Gay Marriage: Right or wrong, it should be legal

            The discussion over the possibility of gay marriage is one fraught with miscommunication. On the one side, opponents see themselves as championing one of the pillars of society, defending it from the endless erosion that eats away at the moral fiber of our nation. Proponents see themselves as the oppressed minority, with heterosexual opponents as uncaring and willing to pull out any sort of argument to avoid recognizing same-sex love. The truth, as it often is, is concealed in the nuance of the two arguments. I myself grew up opposed to same-sex marriage. I personally believed that homosexuality was wrong, due only to my religious convictions (I had no personal quarrel with the practice), but that was not why I opposed gay marriage. I opposed it because marriage being between one man and one woman was an evolved social mechanism that had been around for a very long time. It worked for the majority of cultures quite well, and I was concerned for the possible unintended consequences that could arise from tinkering with the fabric of our society. I longed to have a rational discussion, but unfortunately one side of the argument would point to a religiously fueled morals which have no place in legislation, while the other side would dismiss my concerns as hateful. It was not until I stumbled upon the incredibly thoughtful Jonathan Rauch that I finally got the discussion I had wished for. It was that honest exchange of ideas that changed my mind for good.

            Jonathan has written a book which summarizes many of his positions on gay marriage. Himself being gay, his positions are fairly predictable, but how he expresses them are not. What causes him stand out are his acknowledgements of the dangers.  He admits that those who oppose same-sex marriage, by and large, do so out of nobility rather than spite. He says that “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free.” His acknowledgement of the validity of his opposition sets the tone for the ensuing argument where he addresses these concerns one by one, saying that these risks are “modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits”. He asks those who disagree with him to remember what marriage is: a social contract between a couple and their community. It is a situation which has a calming and stabilizing influence on young men and women, tying them down and encouraging them to set roots (Rauch, 2004).

            Imagine that there was no marriage for anyone. Imagine a society that does not acknowledge that there is a situation where two people could become more than close friends or lovers. Such a society sets to expectation that relationships should endure. It has no safety nets or security for the families that try. Likewise, the community itself has no social contract with couples. There is an anchoring effect to marriage, caused in no small part by society's expectations of the couple which are taught as they grow up.

            This anchoring effect of marriage holds true regardless of whether the couples involved are of the same or differing sexes.  By opposing gay marriage we are making the statement to a segment of the population that their love is no good here and that the relationships they have will never be sanctioned or acceptable in the eyes of the community. We give them few external incentives to settle down, to raise a family, to be the same productive contributing members of society that straight couples are. Should we not be encouraging strong, stable relationships no matter who is involved?

            Further, by saying that marriage is for some, but not others, we run the risk of enforcing in our youth the idea that marriage is not necessarily the desirable end state for their relationships. In order to avoid changing the definition of marriage, we erode the very idea of marriage as the ultimate & community sanctioned goal of any long term relationship.

            I personally do not see why it is a big deal who Billy chooses to give his heart to. If you do think that it is wrong for Billy to kiss another boy, consider this: Is it better to at least expect that they do it in a stable, loving home which can be an asset to the community and therefore acknowledge that marriage is a good thing that should be preserved? Or is it better to force them to do it on the social outskirts, which tacitly encourages others (who may themselves be straight) to abandon marriage as well?

            What message do we send?

Rauch, Jonathan (2004, April). Gay marriage: Why it is good for gays, good for straights, and good for America. Booklist. Volume 100, issue 13, page 1099. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from MasterFILE Premier database.

It was only a matter of time: Women in the Combat Arms

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the immediate rescinding of the long-standing military policy of restricting Combat Arms jobs to men. You can read the entire memo here. The decision was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs, and comes at the twilight of Panetta's term as Secretary of Defense.

While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."

The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.

So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!

Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.

Problem 1: Physical standards

For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.

If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."


My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?

How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.

Problem 2: Mental training

If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"

The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."

My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.

Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

It is true that not every man may have this sort of reaction. It is also true that the military deals in the aggregate, and if a significant percentage of men react this way then it is worth addressing.

Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.

The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.

How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.

If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.

But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.

Problem 3: Logistics

"An Army marches on its stomach."

One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.

Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.

How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.

The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.

Problem 4: Order & Discipline 


Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.

Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.

And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.

What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?

I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.

How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.

I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.

Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?

Problem 5: "Fairness"

We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.

I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.

With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.

And that needs to be okay.

It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.

The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.

How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.

In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.

See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.

I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.

So you lost the election: Now what?

Darth Obama secured a second term last night, ensuring the entire world will be cloaked in darkness. The next four years hold nothing but plagues of locusts and famine riots. Before next year is out your dollar will be worthless and the only currency will be lead pills shot at very high rates of speed. This all thanks to the unwashed, uninformed masses who don't understand what they just did.

But take heart, my fellow conservatives! As dire as these predictions are, there is the tiniest, most miniscule fraction of a possibility that this isn't true. Maybe, just maybe, the other half of America isn't full of hopelessly clueless morons. So before you go on Facebook and cry out to the world that all hope for America is lost, remember these things:

1. You know who else is melodramatic? Teenage girls. Resist the urge, friends. We lost. That does not necessarily mean America is doomed. It just means we've had a setback. We survived Lincoln, FDR, and Carter; perhaps we can get through this too. I'm not saying Obama is a good thing (Anybody else remember when he kicked in the door of GM, took the place over, and fired the CEO? Anybody? Guess it's not a big deal). Obama is very, very bad. But, it's not an instant death sentence.
2. Legislation originates in Congress. We still hold the majority in the House, though it looks like the lead is lessened. We don't control the Senate, but then again we didn't before, and we still have enough to filibuster the hell out of some stuff if we like. Better still, the House is the side that controls the purse, so there's the chance we can stop some of this massive bleeding.
3. Enough rope to hang. It is much harder to sell that liberal policies just need more time after 8 years of dominant power than it is after just 4. Sure, they'll still be crying the refrain "Huge government interference would've worked too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" in four years, but the numbers will speak for themselves
4. It's not them, it's us. The reason we lost this election on practically every front is not because voters are stupid. It isn't because of the masses on welfare, or because people are greedy and lazy...well, at least it isn't simply because of that (/sarc). The reason we lost is that the majority of Americans didn't want what we were selling.

