Comes Now The Hypocrisy

My latest newspaper column:

Two words: Mitch McConnell.  

Amazing, isn’t it, how politics engenders hypocrisy (or is it the other way around?) Consider the calls for armed revolution by Trumpites had he lost. Forecasting “rigging,” Trump predicted and all but encouraged riots. Does anyone doubt it would have happened? (Was it rigged? Dare we ask?) Recall the last eight years, when effigies were hung and the internet was stinking with racist characterizations of our president, not to mention calls for assassination; or the Trumpists demanding imprisoning or shooting Hillary Clinton, some of whom did so, to uproarious cheers, from the stage of the Republican National Convention. (One of them, recently unhinged Lt. General Flynn, will be Trump’s national security adviser.) But, boy, is there outrage over random calls for the same against Trump! 

If it needs to be said, I’m no less dismayed at the current invocations of violence toward Trump than I’ve been about those against President Obama. I hate seeing peaceful protest devolve into destruction and looting. But I also hate, and fear even more, hearing the execrable Sheriff Clarke, a rumored candidate for DHS under Donald Trump, saying demonstrations should be quashed because there’s “no excuse” for protesting “the will of the people.” This he said when the protests were peaceful, and when the will of the people was heading toward (now surpassing) a million more votes for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. 

“Get over it, you lost,” say people who never got over Barack Hussein Obama. Because we’re Americans and the people have spoken, they demand without irony, we must come together for Trump in ways they never did for Obama. Yes, “Not my president” signs are annoying, just as they’ve been during the past eight years. And Californians’ calls for secession are as ridiculous as Texans’ a few years earlier. (I’d miss California, though, especially if movie prices went higher.) 

Many have felt legitimate outrage as protest demonstrations turned violent. I abhor riots, too, whether by lefties or in cities whose team won for their fans some sort of self-worth-affirming game played with air-filled or solid objects of various shapes. But I’d like to hear demands from those same furious folk for an end to the ever-growing number of incidents of sickening hate against people of color, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, and others who wear headgear without bills. Until I do, it won’t be easy to “get over it.” (Yes, a Trump supporter was beaten. Equally inexcusable, and happily rare.) 

I concede that Donald Trump will be my president. If I’m right, that portends disappointment not just for me, but for supporters who convinced themselves his mendacious and tyrannical inclinations weren’t a deal-breaker. He’s been back and forth already on his “Day One” promises. He’s “draining the swamp” by putting its dankest, including lobbyists and bankers, on his transition team and considering them for his cabinet. They’ve already warned us to think twice before criticizing him. (Have I mentioned gulags lately?) Denying the win won’t help. Vigilance might, assuming ordinary citizens will remain unafraid to speak out.  

It’s unprecedented and understandably frustrating that the electoral vote winner has lost the popular vote by such a huge margin. But it’s the law. Ironically, the Electoral College was designed to prevent the election of an authoritarian but superficial, conspiracy-promoting demagogue like Donald Trump. Citizens would, the framers agreed, elect a handful of people specifically tasked with choosing a president. Those sober men, removed from “tumult and disorder,” “heats and ferments” would name “a man ... in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” They had no idea. Back then Sean Hannity went town to town on horseback. 

But here we are. Donald Trump is our president-elect. Contra mounting evidence, I hope he’ll be a far better one than the man he’s been throughout his life, and than the people he’s gathering close. If so, I’ll revise my opinion. Till then, here’s a proposition for Trumpophiles: I stop riots, you stop abuse of racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities. And we agree to stand together if we see dictatorship arising. Because if Donald Trump really is the narcissistic, vengeful, autocrat he seems, preserving democracy will require bipartisan resistance.

[Image from somewhere on Facebook]

Weak Tea

Why aren't the teabaggers, so suspicious of government intrusion, outraged? Could it be that they have no actual principles?

In my local paper the other day -- so far north from the fray that our Latino gardeners, roofers, guys hanging at Home Depot in the morning, don't seem worried at all -- was a letter to the editor. "Excuse me" if I don't have sympathy for the Arizona illegals, he said, with me paraphrasing. A former legal immigrant himself, now a citizen, he'd dutifully carried his green card with him at all times, in those bygone days. So, he says, what's the big deal?

