You know what's gay? Anderson Cooper.

This is probably old news to those of you who follow pop culture, but comedian and actor Vince Vaughn has a new movie coming out titled "The Dilemma". Not to spoil the plot, but Vince's character finds out inadvertently that his best friend's wife is having an affair. Does he tell him? Hilarity apparently ensues.

This would just be another plucky comedy that faded into the beautiful tapestry of our culture, except for one deadly sin: The trailer opens with a scene in which Vince calls electric cars gay!



The exact quote follows. Please, it is quite graphic. For those that have any sense of human decency or values you may want to blindly scroll your mouse wheel wildly just to be sure you don't burn your eyes with it.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, electric cars… are gay. I mean, not homosexual gay, but my-parents-are-chaperoning-me-to-the-dance gay."

If you are feeling truly adventurous you can view the trailer for yourself.



I know what you're thinking. How has this man not been stoned in the public square yet? Fortunately we have people like the Communist News Network's Anderson Cooper standing by to champion such worthy causes. He appeared on Ellen DeGeneres' show (Irony, anyone?) and said:

"I was sitting in a movie theater over the weekend and there was a preview of a movie, and in it, the actor said, 'That's so gay,' and I was shocked that not only that they put it in the movie, but that they thought that it was okay to put that in a preview for the movie to get people to go and see it."

Shocked, I tell you!

"I just find those words, those terms, we've got to do something to make those words unacceptable because those words are hurting kids. Someone else I talked to recently said that the words people use and the things people say about other kids online, it enters into their internal dialogue, and when you're a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself, and the worth that you give to yourself. I think we need to really focus on what language we're using and how we're treating these kids"

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Universal, broadcasting from deep within their evil lair buried beneath an inactive volcano while petting a hairless cat...

Actual footage of person responsible for "gay" line in movie.

...stated that they surprised at the criticism of the clip. They reportedly showed the clip to several gay executives and gay marketing people at Universal and received nothing but positive feedback.

/sarc

Seriously, Anderson? Seriously? This is what has got you all riled up? Nothing else going on in the world was more important than this? I don't claim to be the coolest cat on the block, but even I know that the term gay in this context means awkward, weird, or stupid and has absolutely nothing to do with sexual preference. Vince's character even clarifies what context he meant gay in, just in case any in his audience was socially retarded "special".

Beyond that, even if it was intended to be offensive, it's a comedy! Comedy is supposed to be offensive in some way. That's why it's funny.

Vince Vaughn did issue a statement in defense of the bit:

"Let me add my voice of support to the people outraged by the bullying and persecution of people for their differences, whatever those differences may be. Comedy and joking about our differences breaks tension and brings us together. Drawing dividing lines over what we can and cannot joke about does exactly that; it divides us. Most importantly, where does it stop."

It may be difficult to decipher exactly what Vince means there, so I'll paraphrase: Cowboy up. Reach deep down, grab your pair, and frigging get over it.

Contrary to popular belief, Andy, you do not have the right not to be offended. If you don't want to support Universal's use of the term gay, then don't spend money on their movies.

Election 2010: GOP Victory. Hooray.

With the election just a week away it seems almost inevitable that the GOP will gain back control of the House. They will likely narrow the lead of the Democrats in the Senate, though a reversal of control there is unlikely.

The Wall Street Journal reports on extremely tight races in the Senate. The GOP would need to pick up ten seats in order to achieve a 51-49 split. There are only eleven currently Democratic seats up for grabs, and one Republican seat in jeopardy to boot, making the margin for error in that side of Congress nearly non-existent. The House looks much more promising, with most polls only disputing the extent of the new Republican majority.

What is more interesting is the widespread disgust with incumbents. A new WSJ/NBC poll shows that, given the choice between a candidate with absolutely no political experience and one who had 10 years experience, 48% would vote for the new guy as opposed to just 23% who would go for the experienced candidate. The other numbers of note, that 46% of voters think Obamacare was a bad idea, ought to be obvious with anyone who has ears to hear.

I'm pretty much tepid on the whole affair. The Republican party has shown in the past that they have no qualms putting their values up in the red light district when the fancy suits them. Their endless pandering to "the center" (AKA complete lack of spine, courage, and values) has left me disgusted with the GOP in general. My only hope is that a few true conservatives just might get inadvertently picked up in the tidal wave of Republican victory.

