I’m not about to change my stance on the right to keep and bare arms.

                1. I don’t have a problem with you baring arms, I’ll even submit that it is acceptable for you to bare legs, it is other body parts that you shouldn’t bare in public if you want to keep them.

                    1. “My town was one of the first to outlaw saggy pants ”

                      I’ve always felt that the proper punishment for saggy pants was a well administered atomic wedgie.

                  1. Baring Arms may be a right but Spandex is a privilege and some people REALLY shouldn’t be abusing that privilege.

                    1. My town was one of the first to outlaw saggy pants (a measure I still mock because of our high unemployment, high crime, and a number of other more important issues that were just ignored). I’ve thought about pushing for a counter of banning spanex being worn by fat people.

                      Since I’m fat myself, I’m hoping to sidestep the discrimination issues. 😀

                    2. I don’t either.

                      Hell, I was spitballing a protest where as many bikini clad women would gather downtown with a single person would wear saggy pants. Just to see what the cops would do.

                    3. “This is what my mom sent me, and it was free.”

                      carharts and tshirts- for the same reason. I wonder how many sartorial crimes can be laid at the feet of Mom?

                    4. My mom is top heavy (no butt or legs, while I always had massive hips. Prior to gaining weight, I wore to sizes larger on bottom than on top) with light brown hair and green eyes. NOTHING will convince her we shouldn’t wear the same type of clothes. She also always sees me as at the age when I got married…

                    5. I’m your basic beanpole. I just wear whatever is still clean and has the fewest holes.

                    6. There are many people who shouldn’t wear Spandex. Most of them (including me) realize it. For the rest, there’s the Spandex Police….

                2. Sorry Tom, but I’m getting seriously annoyed at the Idea that Pro-SSM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO DISCUSS.

                  Since some people are discussing other issues, I haven’t ignored this thread but I’m getting very close to deleting all emails from According To Hoyt with this subject heading.

                  1. It’s NOT the only issue, and I don’t think it’s even that major an issue since several small-government solutions to the problem that could easily be discussed.

                    So yeah, I understand where you’re coming from.

                    I’ve been involved, and I’m pro-SSM for a number of reasons. However, most of my insulting has been toward one person in particular who, I feel was insulting an entire group of people who generally aren’t here to defend themselves.

                    He’s gone now, so I’m done with it personally. 🙂

              2. Paul, no one is saying to shut up. We’re saying there are more relevant and important topics, and he’s bringing this up to poison the well. Kindly stop taking his bait.

                1. Been knowing Paul here and elsewhere for some time. One of his major hot buttons is real or perceived attacks on his beliefs and his faith. He can be a bit sensitive, but so can we all when poked in a tender spot. I respect him for the strength and courage of his convictions.
                  Personally, I’m firmly on the fence on this particular subject. SSM? Sure, go for it. Hope y’all collectively have a better track record making marriage work that the heteros do. At the same time, this in your face crap from militant belligerent gays and direct attacks on anyone not 100% in line with their agenda is IMHO totally unacceptable. Driving someone out of their job because of a small donation years before or costing a family their business through legal actions is bullying pure and simple. And I do hate me bullies of every stripe, and do my best to bring them down.

          2. Thank you Paul.

            I have been keeping mostly silent on this subject today, because I have never found it possible to have a rational discussion on it with ANYBODY who is pro gay marriage.

            1. It’s tough, but it also proves Sarah Hoyt’s claim about the critical importance of retaking the narrative. These kids have been so brainwashed by the left dominated media and education system most of them don’t even know how much of what they think they know just isn’t so. Sorting that out can take a lifetime. And, like rational atheism, there’s a case for rational civil unions for people who want to act married and raise a family but lack the standard equipment to do so without some kind of social help.

              It’s just that right now the raging butters get all the press.

                1. That’s what caught your eye? That I’m a contrary old coot? How could you pass up the rampaging dairy product–?

                  1. I just thought that told me all I really needed to know about you. I mean, since you assume people who support a given position are merely “kids” rather than adults who just happen to disagree with you.

                    Whatever though.

      1. I am not particularly interested in addressing the straw-man icky argument, but let’s go there, just for giggles.

        Male gay eroticism generally involves anal sex, which carries many health risks over an above vaginal penetrative sex. Likewise, female same-sex eroticism usually involves cunnilingus, again, introducing risks over and above vaginal penetrative sex and even manual stimulation. These “icky” risks are “icky” in part because they elicit a disgust response to real health risks. Your accusation that such response is irrational errs.

        Moving along, it is only because you have misapplied the word “marriage” to a non-sexual relationship that you can argue Republicans block marriage. If my hypothetical gay relation or friend announces his imminent marriage, why would I assume he would marry a man? That only makes sense if you countenance the definition of marriage includes two men in an ongoing erotic relationship. Else I would justly conclude he has found a woman with which to conceive children and has agreed to a lifelong commitment to her and their shared progeny. Why else marry? Fornication and cohabitation is lawful, as is any diddling two consenting adults pursue (see above).

        Oops. Tax benefits. As the US Supreme Court case established.

        Democrats are the party of fatherless children, birthday cake bought with food stamps, mommy busy with her latest boyfriend, and anal rape of boys.

        And if you want, Republicans are the party of people becoming rich, happy families, and parents who put their children before themselves, including birthday cake and presents before beer, sex parties, and porn. Why is that a hard choice?

        1. I don’t know how to break this to you, but a heck of a lot of heterosexual married couples engage in oral and even anal sex, of various kinds. Nor are these practices particularly risky absent promiscuity, since one cannot pass on a disease one has not caught in the first place. Furthermore, the two people in a marriage tend to catch each others’ diseases, of any contagious varieties. And a lot of heterosexual couples are childless, whether by choice or necessity.

          You are tautologically defining marriages as “between a man and a woman,” but that’s not true even in the Bible (which assumes polygyny as the upper-class norm). It’s more accurate to say that “marriage” is a relationship formed by the consent of the parties to the marriage, and formally-recognized as such by the surrounding society.

          1. Pur discussion is prompted by a proposal that we fight for culture and representation within a particular US political party. If we are to examine this proposal with seriousness, we must also examine many of the mistakes that have led us to our current predicament. A tautological definition of marriage permitting no ideological compromise is better than a rapidly shifting Overton window. Until the recent spate of court cases asserting this so-called right to gay marriage, states across the nation passed and enforced “a man and a woman” constitutional amendments as response to gay marriage proposals. But the history of such things also includes banning polygyny when Mormon polygyny threatened.