Number four is the most important point to remember. It isn't that they wanted something different than we do. In the end, I think the vast majority of Americans want the same thing: Some freedom, a job, a house, some cash, and the ability to spend it how they like. The problem is they didn't see our solutions as addressing those problems.

We fix this by figuring what attracted them to the other side, then demonstrating concisely why our side does the same thing, just better. The other side offered healthcare, they offered cleaner air, they offered a safety net from the government and more jobs. How we counter that is by showing that you get all those same things, better, cheaper, and more efficiently if you don't turn to the government.

You want healthcare? Grow the economy. You want cleaner air? Grow the economy. You want a smaller tax burden, a bigger TV, and less poverty? Grow the economy! Economic growth is the fastest engine to get to wherever you want to go. Get that message into the hearts and minds of those around you, and perhaps things get better.

US Fiscal gap: $222 Trillion. No big deal, right?

Just in case you had forgotten the financial straits the country as a whole is in, here's a bit of info gleaned from the latest CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report by economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns (via Hotair):

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap -- the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness -- rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

Wait! Before your head explodes when you see the $11 trillion number, read this to calm you down: That's only an increase of 5.2%. See, it's not really that bad!

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using the Congressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

$220 Trillion. With a big fat T.

Just Social Security alone will be enough to absolutely crush the economy. Once the Baby Boomers all retire, they'll be collecting a whopping 85% of the GDP annually.

Holy sweet cyborg pirate Jesus.

The solution recommended by the economists? Raise taxes by 65% or lower spending by 40% immediately, right effing now, or it'll only get worse.

Naturally, neither party wants to touch the issue of the Baby Boomer retirement, because they see it as political suicide. The unfortunate truth, though, is that we cannot sustain this kind of spending. This goes beyond the argument of Keynesian vs. non-Keynesian policies. There's no amount of benefit to be gained from deficit spending that could make up for the debt incurred.

The solution to this won't be pretty, but it'll only get worse the closer we get to the brick wall. Here's my idea: Raise the age that you receive social security to 83 immediately (5 years older than the average life expectancy), which will apply to anyone who is currently 60 or younger. If you're 50 or younger, you don't get Social Security. Ever. Sorry, buddy. Life sucks.

Don't go thinking your paychecks are getting any bigger, though. That money you pay into SS still gets paid, but instead of going towards the "Support retired Americans" fund it goes into the "Prevent America from becoming a third world country" fund.

That's only one of many steps that would be necessary until we got our debt back under control, but at least it'd be a start.

Shocking: Christian, family run business espouses Christian, Family Values!

In a recent interview Chik-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy plead guilty to supporting traditional Christian values, stating specifically that his organization believed marriage was forever and between one man and one woman. This naturally was received as a healthy expression of opinion in the public forum. Opponents acknowledged that while they may not agree with Mr. Cathy's opinions, they certainly support his right to have them and proceeded to engage in a courteous dialogue on their differences of opinion.

Hah, just kidding. It actually began a massive firestorm of manufactured outrage at a person who dared to have an opinion contrary to some other people's beliefs. I mean, who is this guy? He treats this like it's his Constitutional right or something!

The actual quote is as follows:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives...We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Of course, he was wrong on that last part about being able to operate his business as he saw fit. At least, he was in Chicago, where "Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit." For those of you having a hard time understanding this Chicago slang, when they say "a Chicago tradition" they mean "rampant corruption and abuse of power".

Said Joe Moreno:

"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."

He continued by saying "So, we want to maintain that diversity, unless that diversity means that someone may have an opinion contrary to mine. If that happens, then naturally I'm going to use the power of my elected office to crush their business, despite them not having done anything illegal whatsoever. It's tradition." The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has also come down on the fast food chain and is supporting this "tradition".

This sort of action is the height of hypocrisy. The National Review Online made an excellent point:

"Rahm Emanuel has been many things in life — ballet dancer, investment banker, congressman, White House chief of staff, now mayor of Chicago — and he apparently wishes to add another title to his curriculum vitae: Grand Inquisitor. He has denounced the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A and endorsed a Chicago alderman’s plan to block construction of a new outlet because the company’s executives do not share his politics. This is a gross abuse of power: Imagine if the mayor of Provo, Utah, had tried to punish a business for supporting same-sex marriage — the Left would demand his resignation, etc. The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago."

 Here's the deal: Mr. Cathy didn't "target" gay folks, the so called "LGBTQ...IWHQNDYT" crowd (I added a few more letters since that acronym seems to get bigger every day, and I want to stay ahead of the curve). He targeted the decay of the institution of marriage as he sees it, and said he doesn't approve of it and neither does his organization. That means he was no more "targeting" gay people than he was "targeting" divorced people, of which I am (quite happily) one. There are plenty of good, decent, caring people that do not support same-sex marriage. I used to be one of them, before I was persuaded through reasonable, calm discussion to change my stance.

Even aside from that, why is this a surprise? I mean, who didn't know that Chik-fil-A was a Christian organization? They aren't even open on Sunday! "OMG, I am shocked and outraged that a Christian organization might express traditional Christian values and donate to organizations that share their viewpoint!" said No One, Ever.

We live in a country where you have the right to express your opinion and worship your God as you see fit. We live in a country where you do not (and I cannot possibly emphasis this enough) have the right not to be offended.

If you, as a private citizen, don't like Chik-fil-a's comments, then don't eat there. Encourage your friends not to eat there. Go all Tea Party on them and buy their chicken then throw it into a lake or something. But don't pretend like they crossed some invisible line in the sand by having an opinion and should therefore be banned from your city.