Hey, it's not a big deal for actual illegals, I guess. Illegal is illegal. But here's the thing, as I understand it: police are charged with stopping anyone about whom there might be a "reasonable" suspicion of their illegality. Based on shoes, evidently. Thus identified, and absent "papers," they can be taken to jail and, if found later to be on the up and up, the gathered up are still responsible for legal costs. So it's not about illegals after all. It's about legals. And citizens. And everyone with dark dermis and felonious footwear. You damn better have your papers.

So what would you carry? Passport? Birth certificate? Everywhere? Would you? I wouldn't, and I'd be pissed if I thought I had to. So, you'd think, would the bag-dippers. Who's next, they like to ask. Okay, yeah: they're about concentration camps and stealing your kids and other made-up stuff, and this is real; but it shouldn't be that much of a leap... This is police state stuff, isn't it? The very thing over which they get out their crayons. I'm fine with controlling illegal immigration. But is this the way? Every time we get scared, must we give up more rights? And the thing is, most actual citizens would have a much harder time with "proof" than immigrants -- legals of whom will have papers, and illegals of whom might well have printed some nice ones up. So, who gets screwed?

Of course there are solutions. All we need to do is re-legalize implanting chips, and we're cool.

[Having written the above, I read an opinion piece in the NYT that takes significant exception to much of the popular characterization of the law. Maybe it's just a no-nonsense piece of smart legislation. On the other hand, Arizona is not exactly known for its sanity; and even a Bush is unhappy with the law. In Forbes Magazine, hardly a liberal bastion, this article asks the same question I did above: where's the conservative outrage? Especially since the law makes Arizona like France.]

Call It What It Is

The thing that knows no bounds. Congressional Rs, the RWS™, and all those that believe them are in an uproar over the possible use of a legislative technique called "self-executing" something or other. It's unconstitutional, they roar. Except when THEY used it themselves (35 times), and the Ds claimed it was unconstitutional, it went to court. And was found constitutional. Of course, there's also the fact that anger is easy; understanding is hard.

I'm not saying hypocrisy is the domain of a single party. It's just that the Rs do things they decried in the past with a level of abandon never before seen, rousing their receptive rabble, ignoring their own past without an iota of shame. Counting on the willful ignorance of their followers, they know they'll get away with it. As can easily be confirmed in the darkest recesses of comment threads even here, there's no chance their true believers will recall (or even check) what happened in that dim past... of the last administration. With the impunity that springs from the support of the unquestioning, they prevaricate with the passion of the possessed.

By hypocrisy.

At least when Nancy Pelosi lies, she blinks a lot.

Feasting On Word Salad

I'm reprinting below an entire post from one of the best political blogs, Washington Monthly. (Happily, it also links to another, Talking Points Memo, about which the same can be said. Both are partisan, but serious and factual journalism, with in-depth reporting on many issues.) Amusing, it is. And entirely accurate, it would seem.

UPDATING OUR POLITICAL DICTIONARIES.... Josh Marshall had a very short itemthe other day that I've been meaning to mention. He was helping readers understand the new political "lexicon."

"Jamming it through": to vote on a bill.

It got me thinking about how we should all update our understandings of political terms that had fairly straightforward definitions up until fairly recently.

"Obstructionism," for example, only refers to Democratic minorities opposing Republican proposals.

"Tyranny" is found when an elected Democratic majority passes legislation that Republicans don't like.

"Reconciliation" describes a Senate process that Republicans are allowed to use to overcome Democratic "obstructionism."

"Terrorism" refers to acts of political violence committed by people who aren't white guys.

"Bipartisanship" is found when Democrats agree to pass Republican legislation.

"Big government" describes a dangerous phenomenon to be avoided, except in cases relating reproductive rights or gays.

"Treason" refers to Democrats criticizing a Republican administration during a war.

"Patriotism" refers to Republicans criticizing a Democratic administration during a war.

"Fiscal responsibility" is a national priority related to keeping our budget in check, which only applies when Republicans are in the minority.

"Parliamentarian" is a seemingly independent official on the Hill who Senate Republicans are allowed to fire when the GOP disapproves of his/her rulings.

Terrorisn't

Guy hates government, is pissed at the IRS, goes on a suicide mission, killing and maiming others on the way. Not terrorism. Not in any way related to the pollution effluxing hourly from Fox "news" and other RWS™. (In fact, to the extreme right wing, he's a hero.)

Woman with a history of violence kills colleagues over being denied tenure. She's a liberal. So are the people she killed. Fox "news" blames it on liberalism. Silent, so far as I've heard, on whether it's terrorism. (Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd assume someone there thinks it is.)