            Also, until not long ago, so-called sodomy was unlawful, as several “shocking” cases from Georgia and elsewhere attested until very recently. It seems incredibly easy to make light of it all now, like we’re referring to 700 AD in Mecca or under Catholic Holy Roman jurisprudence, but that’s how far everything has shifted and how quickly. Wasn’t there just a movie about a British codebreaker convicted of sodomy?

            As for the risks of anal sex: perforation of the colon seems pretty risky to me,

            1. Did you take classes to sound like such a bigot, or did it come natural?

              I ask because you should realize that there are gay men, lesbians, bisexual people of either gender, and a whole host of others who like the idea of smaller government, more freedom, etc that you’re straight running to the other side.

            2. Also, until not long ago, so-called sodomy was unlawful, as several “shocking” cases from Georgia and elsewhere attested until very recently.

              I find it shocking, no scare-quotes, that consenting adults were arrested, convicted, and forced to serve time in prison for making love in ways of which the State disapproved. This has historically included heterosexuals whom some local with influence wanted to harass or persecute.

              In other words, it could include you. If someone didn’t like you, perhaps for posting religious-conservative beliefs online?

              Wasn’t there just a movie about a British codebreaker convicted of sodomy?

              The brilliant Alan Turing, father of information science, without whom the system you are using to communicate your comments might not have been developed as rapidly. He saved countless thousands of Allied lives, shortened the Second World War, and revealed to Mankind the potential of computing systems, but that didn’t stop him from being hounded to death by cruel laws, enforced by imbeciles, for the terrible crime of having sex with men.

              At least one AH has speculated that, had the British police acted sooner to catch this nefarious and dangerous criminal, Britain might have wound up being administered by a regime even more harsh on known homosexuals …

              … the Third Reich.

              As for the risks of anal sex: perforation of the colon seems pretty risky to me.

              These risks are borne voluntarily by the participants. Unless you’re talking about homosexual rape, in which case this is already covered by the laws against rape, and assault and battery in general.

              1. I think it best to close this and all tangentially related threads down, per the blogmistress’s wishes.

                Everybody’s on record with their opinions, whatever else could be expressed can be extrapolated from the record.

              2. I think this is covered by Sarah’s “cease and desist”.

          2. “even in the Bible (which assumes polygyny as the upper-class norm)”

            Point of order: You are referring to the Old Testament. Doesn’t apply to the New Testament any more than keeping kosher.

            1. Actually, it’s not addressed in the New Testament either way, unless you want to claim the verse about a man cannot serve two masters.

              1. 1 Timothy 3:2 – A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

                1 Corinthians 7:2 – Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

                1. Yet neither forbids polygamy: the first applies to ministers, and the second a general statement to the church in Corinth, which was a Roman colony. The Romans frowned on polygamy and the when Corinthians weren’t letting the good times role, they were monogamists.

                  From the restriction that bishops (and deacons) were to have only one wife, we can infer that polygamy was still going on to some degree and was not condemned. And if we go to Judaism, we find that there was still polygamy after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

                  Basically, forbidding polygamy in the West is tradition. Now, we can argue that it’s a good tradition, but it still remains tradition rather than a command in stone.

                2. You guys are forgetting Jesus’ monogamous definition of marriage: Matthew 19:3-10, and Mark 10:2-12. It’s not all that obscure. Used to be in the marriage service. Draws on Genesis.

              2. Might want to text-search for “adultery” in the new testament. You can also get some really interesting stuff by looking for “Ligamen”– which just means “bond” in Latin, but gets much less *cough* interesting results than are likely if you look for “marriage bond adultery book” or something. :innocent:

              3. Okay — Gay Marriage, like the War Between The States is now and henceforth a topic off the table on this blog. I’m sick and tired of posting about something else completely something different and then some pin head outsider comes in and sets this topic going.
                It affects less population than (I think) at this point the population of Denver. Would the entire country stop to discus the concerns of Denver? No.
                There is so much misinformation, disinformation and crazy activism on both sides (though mostly the gay side — when they go crazy they have special flair) of this issue that all you do by arguing is playing into the Marxists hands. People are not widgets. Relationships are not widgets.
                I am tired of this topic which does nothing but blue on blue.

            2. I’m not entirely sure when and how Christianity converted to monogamy. In the Classical Orient, it was generally assumed that rich men could take more than one wife; this was not the case in the Classical Occident. Christianity was originally Oriental (which was part of the reason the Romans were suspicious of it). Sometime between the rise of Christianity and the rise of High Medieval civilization, the attitude toward polygyny changed.

              1. I’m not entirely sure when and how Christianity converted to monogamy.

                Back before there was a difference between Christian history and Jewish history, from a brief look around and not finding anything more reliable than the Jewish Encyclopedia website. (Everything else is of the “secret knowledge that just happens to tell you to do exactly what I say!” type….)
                Strongly encouraged with the rule that if you married a second wife, you could not in any way decrease the support you gave to the first, and her kids couldn’t be passed over in favor of the new wife’s kids. (Much more effective than directly ruling it out.) Oddly enough, there’s even note of when monogamy is not expected–when the couple couldn’t produce children. Also notes that, unless there’s something greatly reducing the number of men who can be married (such as an eunuch class), it’s very uncommon.

                Similarly, there’s the writings of Tertullian from something like 200 AD that’s eventitled “Monogamy.” I really don’t feel like doing the amount of groundwork required to understand and restate an 1890s translation for modern, secular audiences what the details of it are– even if I wasn’t exhausted– but the phrase “The former marry not even once; the latter not only once. What do you do, Law of the Creator?” is kinda amusing.

                1. Actually, I think Tertullian was of the school that maintained the standard was only one spouse. Per life.

                  As in, you couldn’t remarry if you were widowed.

                  A somewhat higher standard of monogamy.

              2. According to my wife (the Orthodox rabbi’s daughter), Christianity would have started out monogamous because by that time Judaism was also.

                  1. There was an Indian uprising about it in the Americas. Some priests in Guale (sp?) on what is now the Georgia coast argued a chief should put away all but one of his wives. The chief wasn’t happy about it, and massacred the priests.

                1. Close. IIRC, Josephus, in his histories, had to explain that polygamy was accepted in Judaism. After AD 70, rabbis discussed how polygamy was allowed. I think one argued it was allowed as long as a man could support more than one.

                  Like standing at one goal post on a football field and looking at the other in binoculars, there’s a telescope effect in history that seems to “compress” events close together, just as the 10 yard lines seem compressed together. The rise of monogomy in Judaism is relatively close to the rise of Christianity, so it’s easy to think polygamy was already gone before Christianity spread. But while it was likely fading, it was still around, maybe as long as 200 AD (really hazy memory here).

                  There is even a single instance of Protestant polygamy in the time of Martin Luther, but he wasn’t happy about it.