Informed Voting resources (Sheeple need not apply)

With the elections only a week away I figure most people who have silly things like lives are probably just now wondering who and what they are going to be voting for...Of course, those people are also probably not terribly likely to be reading a politically themed blog written by an obscure, if stunningly attractive and amazingly witty, citizen...Nevertheless, it is still possible that those people could accidentally have clicked on my page while looking for the latest version of "Hide Ya Kids, Hide Ya Wife."

This blog is dedicated to them.

Voting is a powerful right, when used appropriately. Like all rights it comes coupled with a responsibility. In this case the responsibility is to be informed. Note: Going into a voting booth, looking for all the "R" and "D" candidates and voting for that one is NOT being informed. Neither is listening to Limbaugh or NPR and voting like they tell you, by the way.

No, you will have to spend countless hours in debate and research, identifying important issues, carefully seeking out books on the subject from sources days apart...Well, that's what you used to have to do, anyway, in the years long past before the wonderful invention of mass media and the Internet. Now it takes whole minutes to know nearly everything you need to be reasonably well informed. I present to you two websites, both completely non-partisan.

First, Project Votesmart. This outstanding resource is dedicated to the candidates themselves. Using this you can find out who is running in your area, both for Federal and State level offices. Then you can look up their voting record, statements they've made in the past, ratings they've received from various interest groups, etc., etc. Estimated time to become informed: 20 minutes (on the outside).

Secondly, for the things you may be voting on that aren't horribly corrupted sacks of worthless meat upstanding politicians representing this fine nation, I give you Ballotpedia. Laid out like the secondary repository for all human knowledge, Wikipedia (the primary repository being Google, of course), it is easily navigable to your particle locality. There you can find any ballot initiatives that are being voted on and the details of them all. You can quickly see the "intent" of the new law, the text of said law (or the proposed alterations to an existing law, as the case may be), and what groups support the initiative. Estimated time to become informed: 10 minutes if you are a remarkably slow reader.

So there you have it. In the span of a single sitcom, lunch break, or traffic jam you can join the ranks of an elite group of Americans known as "the informed voters".

Is thirty minutes too much time to become informed? Not willing to take the energy to read a few articles on important subject? Hey, no problem. Just do myself and every other American a huge favor: Don't vote, and don't complain.

Sarah Palin is obviously well-informed on the BTP an idiot

On October 19th Sarah Palin, easily the hottest Vice Presidential nominee EVAH, was speaking at a Tea Party Express event in Nevada. She warned the gathered throngs that they needed to stay the course and not get overconfident. They couldn't "party like it's 1773" until tea-party candidates actually managed to get elected.

Of course, many of her detractors were very quick to jump on this astute knowledge of dates far superior to my own obvious sign of idiocy in their favorite punching bag. "Moron! The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776!"

Here I must direct you to Cuffy Meigs who did a good, succinct piece on the reaction. He gathered the twitters of various prominence personages. Then he wrote this, which I could not possibly improve on:

"I mean, hell, it must be extremely embarrassing to have your obvious ignorance of 5th grade American history revealed by the likes of the Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and PBS anchor & presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill. HAHAHAHAHA, what a freakin' dumb ass! What happened in 1773, indeed!

oh, wait:

Boston Tea Party, 1773

Like they were saying: Ummmmm...

PS: In case you're thinking Palin got lucky, the Right Scoop has full video of her remarks ... which clearly refer to the original Boston Tea Party."

Classic.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell: Repealed Appealed Reinstated!

Let’s recap: A California Judge named Philips decided to strike down a DOD policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell mandating that gay service members keep their homosexuality on the DL while serving as unconstitutional. When asked to lift her suspension of the policy, Philips said that “the public has an interest in military readiness, unit cohesion” but that these “these interests are outweighed by the compelling public interest of safeguarding fundamental constitutional rights.” (This sentiment will be a great comfort to troops engaged in a firefight. I know there’s nothing more comforting to me than knowing that my unit’s military readiness and cohesion aren’t #1 priorities when I’m in combat.) The Pentagon remained silent for a day or so, then issued the guidance that gay recruits had to be allowed to enlist. Cue mass panic at Recruiter’s offices as discharged rainbow warriors flock to the banner.

Yesterday a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals managed to clear their heads for a moment and, realizing that slamming the brakes on a decade of policy backed by over a century of tradition over the course of a single night without any research whatsoever in the middle of a war may possibly be just a tiny bit disruptive to military operations, granted the Justice Dept’s request to freeze the freeze that froze DADT. (That’s a triple negative. I get bonus points on my Blogger account if I can chain combos like that)

There will no doubt be months of appeals process to go through, not to mention the forthcoming study on the effects of ending DADT on military readiness. No matter which way this court decides the losing side will most certainly appeal, eventually forcing the policy decision to the Supreme Court, who I cannot imagine could find a way out of hearing it.