As for me, I don't agree with their opinion, and even resemble the sort of person they disapprove of...but damn, their chicken is good. So I'm going to keep eating it.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Distasteful but defendable

Last Thursday the Supreme Court handed down the decision that even though the mandate was not constitutional, they still thought the idea was totally awesome, so they just called the mandate a tax. Bam, problem solved. Well, except for the problem of now giving Congress the unlimited power to levy whatever penalties they like as long as they call them taxes, even if their goal is to raise $0 revenue, but hey, since when has unbridled power been a problem for the government, right?

Needless to say, while the decision was disappointing to say the least to anyone who is a fan of limited government, we did get the consolation prize of being able to slam Obama for clearly and unequivocally raising taxes on...wait for it...

The Middle Class!

For a taste of the beating that ensued, see the video below. Watch it in its entirety. It is a thing of beauty to see how the interviewer slowly backs his opponent into a corner, having him state that the mandate was not a tax, then playing the audio where team Obama argued in the courtroom that it totally was.

Unfortunately, Romney has not really capitalized on this turn of events. The reason? One word: Romneycare.

While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he signed into law a healthcare bill that looks remarkably similar to Obamacare, to include mandates and penalties and exchanges (oh my). Always concerned at being labeled a flip flopper, Romney is torn between defending his past record and by extension Obamacare, or admitting he was wrong and trashing Obamacare, and himself in the process.

Well, Mr. Romney, I don't like what you did in Massachusetts. In fact, my two favorite things about you are your territorial tax system proposal and the fact that you are the most Presidential looking guy EVAH, no homo. But, since you are not, in fact, Obama I will give you an out that apparently every one of your highly paid advisers have failed to discover. The reason they may have overlooked it is understandable. It comes from the Constitution, and I know that you DC folks don't like to pull that thing out much.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Obamacare is exactly the same as Romneycare, because let's face it, you'll never be able to articulate any meaningful differences in the public forum. Even if they are precisely the same down to the last letter, they differ in one extremely important way:

Romneycare was a state action. Obamacare is a federal action.

The 10th amendment, probably my very favorite amendment in the Constitution, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to create a healthcare exchange and mandate people to participate is not included in the Constitution, so therefore that power is reserved to the States. The reason the Obamacare mandate is a tax and Romneycare mandate isn't because "The Supreme Court said so". That is a part of it, but you look like a douche when you say it. The whole reason is that the power to have a mandate is clearly a power of the States, not the Feds. Therefore, Obama is overreaching. He is attempting to seize power for the Federal Government away from the people, in a way the framers never intended. Only by hiding it in the tax code (and therefore raising taxes on millions of Americans) can it even be allowed, and that doesn't make it a good thing.


To condense that into a soundbite sized statement for you, Mr. Romney:

"Romneycare made sense for Massachusetts. What is good for someone living in Massachusetts may not be good for someone living in Virginia, or Texas, or Nebraska. I believe that people are better able to make decisions about their healthcare than the federal government can, and so those decisions should be kept as close to the local level as possible. This sort of power is guaranteed to the States by the 10th amendment, and the President is attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and he's doing it by using the mandate to raise taxes on the hardest hit Americans, the middle class."

Bam. In one go you've defended Romneycare, drawn the distinction between it and Obamacare, defended the Constitution and States Rights, and accused Obama of raising taxes on the middle class without lumping yourself in that same statement. You come out sounding like a paragon for the middle class and conservatives everywhere, a defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way who probably helps little old ladies across the street right after you kill terrorists by smashing them with your massive testicles, not some weak kneed douchebag who is relying on the Supreme Court to fight your battles.

You're welcome. Please make the check out to Mr. Fluffy.

Supreme Court upholds portion of SB 1070; Obama takes ball, goes home.

On Monday the Supreme Court handed out two decisions: One, that life sentences without parole for minors was unconstitutional. Two, that the portion of the Arizona immigration law (aka, SB 1070) that allowed officers to check the immigration status of those they arrest for other crimes was Constitutional. The two provisions that added fines and additional illegality for being an illegal immigrant in Arizona and job searching were struck down. This preserved the most controversial portion of the law, which was that the police could essentially demand to "see your papers" if you were arrested, and verify your legality to be in the country.

Naturally, Obama's administration deferred to the authority of the Judicial branch of government when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, and went about the job of administering the nation.

Just kidding. He actually proceeded to pout and kick his feet. He then put out the following official position of the Executive branch:

From the Washington Times:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Essentially, the immigration strategy here is to "ignore the problem until it goes away". While this strategy is effective for nearly every other problem, I think perhaps immigration may require a slightly more thought out response.

 Jan Brewer is the Governor of Arizona and is, based on the photographic evidence, quite possibly the Wicked Witch of the West.

I'm not saying she definitely is, I'm just saying she may want to avoid large bodies of water.

Needless to say, she was less than pleased to hear about the administration's reaction.

Brewer told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday that she was “shocked” and “outraged” to learn of the move.

“This is politics at its best,” she said. “It’s just unconscionable. What they said to Arizona is, ‘Drop dead, Arizona. Drop dead and go away. We’re going to ignore you."

At the end of the day, I consider this a victory. Many people consider this a step towards some barbed wire police state, crying that this will encourage racial profiling and saying how unreasonable it is for the police to check immigration status. The problem is, illegal immigration is a crime, just like driving without a driver's license. When a cop pulls someone over, he demands they show him proof that they are allowed to be driving and that the vehicle is theirs (License and registration, ma'am). How is a green card any different?

Besides, we already allow the police to check on things only tangentially related to the original charge when they arrest someone. For instance, imagine the cop pulls you over for speeding. He then detects the odor of marijuana, so he searches the vehicle. In your trunk he finds a dead hooker and ten pounds of coke, as well as some Ron Paul campaign stickers.