                  1. All I know is that I can’t comprehend polygamy.

                    I have enough trouble in my life with just one wife. Why on God’s green Earth would I want more than one to make my life a living hell??????

                    1. We often remember that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, but forget this means he had 1,000 mothers-in-law.

                    2. Yep. That means 1000 women saying, “Oh, Mr. ‘I’m King Solomon’. That’s just a fancy way of saying he sits on his butt while everyone else does the work. At least your last boyfriend was an accountant. HE had a real job” and similar things.

                      And people talk about The Wisdom of Solomon. All I can think is “poor bastard”.

                    3. Chuckle Chuckle

                      I’m sixty and never been married. It would be hard enough for me to adjust to having one wife. I can’t imagine me being able to adjust to having more than one wife.

                    4. Oh, I don’t seek to kill it by any stretch. I just can’t wrap my brain around it.

                      But then again, I can’t wrap my brain around masochism either really, and I suspect the two are very closely related.

                    5. Simple. Any time one wife gets mad at you, you find a way to switch the argument so that it’s between her and another wife and then go have a beer. Makes life much simpler.

                    6. That could back-fire so that you’d have all your wives mad at you. [Very Big Grin]

                    7. The basic problem with any form of marriage larger than monogamy is instability: the instability of the marriage probably rises as at least the factorial of the number of people involved. The only solutions are either a group of people who really love one another from the outset (and will this love last?) or a culture in which there is a strong imbalance of power between the sexes (which is how polygyny usually works).

                      Having said that, if people want to try it with the consent of all involved, why not let them? Our laws against even consenusal bigamy strike me as stupid.

                  2. The rise of monogamy may have been due to Hellenstic aned Roman impulses, which is moderately amusing, because at the same time, the Greeks and Romans were worried that polygyny and other “Oriental vices” would infest their own cultures.

              3. It’s a practice picked up from Romans Christians. Monogomy was a Roman practice. Now, even though polygamy is not forbidden, there would have been an “ick” factor, the same as pointing out that locusts are kosher, but that doesn’t mean we want to sit down to a plate of the critters. It would have been something simply not done among gentile Christians through much of the empire, and since there’s likewise no command to be a polygamist, it was a non-issue.

      2. “But the Republicans are blocking gay marriage, under the theory that gays are evil perverts who should not be allowed to contaminate our gloriously pure society with their icky gayness.”

        I think I took a wrong turn to Daily Kos, since that’s pretty much their standard argument. It’s absolutely impossible for Chesterton’s Fence to be the motivator.

  6. That flip, which appeared so sudden when it happened, actually took time. Things had to build to a point that a critical number of the available active voters had had enough of the same old same old. It had to build to a point where there were new candidates willing and ready to stand in opposition to the old guard.

    Whatever, what has been suggested is not ‘being reasonable’ and letting the old guard stay in power. Rather, it is to find and develop new candidates and challenge them.

    1. Dang, I thought I had attached it to the post by tteclod above pointing to the ‘sudden’ change in Arkansas.

    2. Yes: Preference cascades have sudden visibility, doing the work to build one takes time.

  7. Old enough to remember Reagan but not old enough to have voted for him or remember the 70s here. Couple of points:

    1. ObamaCare was crafted to be more politically palatable than HillaryCare and actually is more closely modeled off Romney’s Massachusetts experiment with healthcare. The democrats stole some of the concepts behind ObamaCare from a conservative think tank. Then, D being D, they added so much lard, mandates and complexity that the free market part of the exchanges is unlikely to be sufficient to save the scheme.
    2. Please be very careful who you call RINO. The Republican party functions best as a big tent with only a couple of unifying principles. And I don’t know about you, but I want the RINO’s vote and the vote of his friends. Circular firing squads do not do our party any favors and only give the progressives ammo to shoot at our candidates. Just as in litigation, some of the most damning things are those said by someone else who is ostensibly on the same side … a perceived admission against their own interests tends to be treated as very credible.
    3. I very much agree we need to start playing for the long game. Failure to do so is eventually self defeating. And I do not see the Progs giving up within by lifetime, so there will be no clear cut victory ever. Winning battles is not enough and will never be enough.
    4. Boom and bust cycles happen. They are not evidence the end is neigh. Nor should they be taken as a trigger for a revolt. But fear the man on a white horse here to fix our problems. What Washington did is virtually unprecedented in history, unfortunately. FDR ‘s response is far more typical, I fear. More government to fix a problem caused in part by the government…

    1. The democrats stole some of the concepts behind ObamaCare from a conservative think tank.

      Pretty sure that one’s been debunked, which is why only the “a conservative think tank” version is still in circulation. Vaguely remember they actually did the standard “take some quotes, change the meaning in some words, and use it for something totally different” technique.

      Please be very careful who you call RINO.

      I’ll do that as soon as I don’t have a reasonable expectation of the RINOs questioning my sanity, morals, intelligence or patriotism in the place of arguments.

      Politics is like housekeeping– you have to keep doing laundry, dishes and the floor, but folks have been treating it like major repairs.

      1. That’s because once termites get far enough into a house, it is major repair…and I’ll apologize to the termites for comparing them to Leftists.

  8. Even the least sophisticated of us tell stories about ourselves. We are center of our own stories. I can understand how we need that narrative. I am worried though… because I saw Reagan work… and then I saw the slide into what we have now.

    1. Because Reagan was an anomaly. But he created many “children” — the problem is those are my age and younger, and there’s still the deadwood of the party at the top.

      1. I remember we used to get slapped because we wanted to make money (establishment thought we should be more like the hippies). But we saw the hippy-lifestyle and what it did to “the children.” lol I keep using that phrase lately for all of my ideas…. Anyway, our age group has been used as the boogie-man for many years now and then we were dragged into the boomer generation. So Reagan’s children have been voiceless for a long time.

            1. I’m not lost. I always know exactly where I am. It’s the rest of the world that’s lost. 🙂

              Luckily our generation is used to being pushed to the margins. But it’s time we start pushing back.

                1. Sounds like being the “responsible” ones – whenever something goes wrong, people say we’re responsible.

                  1. Well of course. I am ‘responsible’ for slavery, the Crusades, Internment of Japanese during WWII, rape, and probably the destruction of the Buddha statutes in Afghanistan, and making the web a hostile environment for SWJs. The first 3 are very nice as I wasn’t even born, but I’m still held responsible.

        1. There really should be slightly different groups instead of “Generations”– it more like that song “In the world that I grew up in.” A decade is about as big as you’re going to get for shared experiences forming the adult, but we shoe-horn fifteen to twenty years in!

          1. That’s because up until recently, the pace of change was slow enough that it made sense. No longer.

            1. It’s a funny mix of faster change, and people being around longer– heck, my parents are “supposed” to be my grandparents, by the generational figuring, and they’re a decade or two younger than a lot of folks who are in power.