It is somewhat ironic that the Obama administration finds itself defending a policy they have themselves stated is unconstitutional, and that Obama promised to repeal on his watch. I do have to give them kudos for at least somewhat rising to the occasion, however, and pitching the ball to Congress to deal with, as they should…Well, personally I’d pitch the ball to the E-4 Mafia, but I doubt that’d be terribly popular among the JCOS.

Stay tuned. And remember: If you don’t look him in the eyes…

Judge bans DATA (AKA: Screw careful consideration!)

A California judge, Virginia Philips, ruled on October 12th that the military's policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is unconstitutional and, showing the good sense equivalent to pulling your emergency brake while cruising at highway speeds, ordered the immediate ending of all enforcement of this policy worldwide. Obviously Philips, after taking a good solid hit from her self-rolled doobie, decided that he knew better than the thousands of officers and NCOs in the field, the Defense Secretary, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress.

There is a report due to come out December 1 on the possible impact of such a decision on the military which is supposed to encompass everything from combat readiness to morale, but I mean, why wait? It's just the readiness of the world's finest military at stake. I don't see what the fuss is about, honestly.

There is question as to whether the judge even has the authority to make such a decision but that aside there are serious problems with the action taken. Secretary Gates, who supports the eventual repeal of the law, "warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on repeal of the law known as "don't ask, don't tell" should be decided by Congress and not the courts."

While my faith in Congress has waned considerably since the approximate day of my birth, I am inclined to agree with Secretary Gates. This is a matter to be decided, carefully, by those who are charged with running our military, not some lone crackpot judge in America's nutbasket.

I personally do not support the repeal of DATA as it stands today. My problem is purely logistical. I honestly do not care one bit if the man shooting, moving, and communicating next to me is gay, straight, bi, white, black, yellow, or Martian, as long as he can keep up. The problem is logistical. In the military (particularly in combat branches like my own, the Infantry) there is a high premium on privacy. Barracks can be large open bays with no consideration for isolation during changing or sleeping. Showers may or may not have stalls, bathrooms may or may not have partitions, etc. While overseas, even back in the rear, I shared my living space with a roommate, college dorm room style. In the field even this modicum of privacy disintigrates.

I have seen more naked men in my career with the Army than I ever thought possible. If you put a gay man with a bunch of straight men it is naturally going to make things a bit uncomfortable, in the same way that putting a naked woman in the middle of a bunch of naked men would be awkward. Unless we're willing to make the military completely co-ed and house men and women together with disregard to their sex it isn't consistent to do the same with gay men and women and their straight counterparts. Until there is a viable solution presented for how these legitimate issues are going to be overcome we cannot in good conscience repeal this standard which has worked reasonably well up till now.

The hard truth is that the military does not exist to be fair. It exists for two reasons, and two reasons only: To kill people and break stuff. Being fair is a secondary objective, and if it interferes with combat effectiveness, it needs to go by the wayside. Yes, it sucks, but the business of the military is war, and war sucks the big one.

Insanity: British pundit supports suffocation of suffering children (and my position on abortion)

When someone disagrees with me, I am not offended. It does not bother me personally. I can hold a heartfelt, even passionate debate and at the end laugh along with the other person despite differences, given one caveat: The only thing I require is a rational opinion.

There are times, however, when I hear an opinion that is so amazingly, stupendously, breathtakingly ridiculous that I wonder if I'm actually the victim of some cruel practical joke. I attempt to examine it logically but there's always the nagging voice in the back of my head that refuses to believe another person is truly spouting the nonsense I'm examining and calling it a position.

One of these times occurred when I read the position of one British Pundit, Victoria Ironside. Her position starts with:

“Abortion can often be seen as something wicked and irresponsible, but in fact it can be a moral and unselfish act. Sometimes the decision of a good mother is not to have the child.”

If only she had stopped there, I likely would never have heard of Ms. Ironside. Unfortunately, she just had to continue. She went on to say (and I swear I am not making this up)

“If I were the mother of a suffering child — I mean a deeply suffering child — I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face. If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

...

I am truly at a loss for words. All that comes to mind is this: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Since it has been over a year since I posted this, I figured I would take this opportunity to repost my position on abortion. Here it is:

"My Pro-Life Argument. No exceptions, no exclusions.

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cacti, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps."