What started out as a routine traffic stop turned into a murder and drug charge, because the police checked up on other possible crimes while he was at it. That's known as "good police work" when it catches murderers, rapists, and drug inhaling libertarians. How is it suddenly evil when we round up illegal immigrants?

Many officers have expressed concerns that they could be vulnerable to lawsuits for racial profiling for enforcing this law. There is a super easy solution to that: Check the immigration status of every single person you arrest.

Bam. No more profiling.

Upcoming SCOTUS decisions and my predictions

 The Supreme Court has five more decisions left to hand out, most notably on the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare issue. Monday is the last day they are scheduled to hand out decisions, but it seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll have at least one more day after that. Naturally, any showman worth his salt saves the best for last, and I expect that we won't be hearing the decision on Obamacare until the last possible moment.

In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.

1: United States v. Alvarez

What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.

Actual lawyer analysis here.

Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.

My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.


2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.

The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.

The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.

Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.

My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3

3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.

Why it matters: It doesn't.

My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.

Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.  

4: Arizona v. United States

What it is: Read my blog about it here. Basically, the question is can the State of Arizona round up illegal immigrants by requiring anyone arrested for anything, regardless of race, be checked for citizenship status. Anyone found to be in the country illegally would then be referred to the Feds.

Why it matters: This case determines how tough a state can get on immigration. It is not contested that immigration is clearly the Federal government's job (one it does remarkably poorly, of course). What is contested is how far a State can go to put illegals into the government's hands.

My guess:  Arizona comes out triumphant, and the States win over the Feds for once. 5-4.

5: HHS v. Florida, Florida v. HHS, and NFIB v. Sebelius (AKA Obamacare)


What it is: If you just asked that question, please punch yourself in the face. Hard. Then read my blog about it here.

Why it matters: This will determine the scope of the Federal government's authority to regulate healthcare. Big questions include: Can they create commerce in order to regulate it? Is the lack of commerce also commerce? Can the government FORCE you to buy healthcare, or face a fine if you do not?

My guess: ...is as good as yours. Constitutional lawyers and SCOTUS clerks think the mandate is dead. The public wants the law gone. I pretty sure the mandate is done for, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll strike the whole law down, with the opinion making it clear they did so because the mandate was so central to the proper functioning of the law and a failure to strike the whole thing would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. 5-4.

"It's not my fault I'm fat, evolution made me do it!"

Last week His Majesty Bloomberg, King of New York City announced a planned ban on normal sized overly large sugary drinks in an effort to combat obesity. His plan is to block the sale of any sugary drink over 16 ounces (Unless it's a milkshake, fruit juice, diet soda, or simply a refill on the first 16 oz sale. Or if the soda is sold in a grocery store. Then it's A-okay) throughout the city, in order to bring down the approximately 50% obesity rate in his city.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

If you're curious how much of the "public" the mayor is referring to supports his plan, check out this poll at the Huffington post. Even at the good ol' HuffPo, this measure only garners a 31% approval rating. Clearly such an unpopular measure that unequivocally slices into the consumer freedoms of New Yorkers should not stand, right?

"Not so fast!" shouts Dr. Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University. He claims that coercive action taken by the government is not just necessary, it's natural.

Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.

Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat.

Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.

Who is to blame, then? Is it people unable to control their base urges? Don't be silly! It's those evil corporations!

The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.

That's right. They are taking advantage of you, taking advantage of the fact that your great^100th grandfather didn't have enough honey is his diet. Those bastards.

How do we fix this? Not by doing nothing or through education, he says.

The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment. 

We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.

Basically, his argument runs like this:

1. Humans evolved to really like sugar since we didn't have access to delicious Dr. Pepper in the past, and even if we did, we would have had to chase it down through the tundra and beat it with a stick before we could drink it.
2. Now that we've advanced to the point where we don't have trouble getting sugar, we no longer have the natural limitation to its intake, allowing us to practically bathe in the sugary goodness of Dr. Pepper.
3. Since there is no natural limitation, our craving for the 23 flavors of absolute perfection must be curbed by Big Brother.

 The biggest problem here is that this argument places the blame for a person's poor eating decisions not on themselves, but instead solely on evolutionary factors. Unfortunately there are all kinds of things that make evolutionary sense that we expect people to handle on their own.

Having sex with other people when you're in a committed relationship is generally frowned upon. Despite the fact that it makes evolutionary sense, we expect people to resist this urge on their own.

Also, I doubt very much that ancient man, while hunting down his elusive prey of Haagen Daz, had much to train him for handling credit card debt. If someone defaults on their loans due to their own incompetence (as opposed to, say, a medical disaster or something of that nature) we rightfully place the blame on them and expect them to handle it.

Then again, maybe the Mayor and Dr. Lieberman are both right.

Perhaps these overweight New Yorkers are just..."Too Big to Fail" .

Primary candidates: Felons, John Connor, and Anonymous

Now that the Republicans finally got their act together and nominated the guy who I'm positive will at some point rip off his shirt and start fighting terrorists with laser beams from his eyes, we can get down to business on the real primary challenge.

I'm talking, of course, of the Democratic primary. In Arkansas, Obama is getting fierce resistance from some dude named John Wolfe. Nobody has ever heard of this guy, but I believe it's actually just a clever alias for John Connor.

Connor's put on a little weight, apparently.

 Over in Kentucky, voters are torn between Obama and absolutely nobody at all, with 40% of the vote going to "uncommitted".

"About two out of every five Democratic voters in Tuesday’s presidential primary in Kentucky chose “uncommitted” instead of voting for President Barack Obama. …

“I’m at a victory celebration for ‘uncommitted’ who performed admirably,” said [state GOP chair Steve] Robertson. “I’ve never met the guy but know that he highly embarrassed Obama.”

Kentucky’s vote was notable, though, for the fact that there weren’t even any other candidates on the ballot. The most the “uncommitted” option won so far this primary season was previously 21 percent in the North Carolina primary earlier this month. Kentucky looks as though it will double that number.