          2. I agree… I have a decade or more between me and my brothers. We have very different world views… even with the same parents and same upbringing.

      2. The thing about Reagan is that he put the stink on the Carter era idea that the West was in an inevitable decline, which notion had the Left creaming in their shorts. Not that they had any intention of giving up anything THEY valued. Tax grants for favored Libby pleasures would continue unabated. But the Great Unwashed would have to give up their muscle cars and their motor boats and ackowledge their betters.

        They’ve been fighting back to that ever since.

        Guillotine. Bait.

      3. As good as he was, as effective as he was, the time of President Reagan indicates that you can’t fix the problems that have developed in the body politic and society through getting one good man into the top position.

  9. I am unsure quite how to think of things. However, a thing a leftist said yesterday gave me some hope.
    I was listening to one of the NPR talk shows talking about the Clinton e-mail server, and one of the guests, Ron Fournier of the National Journal, when talking about how none of the scandals of the ’90s managed to stick to the Clintons, said “There were maybe a dozen of us reporters who were really following this stuff. If we decided it wasn’t news, no one heard about it. Now that’s not true.”
    Decentralization of information helps us.

    1. The question to ask is why the MSM seems to have turned on Hillary. Keep in mind that airing scandal early is right out of the Clinton play book. That way, when it comes time for politics, the scandal is considered old news, and not anything recent enough to be relevant.

        1. Because they want Warren.

          I can’t imagine she’s viable. It’s my hope they will get so silly everyone must turn away in disgust.

          1. Back in the late ’80s if I recall correctly the Democratic primary for governor of Alabama got so nasty that it turned the electorate off and they wound up with Guy Hunt, a simple Republican preacher man as governor. It took most of his term for the Dems to railroad him out of office, led naturally by the Democratic lieutenant governor.
            That sequence of events turned Alabama from solid Democrat to a very bright red state. A fair number of Democrats either stayed home or switched sides.
            I look forward in great anticipation to the likelihood that Hillary and Elizabeth manage to bring about a similar reaction.

            1. Yep. I was living there at the time. Guy Hunt was a little too close to Mike Huckabee for my taste…. but it was perfectly clear and still is that the Republicans were much less interested in running my life than Democrats.

        2. Have they considered that Warren is probably the *least* electable of the current crop? That she’s strident enough to potentially galvanize the opposition to go and vote?

          1. The press will no more report on her honest opinions than they do Obama’s. Instead, they will push endless tales of her brilliance, kindness, and so on. Their adherence to fuhrerprinzip demands it.

            1. I’m not sure how much I would pay to see a nationally televised debate between Warren and Palin… but it would be a fair chunk of change.

            1. It’s certainly not going to do much for the NDN progressive vote, which went about 99% for Ozero.

    2. Did Fournier mention Drudge? Without Drudge, even Monica Lewinsky would likely not have stuck.

  10. Guys, if this were the nineties, people WOULD be convinced Obamacare is the best thing ever.

    Except in the 90s they tried Obamacare — it was HillaryCare at the time — and it went down in flames.

    1. Two main things mitigated against HillaryCare: The process was not as secret then as it was with the ACA, and NOT being the President doubled the complaints about the fact that she was essentially presuming to consider herself co-President with Bill to propose such legislation.

      1. There were two other major differences worth noting between ACA and Hillarycare.

        The first is Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. Not only has it seriously warped a number of people on the left, but elements of it have influenced the rest of the population. Bush has been, and still is, a convenient scapegoat, and has been used to deflect attention from anything and anything that voters might not like. For instance, the impending passage of the ACA.

        The second is that the economy was (and still is) in a shambles, and a lot of attention was focused on that. Axelrod made it pretty clear that Obama was going to use the economy as an excuse to push through a healthcare plan. And that’s what happened.

        And even with both of the above, the ACA was still unpopular. Even the polls that show majority support (and some did from time to time) for it never seem to rise above a slim margin. And it was pushed through on what was quite literally a party line vote in both houses – something that is extremely rare on something of this nature.

      1. It is hard to make something look like it is working, when it never passed and became law.

  11. “This meant most conservatives older than I are … squishy. Not all, of course. Not nearly all. But most “conservatives” older than I assume things like the ACA are necessary and if not a good, at least inevitable for ‘civilized governance.’”

    Haven’t read the rest of the post yet, but I had to disagree with this. I would have to say most conservatives in their sixties and older tend to be a)more socially conservative and b) much more hardnosed conservatives than the younger generations. Now conservatives in your generation and tending down towards mine tend to be squishier, but I guess our definition of conservative is different, because my mind boggles at calling anybody who considers Obamacare ‘necessary’ to be a conservative.

    1. I think the younger cohort have had “tolerance” and “[group] rights” and “fairness” pounded into them for so long that they are not as socially conservative (never had much of a chance). And they’ve not been taught how to concentrate and reason through things as well, or to really realize the long-term (more than two-years) consequences of things, so they’re less “hardnosed.” I’ll also venture out on a limb and guess they have never really seen hard times and their parents didn’t raise them with hard-times lurking in the background.

  12. There is no real difference between the parties.
    The right wants to rob you and rape your woman and take your stuff.
    The left wants shoot you and rape your women and burn your house down.
    All the ‘differences’ between parties mean nothing to rich people.
    The left wants you to shut up or they’ll punish you.
    The right just doesn’t give a damn what you say little man.
    All the ‘issues’ they both bray about vanish when you have a few $Million.
    They are ALL rich at the top of both parties.
    The differences are simply to manipulate the herd. All of them, of both parties, believe in themselves as god-like ones. There are no set principles above avarice and ego.

    1. I have to agree. I was a Maine GOP delegate when we gave the nomination to Ron Paul. The GOP just threw us out illegally and got away with it.

    2. You are being insane Mackey. There is a difference. Look, I’ve seen this in action in other countries. The left is doing things “in the name of hte people” that means they can do whatever the hell they want. The right has understandable motives: to keep themselves rich, etc. which implies keeping the country rich, too. The left believes in zero sum economics.

      1. Money and rich people are a distraction. The left also believes in Zero Sum Politics.

        Anyone can get money. With a combination of hard work, brains, and luck, just about anyone can become rich. True, money can buy political power, but that’s the one method of acquiring political power open to most people and it’s the most meritocratic. Removing that as an option will leave a political system that looks like, well, what Communist political systems always look like: the people who get political power are those with connections to people that already have political power (see the anointing of Chelsea Clinton or any Kennedy as a saint in the Democratic party) or the beautiful people (celebrities). All bashing the rich does is it ensures that to get political power you have to suck up to those already in power.

