I hate being right

In my last post, I wrote about my dread about bad law resulting from a knee-jerk reaction to the Casey Anthony verdict. I hate being right.

Michelle Crowder of Durant, Oklahoma is calling for Caylee's Law, a piece of legislation that would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a missing child to law enforcement. And people are listening. Important people.
[...]
This won't help Caylee directly. But it will help America's kids.

It will help the quarter of gay teens who are kicked out of their homes by their parents simply for admitting they love someone of the same gender, kids whose parents leave them to rot on the sidewalks. As it stands, parents CAN kick their kids out, and with rules that don't require they report them missing, abdicating their duties to love and protect their children isn't a felony.
[...]
Caylee's Law, or whatever you call it, would help us make sense of how a system will punish a parent with child abuse charges for leaving children unattended for a long period of time (and rightly so!) but let a parent skate for not reporting a child missing. It can't be one but not the other, America. That's why we need a law.

Did I not tell you? Yet another law "for the children". Ye gods!

But the law of unintended consequences always rides shotgun with these kind of emotion-laded knee-jerk laws. Exhibit A: your 16-year-old daughter runs away with a musician after trying to poison you for the insurance money. You want this back in your life? You figure, "Eh, goodbye and good riddance." But if you don't report your daughter missing and take her back with open arms when she is returned by the cops, you're guilty of child abuse. Of course, if you do take her back, you'd better sleep with one eye open.....but I digress.

And where did this statistic about one quarter of gay teens being kicked out of their homes come from? Sounds fishy to me. I'd wager they're including "boy toys" who ran off with an older man who promised them goodies in exchange for butt sex in that obviously embellished tally. But that "leaving them to rot on the sidewalks" line? Priceless.

Emotions and law make bad bedfellows. But politicians pandering for your vote don't care. They'll pass whatever ridiculous law you tell them you want.

And you wonder why you are less free every day.....

Bolt shoots, bolt scores

From time to time I like to highlight the work of my favorite bloggers and columnists, particularly when they've hit upon something important or administered a particularly good beatdown on some asshat who desperately needs one.

Andrew Bolt is Australia's preeminent libertarian columnist. In this column, Andrew takes on the shrill crowd of politically correct yentas doing their damnedest to take down Miss California for the "sin" (read: thought crime) of making an anti-gay marriage statement.

While he does his usual admirable job of applying the beatdown to the appropriate parties - particularly drama QUEEN Perez Hilton - he also hit upon something that I had missed in my prior assessment of this sort of Leftist elite feeding frenzy.

You see, defending the tribe counts more than defending a principle. That is why the people tearing into Prejean refuse to say that Obama, who shares her opinion on gay marriage, is also a bitch, boob and moron who has buttock fat for brains and needs a heart transplant, the dumb bastard.

(Actually, I suspect these people excuse Obama as a liar, just saying what he must. And a liar is good, but an opponent of gay marriage evil.)

So what is this tribe that's being defended so viciously, and with such hypocrisy? It's the tribe of the Left. Of privilege, too. And patriarchy.

It's also a class - the kind of people who'd look down on a Miss USA audience, and would use the weapons of power, sex and caste to crush them in precisely the ways the Left once claimed to oppose.

We've seen this phenomenon played out before, of course, and recently.

Last year it was the turn of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, to be monstered for being a conservative woman from small-town, Christian USA.

Palin, although a successful and popular corruption-buster and Governor of Alaska, was pilloried by the largely Left media as some thick hick, with white-trash morals and ideas above her station.

Class! Of course. The snobbery of the Left knows no bounds. But Vulture! Bill Clinton was a small-town rube, and the Left LOVED him. Ah, grasshopper, but Bill Clinton also attended Georgetown, Yale, and even Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar! That's cachet, people. And Sarah Palin? A degree from the University of Idaho? And JUST a BA at that? What a rube!

Never mind that the UI educational experience is probably every bit as good as Georgetown's (I'm talking the actual classroom instruction; you don't think Georgetown's prestigious professors actually teach, do you?). It just goes to show you how shallow and petty the Left actually is. If you're (a) from money or (b) have attended one or more "prestige" universities, and you embrace the Leftist catechism, you're a member of the club; nothing you do is worthy of criticism, except, perhaps, the occasional rebuke to placate the rubes from time to time. If you do not embrace the Leftist catechism, but satisfy requirement (a) or (b), you will be criticized, perhaps even rudely, but you will not bear the full heat that those who satisfy neither (a) nor (b) will.

Oh, and don't think for one second that top-level Republicans and their spokesmonkeys in the neocon commentariate are any different. They are every bit as shallow and petty. After all, some of the most scathing criticisms of Sarah Palin came from the likes of Peggy Noonan! The Left-Center neocon wing of the GOP (you know, the group that is killing the party) is every bit as snobby as the Left.

Great catch, Andrew. And create article, as always.