What could be more embarrassing than almost losing when you don't have any opposition whatsoever? Maybe almost getting beat by a convicted felon who is currently serving time in another state altogether.

A federal inmate who is running for president won 42 percent of the vote in West Virginia’s Democratic primary yesterday. According to the Associated Press, Keith Judd is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999.

 Naturally, there's no doubt Obama will actually win the nomination in the end. There's also the fact that he didn't have much of a shot in Kentucky or West Virginia anyhow, with them being all but card carrying members of the "anyone but that Obama character" club.

Still, it can't bode well if the Magic O is finding it hard to win against convicted felons and nobody at all. How hard can a fight against yourself actually be?

Pretty hard, as it turns out.

NC passes super extra ban on gay marriage

On Tuesday voters in North Carolina decided that simply having a law saying something is illegal is too ambiguous, so they had a voter referendum on an amendment to their constitution that made gay marriage super, ultra illegal. The referendum, which passed overwhelmingly with 61% of the vote, reinforces the existing statute (passed in 1996) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Despite the fact that this changes precisely nothing about the current situation in the state, this turn of events has made huge waves across the country. Since I'm only gay when I'm with the military, and I don't live in NC, this has very little to do with me; but since when has that stopped me from having an opinion?

If you want to know where I stand on gay marriage in general (hint: I'm for it), I refer you to this blog, written jointly by Jonathan Rauch (a gay liberal) and David Blankenhorn (a straight conservative Christian). I'd also encourage you to read another excellent piece Jonathan wrote on his own, which is actually the article that changed my opinion on the subject. Both are persuasive because they do not start with the assumption that anyone who is against gay marriage is a hate monger. Quite the contrary, it admits and brings up a variety of completely legitimate arguments for not tampering with marriage, then addresses them.

In the specific case of North Carolina, I do not agree with how they stand. After all, what do I care who you make out with? That being said, I err on the side of the 10th Amendment, the one that tells the Federal Government to get the eff out of the State's business. The State's can and should decide this issue on their own. It is my belief that over time the views on homosexual marriage will soften, and society will come to accept it as an alternative in the future.

If you are currently gay, wish to become married, and live in North Carolina, I counsel you to move to somewhere less hostile. I say this not from the standpoint of "If you don't like Amurika you can get the hell out!" kind of rhetoric we usually hear. What I mean is, leave, and deprive the state of your talent, taxes, and resources. If states such as North Carolina lose otherwise fine, upstanding citizens due to decisions of this nature then over time it may effect change.

SCOTUS appears to be leaning AZ's way on immigration

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Arizona's immigration law were heard yesterday. The two lawyers arguing the case, Donald Verilli for the DOJ and Paul Clement, representing Arizona, are the same two who faced off over Obamacare a few weeks ago. Verilli, who subscribes to the "if you can't be good at what you do, at least be consistent" school of thought, once again was apparently trounced by Mr. Clement on the National Stage.

SB 1070 has been controversial since it was passed, with opponents objecting to it discriminating against "people of color", which is absolutely 100% the case as long as you use the standard definition of "people of color", namely "people who have broken the law regardless of their actual color and/or race". In case you haven't heard of the law, here's the post I did on it when it was passed bay in May of 2010.

The judges, even those appointed by Democrats and considered to be left leaning, were not terribly friendly to the Feds argument that the States making them do their job was "totally unfair" and "like, not cool at all".

"In Wednesday’s oral arguments, Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government’s complaint that state police officers would violate federal immigration jurisdiction if they check the status of someone they pull over. That argument is seen by legal analysts as the weakest in the government’s case against the Arizona statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government’s lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers would somehow deter the federal government from enforcing immigration by calling federal officials to ask about a person they stop. “Arizona isn’t trying to kick out anybody that the federal government hasn’t already said doesn’t belong here,” he said. “The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders and a state can police their borders.”

Verilli, in a breathtaking display of wit and insight, stated that "Well, you know, we're kinda busy and stuff...so...we don't really have time to deal with this whole 'invasion of illegals across our sovereign borders' thing."

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Only eight justices are sitting on this case, Justice Elena Kegan having recused herself (presumably due to her work on this case as solicitor general). That means that the possibility of a tie exists, which would be a de facto victory for the Administration.

Based on the comments by the various Justices during the hearing, however, it does not appear that an even split is forthcoming.

Newt comes down with "Black Knight" syndrome

On Tuesday Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican primary race. I was planning on making a snide comment here but, out of respect for his daughter's medical condition, I will refrain. (To my own great surprise, it appears I still have a soul. Who knew.)

That makes Romney the unopposed candidate, thanks to Newt's concession after he publicly declared that "It's patently obvious to each and every American that I have not a snowball's chance in hell of even becoming a statistically significant player in this primary, let alone win. I mean, my campaign bounced a $500 check that was needed to get my name on the ballot in Utah! Seriously, who would stay in after that?"

Just kidding! Newt's vowed to fight to the very end. After an interview with the Gingrich campaign it was revealed to Just Another Capitalist that Newt's decision is based solely on the advice from an unidentified consultant. The consultant was described only as an "expert in reliable bridge security", but he did consent to a quick photo op.



Reportedly Don Quixote was Newt's first choice, but he went with the Black Knight to make a grab for the essential quadruple amputee vote.

Newt's campaign cited "technical issues" as the reason the $500 check to Utah bounced. Upon further investigation it was found that the "technical issue" was "having no money", also known as "being flat-ass broke".

When speaking with Mike Huckabee on Huck's radio show he essentially said he was glad to "finally get Romney 1-on-1".

That's right, Newt, you've got him just where you want him.

Seriously, enough with the Obama trip price tags

In my perusal of the news a couple days ago I ran across yet another story on Drudge that had a headline something like this:

"Obama trip to Ohio costs taxpayers $365k, plus several first born males!!!111!!11!! Oh Noes!"