        1. All bashing the rich does is it ensures that to get political power you have to suck up to those already in power.

          I don’t want to bash them, I want them to stop bashing me.

          1. Without knowing the specifics I can only speak in generalities, but it’s unlikely you are being bashed by the rich as a group, but those with power as a group, in this case, the GOP Party inner circle that is welling to bend the spirit if not the letter of the rules to maintain their control at the expense of the party as a whole. Cronyism is a matter of political power, and despite pushes from the party base, many at the top are still full of it.

            My concern is that the truly righteous ire here be directed to the right target; the politically powerful that encourage cronyism and not the generic rich. You can get rid of all the rich and the politically powerful will still be there to bash the little guys like you… see the Russian Revolution. The reason so many politicians and those that suck up to them are rich is that political power these days is the easiest way to become rich (see the Clinton’s hundreds of millions since leaving office).

            As history shows, anger at ‘the rich’, much like anger at ‘the Jews’, is often merely a way to get the gullible to back the person supporting the hate.

          1. “no. Marxism poisons it. They think the only way to do that is to drive everyone else down/destroy the US. And that’s the issue.”

            Granted. More generally: It’s not the rich that are the problem. It’s that corruption is enriching, so the corrupt are over-represented.

  13. As an Old Fart who remembers Truman who isn’t squishy at all, I agree that the long march through the Institutions is the Right Thing to do. Having seen just “a whiff of grape shot” as a young ‘un, that’s preferable to pushing for anything more impatient.
    I have seven grandkids and five great-grandkids (so far) and I’d much prefer to see them manipulated onto the right path than to have the whole shebang blow up and take a chance on where the shrapnel will fly and debris will land.
    That said, being prudent isn’t the same thing as “be reasonable.” Fight crime, vote the bastards out of office.

    1. I’m not advocating anyone be “reasonable” — good Lord Man, a tour of this blog will tell you I’m somewhere in the vicinity of Thomas Paine, though I’d balk at the French Revolution.

      1. Though I’d note that Thomas Paine didn’t balk much at all when he attended the French Revolution.

  14. ” if the country gets attacked and our president tells us we deserved it”

    And this would be different, how?

    Okay, I’ll quit being a smart alec, I know you mean an actual serious attack, not something that only gets a few people like the Boston Bombing, or Fort Hood. But something with more serious or potentially more serious results, and that they can’t blow off by explaining it was just a couple of lone lunatics.

    1. But something with more serious or potentially more serious results, and that they can’t blow off by explaining it was just a couple of lone lunatics

      Like 9/11? Sorry, that did happen and I have heard leftists blame the US for it. Usually either for occupying a base in Saudi Arabia that we were granted BY TREATY or for our support of Israel. Even the big ones get blamed on us.

        1. And he’s been very careful since mounting the throne forswearing his oath of office to NOT blame the nation as a whole. It’s always “clingers” or “deniers” or some other undefined (explicitly) segment who are backwards enough to keep the true Amerika from rising, etc.

  15. “– as with my never-ending clean up and fix at the other house –”

    Whoa! I’m not around much for a few weeks, and you got a new house without my knowing about it?

  16. The thing about the right – even if people tried to tell me otherwise this weekend – is that we’re not monolithic. We are the proverbial individualists who failed to organize.

    (First off: You’ll never convince the left that we’re not all gun toting, serial killing, woman raping, forced pregnancy creating and sustaining, evil, mean, Christians. That’s not the point of this comment, but it’s the truth.)

    Individualism is, alas, our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Kipling had it right: The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack. Our wolves are strong. We’ve had to be. I myself got my first job at the age of fourteen. I’ve never done anything but work. I’m working on some things now, but I think I will do some volunteering once I can. That much being said:

    Our pack is weak. Fox News routinely ranks the top ten Republican contenders for the nomination. That means that we have enough identifiable candidate-wannabes to fill a list ten deep. I’m all for diversity of thought and in principle this is a good thing, BUT…

    Guys, how much is our side going to rip itself apart before it decides who to come together and support? This could be the roughest (and yes, most entertaining) primary season in living memory but that’s not necessarily a good thing. I know many people are assuming that the Republicans are going to win the White House but that’s far from certain at this point. How much are we going to beat up on each other and how much money is it going to take that won’t be available for the general election? (For the record my choice would be, “Everyone get behind the ticket of Condie Rice and Ted Cruz and push, but uhh… I don’t get to decide this one by myself) I don’t know what we’re going to do about it and it could be that all of this confusion means that we’re succeeding in the long term. I guess we’ll see.

    1. (First off: You’ll never convince the left that we’re not all gun toting, serial killing, woman raping, forced pregnancy creating and sustaining, evil, mean, Christians. That’s not the point of this comment, but it’s the truth.)

      They don’t believe it. If they did, they wouldn’t utter a peep, just as they’re mostly silent against Muslims extremists. They’re like little brats who whine “You don’t love me,” when they don’t get their way, because they know it’s not true before it comes out of their mouths, but hope it will work as a lever with adults because they know the adults really do love them. And conservatives, like insecure parents who spoil their children lest the widdle tyrants look at them crossways, bend over backwards to prove this isn’t so, whereupon reinforcing the use of the tactic because it worked. And that’s a big reason why the GOP caves on a regular basis.

      1. They do believe that we’re all racist, though. I’ve heard from multiple people in comments who have friends that essentially believe conservative positions… but the Republicans are racist, which means that they can’t be supported by those friends.

    2. I think (or hope) it’s a defensive strategy. As soon as we pick a candidate, the leftist media will bring all to bear on him or her. If we throw out a lot of candidates, the weak ones get culled and the media has to divide its fire.

      1. If you want to know who the Dems are most afraid of, see who they’re screaming about the most. Right now Walker is scaring the snot out of them. I am expecting him to implode between now and the nom because it’s a marathon, not a sprint and somethings going to trip him up. Like putting his dog on top of the family car. Or a binder full of women.

        1. I don’t think he’ll implode. They dhimmicraps have been going after him full court press for 4 years now and they still have not brought him down. The latest ploy is accusing him of “flipflopping” on immigration, 0bamacare, etc, and that is not sticking.

        2. I don’t mean that the left hasn’t evolved it’s own strategies, it makes sense from their perspective to spend the most time attacking those that are the most electable and the least liberal.

          I think the dog / binder issues were less damning to Romney than the constant harping on Romneycare and efforts from the left to persuade people on the right to stay home. Romney didn’t have any major gaffes or trips, certainly not like the surprises that the Democratic media pulled in earlier elections, but he was too RINO (or perceived as too RINO) to bring enough Republicans to the polls.