You know who’s really organized? Anarchists (Part 2)

Part one can be found here.

Any argument or set of beliefs operates with a number of assumptions at its base. This is unavoidable. You know an argument is consistent when the conclusions follow logically and reasonably if the assumptions are granted to be true. You know an argument is correct when the assumptions themselves are demonstrated to be true. To analyze a contrary position you must, in addition to examining the conclusions for logical fallacy, also decipher what its assumptions are in order to be able to properly evaluate them for feasibility.

At first glance the beliefs of myself, being a conservative capitalist, and Moe (and by extension, the Wingnuts), appear to be completely at odds with one another. Strong military/police vs. no military, free market vs. no market, etc, etc. Upon closer examination, however, they are…well…completely at odds with one another. But the reason for this isn’t some schism in personality or intelligence level. Instead, it stems from a fundamental difference in the view of humanity.

The Wingnuts appear to believe that through hard work human nature, since it is at least in part “a product of its environment” can be positively changed to allow for a more perfect society. Humans are, if not inherently good, at least inherently malleable. The best possible system will therefore attempt to alter society and humanity for the good of all.

The individual human is capable of great acts of sacrifice, generosity and nobility. It is, however, the unfortunate truth that humanity on the aggregate is self serving, narcissistic, and greedy. These characteristics are not superficial features that can be altered. They are instead basic components of our being that are as constant as the value of pi. Humans are fundamentally flawed. The best possible system will therefore attempt to channel this negative energy into positive directions, working with, rather than against, flawed human nature.

First look at the human being at his most genuine, his most pure, his most unadulterated: The Toddler. This human has had the time to become both self- and other-aware. He realizes that there are beings outside of himself. He has not, however, had time for society and his parents to dramatically change anything about his person. If you examine a toddler in America vs. a toddler in Ethiopia, you will find that aside from superficial differences they are much the same.

What is the nature of this being? Ask any honest parent, or become one yourself, and you’ll quickly find the toddler values itself above all other things. When it is hungry, it will cry and scream until fed. When it wants something, it will take it. If something is in its way, it is more apt to eliminate this obstacle through violence or manipulation, rather than simply to do without whatever the object of its attention is. If you doubt this, observe very young children at play for any length of time. You won’t have to watch long before one child will strike or push another, yell when it is denied, or in some way exemplify the flaws of man as a whole.

That is not to say that there are not exceptions to this rule. For example my own eldest daughter, when she learned that a family from church had lost everything in a fire, when prompted to choose out a toy to give to the other children who had none, retrieved her most prized possession (a particularly favorite Barbie, if memory serves) to give to the other family. Such an act of selfless sacrifice in one so young brought a tear to my eye. Of course, the day after this very same toddler struck her sister on the head when her sibling interfered with her playing with a toy she desired.

Even the methods used to discipline and teach acknowledge the self-centeredness of the pupil. You do not reason with a toddler, or try to explain why it is “nice” or “right” to share or speak kindly, at least not exclusively at first (There are parents who use this method. They are very easy to locate. Just look for the screaming, unruly children in your local grocery store). They are instead taught with “cause-and-effect”. This comes in two flavors, the negative [You do X, which is not acceptable. Therefore Y, perhaps physical pain (i.e. spanking) or social rejection (i.e. time out) happens] and the positive [You do X, which is acceptable, therefore you get Y, something you desire such as a toy or praise or recognition].

This shows that while young children are capable of acts of kindness, they are not necessarily prone to them as a rule until taught to be otherwise.

What if, however, even the toddler has been somehow affected by his environment in such a way as to invalidate him as a prism for humanity? What if the evils of our current society can infect from nearly out of the womb? If this were the case, and the greed and selfishness that manifests in humans is in fact a product of their environment, if the causality relationship truly flows society --> human nature, rather than the reverse, we would expect that different societies would produce fundamentally different humans.

To examine this I first turn to a piece given on the mental health of modern day American Indian tribes by Dr. Robert K. Thomas. He describes the tribal Indian culture as one where the identity of the person relies, not on predefined “roles”, but on relationships to those around you.

“The local unit, or community, of North American Indian groups varied in population size from about 100-300. Such a population means that one lived in intimate association throughout one's entire life with a very small number of people who had a specified, predictable, structured relationship to you…In modern American society, husband and wives are now making contracts. Commonly, one hears talk about the role of the wife or the father. I remember when I first became aware of this feature of American culture, about 1948. I would read articles in magazines about how to be a wife. And my response was, “Whose"?”