Man murders doctor who performs abortions, to save babies and send a warning to others. Not terrorism.

Doctor with mental health issues murders fellow soldiers, is a Muslim. Terrorism.

Doesn't it seem the definition is a bit loose? User dependent? Should we just say terrorism is any act of violence committed by a Muslim? Should we add, parenthetically, that violence committed by liberals is ideological and influenced by "their" media, while the same act committed by a right-winger is an individual act with no greater implications? Or might we just allow that it's whatever the namer thinks it is, depending on political agenda and point trying to be made?

Meanwhile, conservatives are getting a good laugh over the airplane incident, while signing on with, and encouraging more of the same.

How Things Change

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Gun Show - Barrel Fever
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Recently watching, as is my wont, The Daily Show, I saw a bit that bears repeating. Today, people are bringing guns -- pistols, assault rifles -- to presidential town meetings. Remember back in Days o' Bush, when a couple was arrested for wearing T-shirts? Arrested. T-shirts.

I wonder if the same people defending the right to bring guns to presidential events were outraged at the arrest of that couple? You know: those right wing lovers of free speech and gun rights as long as the words and bullets are aimed appropriately. Anyone remember right-sided outrage over the arrest that previous time? I don't. Rush, Bill, Shawn, Ann? Nazi-fearing Glenn? Any of them? Nor do I have a minimicronanoliter of doubt that had the gun-toters been arrested, every one of the aforementioned would still be screaming, into the long dark night.

When, exactly, did the world stop making sense?
.

Death Panels

Surprise! It's a Republican idea.
.

Lady Justice

To the extent that I've been able to stand it, I've been watching the Sotomayor hearings. I couldn't watch much of the first day, when the august Senators spoke numbingly to their respective bases; but the questioning on day two has been interesting. Being a proud Agno/Atheo-American of Caucaso-Judeo heritage, I have some certainty that my opinions are worthy.

Much is made of the "empathy" trope; in fact, I wrote about it in disagreement with President Obama. More is made of the "wise Latina" comments. And whereas it seems as clear as fine crystal that Judge Sotomayor's decisions have been based on existing law (and that, as far as I can tell, she's far less of a judicial activist than Scalia, Roberts, Alito, whose opinions are full of rationalization that have nothing to do with law), I do think there are interesting questions at hand.

Why is it that the Supreme Court, charged with interpreting and applying law, so often provides diametrically split decisions? And why is it nearly always predictable on which side of a case a given Justice will come down?

Clearly, "the law" isn't clear. If it were, there'd be no reason for judges. Even more clearly, people look at a set of facts and draw different conclusions. Invading Iraq was a brilliant idea, it was the worst decision any president has ever made. It's made us safer, it's weakened us tragically. Universal health care is a right, it's a privilege. Deficits are necessary at the moment, they will send us to ruin. Senator Kyl asked Judge Sotomayor if she'd ever made a decision for which she hadn't found a legal basis but relied, instead, on her "heart." (The context was his derision at President Obama's statement that 95% of the time the law gives you the answer, but 5% of the time you must rely on your gut, or heart, or whatever body part is most appropriate.) No, was her answer. As, I'm certain, would be Justice Thomas's regarding his lone dissent in a recent 8 - 1 court decision.

In saying what he said, and in her comments about her gender and ethnicity, President Obama and Judge Sotmayor were stating the obvious. "Obvious," however, and "uncontroversial" are far from the same thing. Nor, as we see hourly in our political discourse, are complex points -- ones that can't be reduced to five words and put on a bumper -- regularly submitted to deep thought. When the law is less than black and white (stop for a red light, go on green vs. "unreasonable" search and seizure, for example), people will differ. There's the 5%: when you must apply judgment and insight. Which comes -- ta da! -- from one's background and experiences. Hardly, it seems to me, the bailiwick of liberals any more than conservatives. And yet, here we are, listening to drivel from our elected officials. (Some of whom, it should be said, don't even try to hide the fact that they're applying a double standard.)

There's an implication, here, that others have stated better than I: white Christian heterosexual maleness is the "norm," the baseline, the objective standard. Neutrality. It's only those who differ from those descriptions that have prejudices or "agendas." And yet, Antonin Scalia and David Souter, both of whom are in the preceding categories, reliably disagree almost always. Maybe we need to add "conservative." Guess so.