          I can’t rule out an implosion; it wouldn’t even take a dead girl or live boy level scandal to effectively knock Walker out of the race. But I think the dangers of any of the major Republican candidates shooting themselves in the foot is a lot less than the danger of the media harping up the fear of the conservative / libertarian boogeymen (or the rich) to drive the Democratic GOTV operations, especially if they can throw in a ‘look! You must vote for the first female President!’.

          1. The level of vitriol they leveled at Reagan was very high, in both campaigns. It did not work, and IMHO, Hilary and Lizzie are worse candidates than Carter and Mondale.

          2. “You must vote for the first female President!’.”

            First female Wanabe indian president.

          3. There was also a massive effort to energize the Democrat base. Ergo, all the War on ########## stuff that we all saw. It turned off conservatives, but they weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway. I’ve no clue how it affected Moderates, but Romney even won those, iirc. But the liberals turned out in larger than usual numbers to vote for Obama, and it gave him the election.

            1. Actually, Obama got less votes in 12 than McCain got in 08, so liberals may have turned out in larger numbers than normal, but if so, Obama got almost NO moderate votes. And Romney didn’t energize anybody, conservative or moderate, enough to get them to turn out and vote.

              1. I seem to remember reading the opposite – i.e. that Romney got *more* votes than McCain.

                1. 2008: Obama 69,498,516, McCain 59,948,323 (EC: 365 v. 173)
                  2012: Obama 65,915,796, Romney 60,933,500 (EC: 332 v. 206)

            2. Even Ross Douthat is starting to get a clue:

              Unless, of course, you just define “worked” to mean “changed public policy without the opposition being able to stop us,” in which case we’re just dealing with Caesarism justified by consequentialism, and Pfeiffer’s argument is the boasting of a successful machiavel, unmoored both from constitutional norms and his boss’s own once-professed ideals. Which seems like the more accurate reading of the account he’s giving Chait: It’s less a story of how this president forged a political strategy better suited to our polarized times than it is a story of how Obama realized that a second-term president in an era of gridlock doesn’t need to be politically successful to put his stamp on major policy arenas … he just needs to let go of any principled concerns about what a president can and cannot do.

              A given move is a success if the opposition fails to find a way to block it, the hemmers and hawers are proven wrong if the president isn’t impeached, and the state of your party doesn’t really matter because an unbound presidency is all that progressivism really needs.

    3. Guys, how much is our side going to rip itself apart before it decides who to come together and support? This could be the roughest (and yes, most entertaining) primary season in living memory but that’s not necessarily a good thing.

      I don’t know if the details have been laid out or publicized yet. But the Republican Party came to the conclusion that there were too many debates in the 2012 primary. Expect to see fewer this time around.

      1. The tone of the debates is important – candidates need to learn to show their differences without making it impossible to come together to support the nominee after primaries.

  17. Long one today. I’ll just leave this here as a place-marker, and go to lunch.

  18. If Net Neutrality hampers the net much, the millennials will rise for sure.

    *nod* My husband and I are the eldest, and both of us have high school friends that we have never been in the same room with. Some were adults when we “met,” some weren’t; some Navy friends we only see every few years.

    Something we’ve both noticed is that there are a lot of really pissed off people who know what works for them in person, but when they use the exact same words on the internet it gets torn to shreds– while the people they’re able to run over the top of because they’re so slow and elaborate in speaking are effective.
    It’s like the way that video changed politics, but moreso, because video changed by being able to manipulate how folks understood you–the “sound bite.”
    With the net, all your soundbites are belonging to us. 😀

  19. The only thing that unites us in fact is our love of liberty and individual freedom.

    Part of the problem is defining those– for example, there are a lot of Liberal-Tarians and such who will claim they love “liberty and freedom.” They mean they want to be at liberty to follow their impulses, and free from any consequence they really don’t like– and you get to have exactly the same thing.

    On our side, it’s more trying to balance liberties– see the frequent, loud arguments about the theoretically simple idea of “causing harm”– and set a system for figuring out what “individual freedom” means. About all we can say for sure is that it’s the opposite of “group rights.”

  20. Ah, while I enjoyed carping my way down to the bottom, I don’t think one of the major threats to our freedom was discussed (other than a tangential reference somewhere in the SSM posts).

    Bureaucracy. As Hillary and Lois Learner have shown, the actual mission of State and IRS is irrelevant to their special agendas. Legions of unaccountable bureaucrats that consider their position of ‘power’ far more important than their duty to ‘serve’ their people and do their ‘jobs’.

    No need to go into too much detail, as several of the Authors that post here have written great books about this perennial problem. The left, who think big government is great also think that bureaus that do the thinking for the unwashed massed are a great idea. The reams of regulation these people put out to protect and expand their rice bowl probably costs more than Obamacare.

    Activist Judges, Prosecutors withholding evidence, the tax man, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. (I understand that the two Mothers that founded MADD thought their organization did wonderfully well in raising awareness and basically eliminating the major problems. Unfortunately, by then some high-priced consultants had taken over MADD, and espoused the 0% blood alcohol not to save lives, but to save their salaries.)

    All of this is important because, even if the Democratic party imploded and ceased to exist, these bureaucrats, in their offices, with their petty powers will continue to drive us to their statist utopia.

    1. “All of this is important because, even if the Democratic party imploded and ceased to exist, these bureaucrats, in their offices, with their petty powers will continue to drive us to their statist utopia.”

      THIS +10000.

      Even if we don’t need a full civil war, the public tarring and feathering of a dozen of these miscreants is desperately needed just to dispel the seemingly common attitude “All you can do is talk, and there’s nothing else you can do to stop us no matter how arrogant our malfeasance.. ” And at least half of them need to be prosecutors; I’d nominate the ones who went after Ted Stevens and the ones who were involved with the “Moonlight Fire” case for starters. Prosecutorial immunity my *ss.

      Our system can tolerate a lot of things; prosecutorial misconduct is NOT one of them.

      1. And the John Doe nonsense in Wisconsin, which I believe is *still* going on even after a judge told them to knock it off.

        And the politicized lib prosecutors in Texas.

    2. It’s a good thing I missed today’s looong thread. Yikes. But I just uploaded the sequel (it could be called “Dispatching the Bureaucrats,” but that title isn’t too marketable.) I should send you a copy….

      1. Baby steps!

        I’m not a really big fan of making regulations based on “science,” since that usually is actually based off of highly simplified interpretations that have been filtered through a lot of levels… but this is a good start.

        1. The scientist in me is thinking about the Italian geologists jailed for failing to predict an earthquake and rather glad to see this thing.

            1. I didn’t hear about that one.

              Sometimes I wonder if it’s a natural cycle. If life isn’t hard enough, the inmates take over and thin the herd.