Dr. Thomas continues to describe the differences between modern America and tribal Indians. As you might expect, they are stark. However, it doesn’t take long for him to begin discussing the “major social control mechanisms” of these tribal Indians. Namely, they withdraw, or “deny access of self”, to those who are determined to be out of line. Other controls are the sanctity of tradition, the guidance of elders, and the perceived causal relationship of human actions and their external surroundings.

When this societal control breaks down (or, in other words, when humans are not being guided by an outside mechanism), you get this:

”A person who sees his nature as fixed and is without tradition behaves erratically. If you don't have kinfolk to frown at you and if you don't have a body of tradition to follow, you act erratically. One of the reasons why there are corrupt governments in Africa and on Indian reservations where everybody puts their hand in the till up to their elbow, is that officials have no kin folks around to scowl at them when they are dishonest. That kind of personality needs the structure of those kin relations, both to be definitive and as a social control and as a support and as a guide.”

As you can see, once stripped of the veneer of society, the American Indian becomes selfish, corrupt, and self-serving. This is further demonstrated by the anecdote delivered later in the paper of modern Cherokees. The value followed there was to share everything among all members of the community. What was happening in practice, however (since the societal controls on human nature had broken down), was lazier Cherokee would simply feed off those who were more hard working.

If we wish we can examine humanity on a more aggregate, long term scale. Examine the course of human history as we know it. Pick any continent, region, race, color, creed, or time you like. You will find exactly the same thing, variations on a theme. What differences were there in motivation between the Venetian merchant who squeezes every dime he can out of his competition and the Japanese lord who conquers the neighboring province for greater revenue? Is there a fundamental difference between wars for resources when fought over water, or oil, or more fertile land? How about between the genocide of the Nazis in Germany and the genocides in deep Africa? What is the common thread that causes history to repeat itself? That thread is the immutability of human nature. No matter how often you change the environment of the human, the time period, the society, or the technology available to him, the basic motivations of the human do not change.

Though I have argued that human nature is unchanging, let us accept for a moment that it could be changed. Let us say that if society were to be altered that humanity would fundamentally alter along with it. Since this is the Wingnut position (and, I suspect, the position of most other Anarchists to one extent or another), let’s accept it as fact for the sake of discussion. Do their actions make sense given their assumptions?

Some of them do. For example, distributing food, attempting to promote a more socialistic community (that is to say, one that shares resources rather than competes for them), and encouraging community enacted security, all make sense in the framework of attempting to change humanity for the better.

But what about the more, shall we say, stereotypical Anarchist actions? Things like harassing policemen on duty, or protesting the government’s right to detain criminals in a jail system, or (to quote their website), “oppos[ing] the state and its agents, including politicians, the police, the military industrial complex, corporations and greedy developers”?

Even if we allow that humanity can be changed, the fact remains that at this moment it hasn’t been changed. To a certain extent it makes sense to degrade the confines of current society in order to shift it, but imagine if suddenly the Anarchists were successful in their attempts to destroy these societal controls! Humanity, in its current, unaltered state would explode into chaos! To take actions that are aimed at destroying the chains of the evil State and Capitalism in the immediacy is much like going to a patient in rehab and cutting off his casts and taking away his crutches and expecting him to immediately run. Certainly he must in the end do without such devices, because if they were to perpetuate forever they would hinder his recover, but to remove them prematurely would be disastrous.

In conclusion, the basic assumption of the Wingnuts that human nature can be molded flies in the face of every iota of human history and experience. Humans have demonstrated, time and again, that they will not change until something comes along to change them. While they have the potential to do great and noble things when taught, influenced, or incentivized to do so, they require this external structure. Given this, the resulting arguments are invalid.

Even if we accept the assumptions to be true, the actions resulting from them are not all internally consistent. They rush the issue, dramatic in their desire to do something, rather than being patient and considering, methodical and precise, as any effort to enact fundamental change must be.

The Wingnuts appear to be a group of generally well meaning people who genuinely wish better for humanity. They are a resource to their community in many ways, and ought to be lauded for their efforts in community service and social support.

They are also naïve, lacking a fundamental understanding of the evils that exist in this world. Perhaps it is the result of living in a nation that has been more or less safe and peaceful for over two centuries. I think it likely that they would change their minds if they were emerged in areas of true anarchy, like the warlord torn regions of Africa. They strive for a goal that feels and sounds good but is more than unattainable: It is downright dangerous.

I leave you with this, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, an examination of human nature in the context of perfectly rational people.