What poppyphallus!

We are who we are: the sum of family, life experiences, genetics, upbringing, schooling, uncountable other influences. To say otherwise is to deny reality; even dumber, perhaps, than insisting our planet is 6000 years old. If two highly educated and intelligent Justi can look at a case before the Supreme Court and come to opposite conclusions, how else to explain it, at least in part, than by preconceptions and prejudices, by their singular world-view? And why the assumption that the only people who assess facts based on the totality of their experiences are, by definition, non-white, non-male, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, non-conservatives? It's simply a foolish proposition.

The difference between Sonia Sotomayor and the other justices now sitting is that she goes into it with a far greater judicial record than any of them had when nominated. It is, in fact, apparent, that she is a judge's judge. She's like my dad was: an applier of relevant law to the facts at hand. She's the opposite of a judicial activist. If, off the bench, she's said some controversial things, they most clearly are NOT reflected in her cases. Nor ought they be considered as controversial as some claim.

If the definition of judicial activism is going beyond law to advance an agenda, and if one measure of that is the striking down of existing laws and statutes, then the current court's conservatives are far more activist than the liberals. I'm probably not the best judge of the validity of such a standard; nevertheless, it's simply false on its face to suggest that there is a class of people -- any class -- who, by default and definition, embodies a form of intellectual purity from which all others diverge.

The Explanation

Isn't it obvious? I'm waiting for someone to say it.





It's all those gays getting married!!

Hypocrisy 101

"[W]hen a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

"And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result. But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, 'You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.' ...

"When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

Well, that about settles it for me. This is empathy gone too far. I'm afraid I have to agree with the Republicans on this one. We can't have justices thinking this way, and they're right to have screamed bloody murder...

Excuse me, what? It was... who? In response to a prompting by which senator? Alito? Coburn? It wasn't... y'know, that Mexican girl?

Sorry.

Never mind.

Rhetorical Question

Or maybe I should make it some sort of office-pool equivalent:

When Obama's Supreme Court nomination goes forward, how many of the Republicans who demanded "up or down vote" for Bush's nominees will, this time around, opt for filibuster?

1. Every damn one of them.
2. Three quarters of them.
3. Over half.
4. Less than half.
5. None. They're people of high principle.
   

There was a time, when the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, when Bush was president, that Republicans screamed bloody murder every time the Ds threatened filibuster. Now that the tables are turned, the Rs have gone to it more often than at any time in history.

So mine is choice #2, but #1 wouldn't surprise me even a little.


.

Told 'Ya

Demagogue AIG? Lie about it? Use it to try to take down Obama?

John Kyl (R-Hypocrisy) decried using AIG for political purposes. That was a couple of days ago. This was today. And here's a rare admission that it has nothing to do with fairness or facts.

Frankly, I think the White House and many Congressional Democrats have mishandled it as well. There was an argument to be made that the bonuses had to be paid, by contract. In fact, while driving to a lecture by Scott Simon while listening to NPR (thereby doubly showing my liberal credentials), I heard someone being interviewed who explained:

The money in question was in the form of "retention bonuses." Those occur, so he said, when a company is in trouble and is worried about losing key people. They offer a specific amount of money to be paid if the person stays with the company for a specified period of time. Common practice in certain circumstances, he explained. The payouts were not tied to performance (there were contractual performance bonuses as well, which were NOT paid); rather, they were in the form of a contract, signed, sealed, delivered, to certain people, who did what it was they agreed to do; namely, they stayed. Nor is it, this apparent expert stated, unusual to leave after the contractual time is up: after all, the company would likely be in the dumps. Better prospects elsewhere. Finally, these contracts were made before the government money was received; or so I recall.

I wish this had all been clearly laid out by the White House, and let the chips fall. Had they done so, I have no doubt the people of ill intent (i.e., the entire Congressional Republican gang and their screaming supporters) would still have lied, cried, and tied up the process. John Kyl would still be a hypocritical assh*le. (How can politicians like him do that: say one thing one day and completely another on another? Without batting an eye or showing the least bit of embarrassment? Their perfidy knows no bounds, quite literally.) But it would have been cleaner.

As it is, marshalling all their cynical self-interest and abject mendacity -- which they have in shameless and unrepentant abundance -- the minority party will use this tempest to try to bring down the president, and lots of people, eager for simple focus, will eat it up. Just as I said.

.

We Have Our Answer

The other day I asked a "quick question." It's not as if I didn't know the answer.