              1. There’s a reason we compare Leftists to lemmings: too many of them in a society and the only solution is encouraging them to jump off a cliff.

          1. At the absolute least, a person should only be jailed for failing to perform science that he actually said he could do– not “with XYZ accuracy,” even. But THAT is way too much detail for regulation type law.

        2. Especially making decisions on ‘science’ like the AGW crowd uses. Hacked temperature readings that don’t have accountability back to the original readings, computer models that are poor predictors based on poor assumptions.

          Now, things like Hawkins theorizing that black holes radiate and Quantum physicists claiming the big bang wasn’t a point source, it had some dimension… I can live with the uncertainty and possible lack of total understanding. But of course, these two will not lead to stupid regulations imposed without a cost-benefit analysis.

          1. But, but; if black holes radiate, we need to have an Environmental Impact Statement!

            1. if black holes radiate
              Then we need a NRC approved steel reinforced containment building around every one of those evil radiation sources….

              1. It’s OK – we put out black holes on islands, so if they radiate too much, we just let the islands tip over and sink, and then the black holes go out.

  21. A rebellion or debacle that happens before the culture is changed means we already lost.

    This. Oh so much this. As I have often said, if you don’t have the people, the culture, then a revolution won’t help you. If you do have the people/culture (at least here in a still mostly representative government) none is necessary.

    Take the calls some people make for a Constitutional Convention. Hel’s Misty Halls! What do they think that would do? Do they think the people who chose Pelosi and Boxer, Schumer and Jackson Lee, to represent them in Washington will do any better choosing who to represent them in a Constitutional Convention? The only thing that would save us from that fiasco is a requirement for the result to be “ratified by 3/4 of State Legislatures”.

    It’s gotta come from the bottom up. Reach the people–in groups when you can. One by one if you must–and get them on board the Liberty Train. Nothing else will work.

    Nothing else can work.

    1. The only thing about a convention is the state governments get to choose their representatives (sort of like they used to elect Senators). You *might* get a better representation than allowing the Washington insiders do the picking.
      What we need the most is a term limit amendment, and I’m positive Congress will never send that to the States.

      1. To the extent that I think the GOP is salvageable, I think that not only will it have to be a long term, bottom-up process, but that without structural reforms at each level we’re only going to end up fighting this same fight somewhere down the road. Or rather, our descendants are. Term limits are a start, but only a start. Automatic or even automatic and -ratcheting- sunset clauses for some or even most laws might be another (by ratcheting I mean you can renew the Sunsine And Puppies Omnibus of 2020 with a 51% vote the first time, but it requres 61% the next, and so on).

        Personally I’d like to see us move away from plurality voting for at least certain positions, but that’s a personal bugaboo that I don’t expect ever to get any traction. Nobody likes condorcet methods except the occasional policy wonk.

          1. Agree, term limits *now* would only give more power to the permanent bureaucracies. The bureaucrats won’t be worried about a group of Senators because they’d know that they could outlast the elected officials.

              1. That’s more or less what I meant by “structural reforms”, though I’ll concede that was pretty vague. Shifting some powers back to the states and eliminating plenty of others entirely. At the very least it’ll eventually require a judiciary willing to roll back some of the expansionism of the past century (I feel like there’s actually more hope of good candidates on THAT front actually, if there were political officials willing to tap them and a bloc in congress that could get them through confirmation), and probably at least a few amendments to make the rollback stick.

                “Tenth Amendment II: This time, We really mean it”.

            1. Frankly, I rate cleaning out the bureaucracy well ahead of term limits, because there’s at least a path to throw out elected bums. Bureau bums, OTOH, are like kudzu.

                1. Kudzu, when very young and fresh, is edible; tastes a bit like fresh spinach. Career bureaucrats not so much – they’re pretty much all in bad taste.

                  1. If only there were a way to identify bureaucrats when they were young and fresh, you could nip that right in the bud.

              1. I’d tend to agree, but that one’s going to be a bit tricky, structurally. I don’t like it, but there is a legitimate role for regulatory oversight. The trick is going to be making it more directly tied to the legislature rather than a permanent bureaucratic offshoot…without more or less recreating the spoils system.

                1. Removing government unions would be a start– unions select for the kind of rule-gaming and promote power absorption, after all.

                  Another would be changing the budgeting so it’s not “spend or lose, probably forever”– I’m no expert in how they’d react, but my notion is to make rollover budgets instead of special funding requests. It would be very long-term before there was any actual reduction in a budget, but basically like this:

                  Each year you get 10 dollars.
                  You are expected to operate on that, and have some to put into the roll-over.
                  So you “save” 3, 5 and 2 dollars in three years.
                  On year four, you need a new building, so you spend your whole budget, plus two dollars.
                  On year five, you “save” 2, and the remaining 1 dollar from year one is returned to the general fund.

                  Using your entire budget more than one year in a row, and using more than an average year’s worth of “savings,” will result in an in-depth audit by Fraud, Waste and Abuse.

                  After 20 years, the budget is reviewed to see how often a year’s average surplus is used, and the budget might be reduced– but the rollover fund left intact.

                  All the numbers are out of my ear, and it might be better to do it quarterly and at the end of five years they look at reducing the budget, but you get the idea. Basically, try to encourage the beuracracy to save money, instead of the BS I saw on ship with supply ordering three pairs of boots for all their buddies. (No, not reported; who do you think ran the Captain’s Complaint box?)

                2. Frankly, at this point, the spoils system might be an improvement. As it stands, one party has effective control over the bureaucracy, which means that even when they lose elections they are in a position to advance that party’s program.

          2. Regarding term limits, consider this. We’ve had term limits in the Presidency since the 22nd Amendment was passed. I am not aware of any improvement in the execution of that office after said passage than before it.

            People keep looking for some “magic bullet.” If we just make this particular change (or this handful of changes) to how government is organized freedom will reign and peace and prosperity kumbaya.

            Doesn’t work that way. Campaign finance? So long as government influence is valuable, people will pay for it. Attempts to regulate that, despite the best of intentions do nothing but drive it underground and, paradoxically, increase the price required to pay. The result is fewer and fewer of the richest people and organizations will be able to slip through the inevitable loopholes the law will have. (And imperfect laws, written by imperfect people, in an imperfect world, will always have loopholes.) Term limits? I’m still unclear on what that’s supposed to accomplish? If people keep voting Box-losi-mer into office, it’s because they want that person in office. If Box-losi-mer had to leave because of term limits how are we helped when Bos-losi-mer’s “protege” who espouses the same policies.

            The change has to come from the ground up. It has to start with the voters. If you get the voters, nothing else is necessary. If you don’t get the voters, nothing else will work.