When I clicked to the story, I found an article on Obama visiting Ohio with British Prime Minister David Cameron. They both watched a NCAA tournament game with Ohio Governor John Kasich, who lobbied the President on developing natural gas production in his state.

"During the first half, Mr. Kasich talked to the president and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew at length about promoting the safe development of shale gas in Ohio....The president ate a hot dog at the game, chatted with students and appeared to be explaining the finer points of basketball to Mr. Cameron."

All the way at the bottom was this fact.

"At a cost of roughly $180,000 per hour to operate Air Force One, the trip cost taxpayers at least $365,000, not including the staff costs and other expenses."

Since I am a Conservative, I suppose I'm legally obligated to respond something like this.

"That darn dirty communist bastard! How DARE he entertain the leader of our closest ally by watching an American sporting event! How could he even think of spending taxpayer dollars to improve relations with a foreign dignitary!? Who does he think he is, the leader of the free world or something?! He's clearly out of touch and/or insensitive to the budget crisis!"

Unfortunately, I also am capable of independent thought. So, to my Conservative brethren I feel obligated to say: Chill out. Seriously, just sit down and stop talking.

News flash: The President is the public face of the Nation to those abroad. Sure, we have a Secretary of State, but when the President visits someplace, it means something. Moreover, if we received the Chief Executive of a close ally with anything less than our own Chief Executive, it could (and should) be considered a slight. Like it or not, the Office of the President has power, and with power necessarily comes the trappings of power.

What alternative would you prefer? The President to have received Mr. Cameron in a rented taxi, driven all the way to Ohio college student style, and slept in the Wal-Mart parking lot while dining on that fancy Scottish place down the road, McDonald's? Perhaps they should have listened to the game on the radio for free in order to save taxpayer dollars? What sort of image of power and prestige does that project for America?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for cutting the budget. I am all for starving the beast of government spending till it's thinner than the Olsen twins. At the same time I understand that there are some expenditures that are reasonable, and entertaining foreign dignitaries is one of them.

Oh, and also, his gift to the Prime Minister of a custom grill with custom cooking outfits, made with the British and American flags and seals with Mr. and Mrs. Cameron's names on them, was actually quite thoughtful and completely appropriate (and also not terribly expensive, by the way).

So seriously, lay off the guy for the one time he actually did his job right. Rest assured he'll give you plenty of reasons to bash him tomorrow.

The People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania

Here's a situation: You have a man (guy A) who wore a t-shirt that another guy (guy B) thought was very insulting. So, guy B takes it upon himself to attack guy A in the streets. The entire incident is caught on tape. Guy B is arrested, charged, and admits that he committed the crime.

You're the judge. What's your verdict?

I'm going to guess nigh on 100% of those polled would answer guilty. You would be incorrect, according to the People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania. The very same incident occurred there, with two differences:

Guy A was dressed as the Prophet.

Guy B was Muslim.

Oh, well I guess that changes everything. Innocent it is, then!

The "Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet."

[NOTE: Many articles you may read about this case may indicate the judge was Muslim himself. This is incorrect, and stems from an isolated sentence in his ruling that was unclear and seemed to be him admitting to being Muslim.]

Judge Mark Martin is a veteran of the Iraq war, and uses that as justification for his ruling.

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead.

Perhaps Judge Martin might want to invest a little less in Islamic studies and bit more in humor, particularly an understanding of satire.

Martin goes on to berate the assaulted victim, saying that he should think before he insults a religion, and basically saying it's his fault he was attacked. He also says that he's lucky, cause if he were in a Muslim country he'd be put to death...

...cause that's a good thing...

This ruling is completely inane, and I hope it is appealed so this whacko can be paraded on the world stage as the idiot he is. Here are the facts:

• "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" or "Ignorance of the law excuses no one": The defendant is a Muslim immigrant who claimed he was ignorant of the fact that you can't assault people in the streets of America. While I understand it may be difficult for him to get cable, what with living under a rock and all, the fact remains that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
• First Amendment protects speech, not assault: The assaulted atheist was clearly not attacking anyone. Regardless of how offended the Muslim man was, he does not have the right not to be offended. He could have left. He could have heckled. He could have explained to the 9 year old son he had with him that the man was violating God's law and would be punished. He cannot, however, simply attack someone because he feels like it, and if he chooses to do so, ought to pay for it under the law.
  
• "Hate" is not a crime: It's unlikely that Mr. Perce saw his costume as anything other than a harmless mockery of religion in general. Regardless, even if he is a hate-mongering Koran burning Islamaphobe, the fact remains that hate is not a crime. This is the problem with defining "hate" crimes as separate from other sorts of crimes. If we punish people for simply feeling a certain way, for holding a certain opinion, you are giving the government the ability to define what is an acceptable opinion to have and express.

Think that the government would never abuse such an authority?

I bet Mr. Perce did too.

As a show of solidarity to Mr. Perce, I leave you with this picture of the Prophet with his turban on fire, painted in central Asia.

UPDATE: Personhood bill passes VA Senate committee

HB1, commonly referred to as the Personhood Bill, having been passed by the House of Delegates, is now on to the Senate for review. It has passed its first hurdle, namely being passed by the Senate Committee for Education and Health. They passed the same bill as the House with the same amendment, specifying protection for contraception.

The bill passed the committee with a vote of 8-7, strictly along party lines. It will now be heard by the full Senate. If the Senate follows the same timeline as the House then a vote in the Senate can be expected in the next week or so (There's two more weeks left in the session). The Republicans and Democrats each hold 20 seats in the Senate, with Lt Gov. Bill Bolling having the tie breaking vote. While neither he nor Governor McDonnell have said whether they would vote and/or sign the bill, both have proven to be decidedly pro-life in the past, which would suggest they may look favorably on the bill should it pass.