Well, that's how they think, folks: if it's good, we get the credit; if it's bad, they get the blame. It were ever thus. At least since Bush took office.

.

Sow's Ear

Over the years, in local papers, I've seen many a story announcing that Senator or Representative Soandso secured some money to restore a bridge, build a park, whatever. Don't recall angry letters in response. I bet you could say the same.

I think the record will show I've never railed against earmarks in this blog except, perhaps, to have pointed out Sarah Palin's hypocrisy on the matter. The fact is, getting federal money into their districts is what politicians of all flavors do; it's expected by their constituents, and it gets them reelected. Nor is it in all ways a bad thing: without taking the time to look up a bunch of them, things we call earmarks aren't universally frivolous, at least not always, not by definition. Still, when I heard the president's budget (as opposed to the stimulus plan) contains "9,000 earmarks," I didn't like it. Even when I heard 40% of the earmarks are claimed by Republicans, and even though they represent less than 1% of the money in the bill.

It's like a gimme to John McCain, who leapt at the opportunity. Even though I'm quite certain many of the projects receiving money are worthy, like the tattoo removal program I already mentioned, I think it looks bad. The inference from the preceding link -- and I feel sure it's true -- is that Obama was pressured by Reid and Pelosi to keep them in. It's their lifeblood. And the President needs to work with them, as have all presidents with all Congri. (Meanwhile, of course, the Republican earmarkers get a free ride: McCain's most righteous anger was aimed at the President; his compatriots who wrote the bill and/or presumed on the writers, not so much.) We'll never know (thankfully), but I have a hard time believing a President McCain would have succeeded in eliminating earmarks. He said he'd veto any bill containing them; but if he did, do you think his future agenda would be well-received? Can you say "stalemate?" Bush made a couple of feeble attempts, too, and was soundly rejected by Congressional Republicans. It's the air they breathe.

During the campaign, McCain highhorsed against earmarks as if they embodied everything that ails the economy, as did Palin (she, the successful seeker thereof). Get rid of them, and everything else will be fine (especially when "the fundamentals of the economy are strong.") Because no one ever really challenged the concept, the idea of earmarks as bad and bedevilled has stood, unanalyzed. It's easy pickings for the reflexively offended. And it's perfect campaign fodder: over-simplified and under-stood.

It would be a service to the country, if for no other reason than to eliminate at least one of a million or so annoying campaign issues, if there were an actual honest discussion about earmarks, by the people who produce and receive them. My guess is that for the vast majority, there are strong advocates at home, and good reasons. Unless both parties and the people who elect them agree that the only money government should spend is on big-picture items -- interstate roads, bombs, social security, etc -- (and it's not as if an argument can't be made), then I vote for removing the term from the vernacular.

Everybody likes earmarks, except when they're going to someone else.

Update, 3/6:



.

Family Style

Nothing wrong with a little fluff once in a while, right? That would be the birth of Sarah Palin's grandson, aptly named Tripp. During the campaign, this unwed teen pregnancy; this "choice," as it was called, to have the baby; this product of a household that believes in abstinence-only sex education; this blessed event was trotted out and ballyhooed by the McCain campaign as some sort of symbol of real America. The young man who uncondomated the relationship was greeted personally by John McCain, full frontal, at some airport, like a concubining hero. Way to go, champ. My kinda guy, heh, heh.

So I found the official statehouse response to the birthing amusing. "No comment." "A private family matter." Private, suddenly, after playing it like a ten-cent peepshow? Private? As in selling the photos to the highest bidder. (300K, or not, any bets that there won't be a sale?)

They do hypocrisy big, in the biggest state.

.

Do As We Say...

So Congress, having bailed on the auto bailout, is giving itself a pay raise. With the words of railing against UAW salaries still warm in their mouths, they said "aye" to their own pocketbooks. Without, one would assume, a second -- or first -- thought. To save the auto industry and the economy, congressionalists (especially, exclusively pretty much, the Republican variety) demanded auto workers accept less money, or no deal. People are losing jobs by the boat-load; others are seeing wages or hours cut; awash in public debt, we hover at the very brink. Yet those tone-deaf and self-serving politicians don't even have the decency to be embarrassed. I doubt it even occurred to them.

I suppose I could laugh. I guess I could just say, "So what's new?" Politicians saying one thing and doing another? Using crisis to push a partisan agenda while ignoring the implications for the country as a whole? Looking out for themselves while screwing everyone else? This is news? Blogworthy?