          1. Why do you think I picked the name? One of the unsung heroes of the Cold War, albeit by sheer accident. Single-handedly set-back Soviet bioscience DECADES. And influential, too. I can think of several modern scientists who continue Trofim Lysenko’s visionary brand of scientific theory-crafting, and not just in biology.

  22. On the gay “marriage” issue, WA state legalized same sex civil unions with all the rights that are granted legally in a marriage. It was not enough. Two years later, the gay lobby got same sex marriage passed. Followed by the new State Attorney General filing suit personally against a baker that would not bake a “wedding” cake for a gay client. (She found another baker for him and he was not involved in the suit.) They do not stop and will not stop until you not only accept, but celebrate their sexual lifestyle.

    Back to the topic, we will not make progress until we take back the schools. We have to start with a major push to school vouchers and get kids out of the public school system. We need to insist that kids be taught Civics, Personal Finance and the real history of this country. We have to break the hold of the unions over our schools and make school boards accountable to the local communities. We need to make it easier to fire incompetent teachers and administrators. We need to get Common Core and political correctness out of the curriculum. If you don’t start there and make that your focus, you lose.

    1. I know a lesbian couple who dissolved their union when Washington did that–one of them didn’t want to be married. I don’t know details beyond that, the ditched one has to be pretty drunk before she’ll talk about it, and they’re both family friends so…messy.

      For that matter, one of them had been married in a religious-only ceremony before. Was no less possible because of a lack of gov’t involvement, and they just set up a power of attorney. (The wisdom of that move is a separate situation; I think the prior partner was a grade-A manipulative such and such, but that’s human.)

  23. Okay, then; this seems to be the only way to contact you. So: may I have permission to reprint “Many Paths, Same Goal” in the next issue of _L. Neil Smith’s THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE_? — Ken Holder, editor thereof,

  24. I very much agree with your main point, though. We have to work slowly and incrementally, recapturing the Republican Party and then the institutions of government, academia and the media. Surely there are leaders in the Republican Party who would rather win than simply lose more gracefully?

  25. Well, that didn’t take long:

    A reporter from St. Louis Public Radio asked (or rather, stated): “To be clear, this was not the people who were exercising their First Amendment rights who did the shooting…”

    “I don’t know who did the shooting to be honest with you right now,” Chief Belmar said. “But somehow they were embedded in that group of folks.”

    1. And the media and their Liberal masters will certainly spin that as a racial conflict, while the knee jerk Conservatives will support “Our Brave Boys in Blue”.

      Maybe Radley Balko is off base on Feerguson, but his take sounds reasonable and I’m inclined to believe it. He points out that a lot of jurisdictions are caught between local politicians’ desire to keep raising spending and the voters disinclination to raise taxes, sand that often the answer has been to start using petty fines and penalties to fund the government. It appears that that is the path the Ferguson government took, and as might be expected the burden fell most heavily on the poor (who cannot afford to pay the fines OR fight them).

      The DOJ report touched on this, bury emphasized the racial angle. It isn’t necessarily racial (although race doesn’t help) it’s a matter of the State always picking away at the citizens.

      The Left aren’t going to touch THAT with a barge pole; they LIKE having lots of petty laws they can choose to enforce or let slide at whim. It gives them that worm “Masters of all they survey” feeling in their rotten giblets. The Establishment Right has a Lawr’ ‘n Owada tendency that keeps them from seeing just how fundamentally rotten the situation is.

      The Brown shooting seems to have been justified by the evidence on the ground. The riots surrounding it and the police response to those riots are symptoms of a problem that few people on either end of the political spectrum seem to want to address. The inner city poor have far too much reason to believe that the police are an occupying army, rather than a community service. And the people who claim to have the interests of those poor at heart have no reason to want to change that.

      I really, REALLY hope Sharpton gets trampled to death in a riot of his own making. Goddamned chocolate brown Quisling.

      1. “The Left aren’t going to touch THAT with a barge pole; they LIKE having lots of petty laws they can choose to enforce or let slide at whim.”

        The other thing they like is the ability to seize extra revenue for government spending, without having to propose higher taxes, and all too often, the ability to seize that revenue from people who come from outside the voting area and thus have no recourse.

      2. “The inner city poor have far too much reason to believe that the police are an occupying army, rather than a community service.”

        Believe me, that attitude extends well beyond the inner city poor. Gun owners have been there a while, although they are more focused on the federales .

        “I really, REALLY hope Sharpton gets trampled to death in a riot of his own making. Goddamned chocolate brown Quisling.”

        If I were dictator for a day, my first decree would be to lock him and David Dukes in a shipping container with spiked clubs…. and snipers waiting for which ever one poked his head back out.

                1. Only in the brain.

                  If you never use it, there’s no reason for it not to be tender. Think of the how veal is produced, then extrapolate that to the brains of certain parties.

                  1. So you’re saying it’s more like pasta? They like their meat with a little “tooth” to it?

          1. I’m more in favor of a ‘Man with two brains’ style science experiment, then locking them in a padded room to argue with themselves forever.

        1. Believe me, that attitude extends well beyond the inner city poor. Gun owners have been there a while, although they are more focused on the federales .

          I’m pretty far from “inner city poor” more like “suburban upper middle class” (although it generally doesn’t feel all that “upper”) and I feel like the police are an occupying army sometimes. (I also feel the knee jerk “police bad in every case” that some have exacerbate rather than help the situation.)

          But the root problem really isn’t the police per se. It’s the multiplicity of laws. I really wish people would get the idea of “there ought to be a law” out of their heads. No. There ought not.

          (Nice thing about blogs. When the same stuff rolls around, I can just point to a blog entry and save myself a bunch of typing. 😉 )

          1. You mean if, say, a law was passed to make it illegal to sell individual cigarettes, someone might have thought “Hmm. Are cigarette taxes worth a human life?”

            1. Exactly. While I’m not one of those extreme “L” types who think all law and government should be abolished, I do think one should think before passing a law, granting government a power, or deciding government should do something about whether or not doing that is worth the use of force including deadly force.

              Government is force, pure and simple. The difference between government and criminal enterprise is that the government has accepted sanction to use force. And that’s fine within very narrow limits. It’s when you go beyond those limits that it becomes a problem.

              1. It’s more than that. Governments are good at brute force and bean counting. They are, consequently, not too band at driving roads through high mountains. They are bad at nuance, subtlety, and tact.

                Yet the “there otta be a lawr” crowd somehow always want to sick it on issues requiring all three.

    2. Well gee, I wonder how the reporter from the St. Louis Public Radio knows this. Indeed, if the police take his claim seriously, they should take him in for questioning, as unless he’s an idiot he’s (implicitly) claiming to know who did it.

Comments are closed.