Obama moves to discourage domestic investment, calls it "reform"

The Obama White House has released a plan to "reform" corporate taxes. As I've said repeatedly in this blog, the United States has the dubious distinction of being second highest in corporate taxes (behind Japan). Fortunately, Obama recognized this problem and is moving to correct it. He's lowering our current rate of 35% all the way down to 28%, which moves us from second highest all the way to the coveted spot of...fourth, and still way above the OECD average.

Fantastic!

If that wasn't good news enough, get this. The tax plan also introduces a new "global minimum tax" on earnings overseas. That means that companies that earn money globally would have to pay a tax on that money. That's right, those darn evil corporations won't be able to hide their money overseas anymore! We'll really stick it to them!

Except taxes like that affect money when it is repatriated. It taxes money that comes back into the states. In other words, this global minimum tax actually discourages the repatriation of funds back into the states. That means less money made overseas being invested here at home.

But don't take my word for it! Why don't we hear from Obama's own economic counsel?

While most other developed nations have adopted territorial systems that exempt most or all foreign income from taxes when they are repatriated, the U.S. subjects all worldwide earnings to the corporate income tax when they are brought home to the U.S. This approach actually encourages U.S. companies to keep their earnings abroad rather than investing them here at home. Adopting a territorial tax system would bring us in line with our trading partners and would eliminate the so-called “lock-out” effect in the current worldwide system of taxation that discourages repatriation and investment of the foreign earnings of American companies in the U.S.

James Pethokoukis analyzed the plan.

4. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand how harmful corporate taxes are. Here’s the OECD: “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes.

5. Obama and Geithner apparently still don’t understand who bears the burden of corporate taxes. It’s workers. AEI economists Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur have found that “corporate tax rates affect wage levels across countries. Higher corporate taxes lead to lower wages. A 1 percent increase in corporate tax rates is associated with nearly a 1 percent drop in wage rates.”

6. Obama and Geithner apparently don’t understand that “corporate income taxes have a highly significant and negative effect on long-term growth,” according to the Tax Foundation:

That graph shows a pretty clear correlation between higher taxes and low economic growth.

"But what about revenue? We need that money so that the government can function!"

I'm glad you brought up that point. We are in luck here; our pals the Brits just raised the taxes on the wealthiest citizens dramatically (to 50%) in order to produce more revenue. The result? Revenues went down by more than 500 million pounds!

So, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy slow economic growth, produce less revenue, and cost money out of each and every citizen's pockets in the ends...

But hey, at least it's fair, right?

This just in: Babies are people, regardless of geographical location

The House of Delegates in Virginia passed a bill two days ago, on Valentine's day, that declared that in Virginia an infant will be deemed a person from the moment of conception. Its fate in the Senate is unclear.

The bill was proposed by Delegate Marshall, noted a noted pro-lifer. HB1, which can be read here, is being referred to in the media as the "Personhood Bill". Article one and two state the purpose very simply:

"§ 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being."

The bill goes on, but even just those two articles would essentially make abortions illegal in the state of Virginia. After all, if the unborn child is in fact a human with protectable interests, we can't very well go off killing it for no good reason.

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with the premise of this bill. If you want to read my full stance on abortion, check out this article I wrote back in March of 09. Here's the highlight: abortion arguments are really about the moment when life begins. The logical reasoning for this is simple:

• Humans have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, among them a right to life.
• Intentionally slaying an innocent human is murder (To be contrasted by slaying a human who is not innocent, such as an aggressor or a criminal).
• The above facts are true regardless of geographical position. A person does not cease to be a person if they are moved from point A to point B. Therefore, a person's location in a hospital, living room, or the uterus of another person is immaterial to their rights as a person (unless they got there through nefarious means. I do not consider being conceived terribly nefarious).
  
• Therefore, the abortion argument has nothing to do with whether a child is unborn, but whether the fetus is in fact a human child, and when it becomes one.

I am of the opinion that the only non-arbitrary moment we can define as the beginning of life is conception. Any other point in time is completely arbitrary and beyond our abilities to measure accurately. Only at conception, a well defined moment we can measure, can we be absolutely certain that we are not destroying a life. Show me another time when we can absolutely be certain that the spark of life is not present, and I will be in favor of abortions until that time.

The liberal friend of mine who brought this bill to my attention asked me to imagine that I had a uterus. "How would you feel if the government told you what you could do with it?" she asked me.

I would be outraged, of course! It is my uterus! I would picket the capitol building and demand the stopping of the infringement of my rights. I'd get an "I <3 my uterus" tattoo, and maybe take my uterus on outings to increase bonding time. I would do these things up until the moment I became pregnant. At that point my uterus is no longer simply an organ. It is an organ that contains a unique human life. My rights end where the rights of another begin, and just as I have the right to free speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I have the right to do with my body as I will but not if in doing so I will kill another.

I, too, have a thought experiment challenge. Imagine that you are transported back to the uterus, aware of your surroundings, with all your experiences. Does your location in said uterus invalidate your humanity? The geographical location of a person is immaterial.

All of the above being said, I am not without concerns about this bill. Any time you give a government power, it will eventually abuse that power. Allowing a fetus to be declared human, which I agree with wholeheartedly, has many consequences which should be considered. The drafters of the bill identified two, specifically.

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

This protects an overactive government from attempting to regulate prenatal care under the auspices of "protecting the unborn child from negligence", which is a clear case of overreach into the private life of a citizen. Likewise, it does not allow for the unintended consequence of shutting down fertility clinics, which exist to allow loving parents to have children of their own, an admirable goal by any estimation.

What happens if a woman smokes while she is pregnant? It is terrible, I agree, and poor parenting, but should the government be able to regulate it? What about drinking? Half a glass of wine can actually be beneficial in some cases for a pregnant woman. What about a full glass? Two? Should the government regulate this?

What if a woman goes out on an icy day, slips, and therefore has a miscarriage. She's killed her baby, who is now a human. Is this murder? Manslaughter? What if the miscarriage is stress induced? What if the woman didn't even know she was pregnant until she unintentionally killed the little human inside of her?