Not to the extent that it would change anything. One by one those smug Republican senators got up and claimed that auto workers (who already had agreed to many cutbacks and revisions of contracts) and their salaries were the problem. How selfish of those unions continually to demand more! In these dire days!! How unAmerican. How...

What's that you say? Time to vote ourselves a pay raise? Gotta go.

.

Conscience of a Conservative

In merely the latest outgoing outrage wreaked by the trasher-in-chief, George makes yet another move toward theocracy. In doing so, he -- and those into whose recti he's inserted his head (most especially his own) -- has once again revealed the hypocrisy that is the religious right.

"The Right of Conscience Rule," is what it's called. If your feelings are hurt, it says, or if you see something that offends your religious beliefs, you don't have to participate. Boo fricking hoo.

Evidently it takes 127 pages to codify such a thing, and I'm damned (no doubt!) if I'm gonna plow through the whole tract. Clearly it's an anti-abortion effort; but it evidently extends to providing birth control, or information, or, I'd assume, anything that might relate to premarital sex, gay relationships. With no obvious endpoint. In short, pretty much anything. Janitors? Sweep the floor of a classroom in which evolution is taught?? As if!!!!

Here's the hypocrisy (well, including, but not limited to...): when a soldier refused to go to Iraq because he believed the war was illegal, the right wing bloviators all but exploded on air. Exophthalmos. Aneurysms aplenty. "HE SIGNED UP FOR IT!!!," they ejaculated. "HE VOLUNTEERED!!! YOU GONNA BE A SOLDIER, YOU TAKE IT LIKE A MAN!!," they certaintated, from their non-volunteering, sand-free studios.

I respect religious beliefs. (Well, actually, there are many I don't respect at all: those that require a person to reject the most real of reality; and those that lead people to harm others. Which, sadly, are pretty inclusive categories. But I digress...) More accurately, I respect the right of people to have those beliefs, and, insofar as they don't harm the rest of us, to follow them as they choose. If eating meat offends me, I'd not work in a butcher shop. If I believed pigs aren't kosher, I wouldn't buy a ham sandwich.* If I were a pacifist, I'd avoid signing up for the military (although I could see doing so with a guarantee of not having to kill someone; maybe, say, in the medical corps.)

So, fine: don't wanna hand out BCPs? Don't be a pharmacist. Don't wanna clean up after abortions? Work in a bank, ferchrissakes! Because, where does it end? Does an evangelical firefighter not rescue a gay couple from a burning building? May a Christian cop refuse to protect them? Teachers opt out of teaching science? See, it's like I've been saying: to the extent that religion slops over into public life as policy, it's a pernicious influence that threatens to tear us down. When the line between personal belief -- which, by definition, is the cleaving to the unknowable and the unprovable and which, therefore, ought to be kept within one's breast -- and public policy is crossed, we are at risk of ceasing to function.

Conscience is one thing. (Notice the word at its heart: science.) I'd argue that we indeed have one, based on the evolution of the need for cooperation and community as elements of protection and procreation. I know right from wrong, and I didn't have to study the Bible to figure it out. This bill isn't about conscience. It's about religion, which is entirely different, and, in this instance, destructive. The thing is, even as it becomes more obvious, it becomes more prevalent. Christian cries of persecution to the contrary, they're taking over everything and everywhere, breaking us apart.

It must be nice to believe in the Rapture. They're gonna need it.
________________________

*Reminds me of one of my grandpa's (Jewish, need I say?) favorite stories: Jewish guy is traveling across the country from New York, stops in a cafe in Texas, sits at the counter. Cowboy type next to him says, "Howdy, stranger, where ya from?" "New York," says the traveler, a little nervous. "Well, hell, then, let me buy you a beer," handing him a bottle. "I'm sorry," says the Jewish guy, "I don't drink." "Well, okay. How 'bout having half of my ham sandwich?" "I don't eat ham," replies the poor soul. Now the Texan is getting annoyed. "Listen, stranger. Around here we don't turn down hospitality. Drink the goddam beer." "I'm really sorry, sir, but I can't." At which point the Texan pulls his gun and says, "Take the beer, you sonofabitch, and drink!" Hands shaking, the poor guy takes the beer and has a sip. "Well, then," he says, trembling. "As long as you have the gun on me, how about passing the ham sandwich?"

.