Common sense would disallow nearly every permutation of the above consequences. Unfortunately, relying on common sense to restrict the power of government practically guarantees abuse. I would feel much safer about this bill if a few more paragraphs were added. I am no lawyer, but for example:

"Nothing in this bill will be interpreted as cause of action against a woman who directly or indirectly causes harm to come to her baby unless it can be proven that such harm was intentional and malicious."

This would place the burden of proof on the state to demonstrate a clear motive before being able to prosecute (which would be the case in nearly all abortions, but not for an after dinner glass of wine).

I would also be careful not to disallow the mythical "abortion to save a mother's life" case. These cases are exceedingly rare. 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.

Note, I personally would hope that even in the case of a mother's life, the mother in question would have the moral character to place the life of an innocent child above her own. Who among us would laud a woman for jumping out of the way of a bus, instead of throwing her child to safety, essentially trading her child's life for her own? I would not be in favor of legislating this sort of morality, however.

There are few times when I am genuinely proud of my legislature. This is one of them. I applaud them for their intentions, and caution them on their consequences. Tweak this bill just a little bit more, Virginia Senate, and we can have the protection that the unborn deserve without the potential for grave Orwellian consequences.

One more step: Pentagon lessens restriction on females in combat

The Pentagon is expected to propose new rules today that would lessen the restrictions placed on the roles that military women can fulfill in combat. Before my military compatriots reading this hyperventilate and pass out, rest easy: "Restrictions on women serving in infantry combat units will remain in place." But, "Defense officials say as many as 14,000 positions could be opened up".

"Women will still be barred from serving in infantry combat units, defense officials say, but the changes will formally open up new positions at the combat battalion level that, until now, have been off limits.

The new jobs opening up for female service members will be combat support positions, including communications, intelligence and logistical positions, defense officials add. Typically, these jobs have been made available at the combat brigade level, but not at the lower battalion level, which was deemed too close to combat situation."

The article goes on to note that on today's battlefield, the line between "front line" and "rear echelon" can get kinda blurry.

On this particular move, I have no objection. Women already serve in support roles admirably well in other levels, and having them at Battalion will probably not affect things much at all.

My concern comes from the direction these moves are taking. The ultimate goal seems to be to get all restrictions removed from women in combat, to the point where I, as a Sergeant and Infantry Fire Team Leader, may have a woman serve under me directly in combat.

Truly, my concern isn't actually women in combat, per se. One only needs to glance at the IDF, for example, to see that this can be done. My concern is due to the fact that the decision makers on this issue are likely to be influenced by politics, and they will be more concerned with doing what is "fair", rather than what is effective.

As I've pointed out time and again, the military is not supposed to be fair. It isn't about fair, because what the military is about is war, and war isn't fair. The purpose of the military is to "break stuff and kill people". Anything that supports this goal should be kept. Anything that contradicts it should be removed. You don't have time to worry about fair, because if you take time out to worry about that, people will die.

This is a fact that decision makers under hostile fire must face time and again. Take, for example, a situation where I have two soldiers, Joe and Bob. I need to get a soldier across the street (which is being fired on by the enemy), so I can have a support by fire position on some objective. If I know that Joe is faster than Bob, I'm going to send Joe. Every time. It doesn't matter if Joe went last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. Fact is, Joe is more likely to accomplish the objective, so Joe it is.

If our goal is to have women in combat, that is fine, but decisions need to be made far in advance to make this happen. It needs to be understood that this is a gradual change, and careful preparation will be needed to make this happen.

For starters, physical standards must be the same. As it stands now, if I do 42 push ups, 53 sit ups, and run a 16 minute 2 mile, I barely pass the PT test. If a woman does the exact same thing, she excels. While this may be more "fair", recognizing that women are in general physically weaker than men in some areas, it does not make for a good combat soldier. If it is deemed that X standard is what is necessary for an infantry soldier to excel in combat, then every infantry soldier must be able to meet X standard, not just those who happen to be born with a penis.

It should be pointed out that this standard excludes many men, not just women. It isn't sexist, because it is an absolute. Just as I feel no shame in not being capable of being a Navy SEAL (My testicles are orders of magnitude too small for that), a woman who cannot meet the standard of the Infantry and must therefore serve in support should not feel shame in that either. If it was easy, it wouldn't be elite, and we wouldn't get those bitchin' blue cords.

Secondly, there are psychological aspects that would have to be considered. Before you jump me, women, I'm not talking about the minds of women. I'm talking about men.

There are some facts about the mind of the majority of males in our society that must be considered. The primary one is this: Men tend to protect women.

As anecdotal evidence of this, ask a group of your male friends if they would interfere if they saw a man strike another man. You would likely get varied responses, like "Well, did he deserve it?", or hedged conditions like "Only if it got out of hand". Then ask that same group if they would intervene if a woman were punched by a man. The responses will be markedly different. Perhaps not every man would intervene, but I guarantee the responses would be sharply contrasted nonetheless.

If that is the difference in mindset when it comes to a simple domestic dispute, imagine the difference in seeing women around you in lethal danger, or actually dying. If you like, you can read a real world account from a Marine officer on how his men acted differently around women in their midst, even in combat.

That is not to say that these problems are insurmountable. Physical standards will exclude many women, but not all. Training can be designed to limit the protective instincts of men in specific situations. For example, humans are intensely disinclined to kill others of their own species (See "On Killing" by Lt Col Grossman), but our military's training has reduced this reluctance in high stress situations dramatically. This training does not seem to bleed greatly into normal life, as demonstrated by the fact that military veterans are no more or less likely to be productive members of society than any other citizen. If we can remove instinct in certain situations for this one thing, why not others?

What it is to say is that these problems do exist, and I have very little faith that those in charge will take these problems seriously. Instead, they will do what they always have done. They will simply steamroll the policy into existence. Then they will leave it to grunts like me, who don't have the luxury of being "Echelons above Reality", to deal with the consequences.