Vulture Droppings - catching up

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

The past month it's been pretty hard to keep up with all of the stuff happening out there in the world. It's coming at us fast and furious, and it's not showing any signs of let up. As such, I wanted to 'drop' a bunch of items here so that I could clear some of the backlog.

---

I've made the big time. I've been added to the Voxologisti - the blogger links on Vox Popoli, Vox Day's blog. Okay, so there are about 100 other blogs featured there. But I'm one of them!

BTW, I can't recommend Vox Popoli strongly enough. He's always got a strong take on the issues, and it's always a great read.

---

Mark has a beef with Obama's early proclamations.

Subject: Gas

Heard on the news last night that one of Obama's 1st acts as pres. will be to overturn Bush's efforts to explore and drill for more oil & natural gas. Hello $5.00 gasoline and higher utility rates!! Boy I love Lefties!!!

I hadn't heard about this. I did a quick web-blast, and found stories saying that BHO was "considering" overturning this edict of the Rex Americana. To me, it seems that BHO is following in the footsteps of the Clintons by sending up trial balloons to see exactly what he can get away with. If there isn't a general public outcry about a particular "balloon", he'll know that it's something he can get away with.

Another trial balloon floating about is in regards to the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. I want to emphasize in the strongest possible language that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine, coupled with the extraordinary powers now vested in the Office of the President thanks to King George the Dim, could very likely spell the end of freedom of speech in this country. Don't think that the Lefties will limit its implementation to just TV and radio -- the Internet will be included, too -- maybe not right away, but eventually.

For a guy who's supposed to be a visionary and a uniter, he's sure quick to embrace (a) rule by edict, (b) sneaky Clintonista tactics, and (c) suppression of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Whether it's King George the Dim doing it, or BHO doing it, rule by Executive Order runs contrary to everything our founding fathers believed in. The fact that he's already deciding which edicts he will issue two months before he takes office leads me to believe that he'll follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and use the Constitution as toilet paper.

---

dw also chimes in, on a different theme. This was obviously written before I had a chance to review the game.

Subject: WTF VULTURE

A Monday night like no other. Yes, I am talking the 9ers. OMG, were they something else. Down to the last 4 seconds. Oh, I forgot, you Eastern sleepy heads were fast asleep while this loyal fan in AZ watched the whole firggin game. A disappointment - NO!! I love Singletary - He walks the sidelines with AUTHORITY! I like the Cards since moving here but THE 9ERS LIVE ON and on my walls. So sad to see the Vulture swooped right over that one. Hey Vulture, take time to smell the desert. Great game and actually some hope for my beloved 9ers!!!

dw, I couldn't agree with you more. Yes, the result of the game was disappointing. But you can see a palpable difference in the attitudes of the players. Their attitudes are starting to mirror the attitude of the Head Coach. Mike Singletary is a man among men, a giant, a legend of the game of professional football. I love what he is doing with the team. I think that, ultimately, after he's done making all of his rookie coaching mistakes, he'll end up being one of the top-notch Head Coaches in the league. Mark. My. Words.

The Niners, like the South, shall rise again!

---

Have you noticed the slew of articles pointing out that there is zero accountability over the financial bail-out money being distributed hither-and-yon to Friends of Henry Paulson, Inc? Have you noticed that, rather than purchasing the worthless mortgages from financial institutions, as Congress had promised they would do when they passed that steaming pile of legislation, they are, instead, purchasing stock in the financial institutions themselves? I wish I was making that up. I really do.

Fascist economics: Fascists believe in joint ownership of business/industry between private interests and the government, or private ownership with government oversight of said businesses.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

---

Last item: the people who are constantly telling us how bigoted and intolerant we are seem to think its okay to threaten and harass those whose viewpoints don't match their own.

Letters containing a suspicious white powder were sent Thursday to Mormon temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City that were the sites of protests against the church's support of California's gay marriage ban.

The temple in the Westwood area of Los Angeles was evacuated before a hazardous materials crew determined the envelope's contents were not toxic, said FBI spokesman Jason Pack.

The temple in downtown Salt Lake City, where the church is based, received a similar envelope containing a white powder that spilled onto a clerk's hand.

Let's just imagine, if you will, that the roles were reversed. Let's imagine that Prop 8 had WON, and the Mormons were picketing and heckling the gays. Then a package of white powder is received by a gay organization, requiring evacuation of the building and perhaps immediate medical attention for the poor clerk who opened the package. Under those conditions, would the news story have been buried about 12 column inches down the page on the Drudge Report? Or would it have been the headline? Would it be completely ignored by the websites of ABC news, CBS news, and NBC news? Would it be ignored by CNN.com, and hidden in the 'US news' page on MSNBC.com? Because that's the treatment the story of the Mormon temples receiving white powder is receiving as of 2:30 EST today.

I'm just saying...

Wiener of the Month - June

OMG! How in the world could I have forgotten to name a WotM for June? I guess July just sort of snuck up on me or something.

There wasn't any one stand-out candidate last month, but these clowns are probably more deserving of the award than anyone else. I speak, of course, of Mr.-and-Mr. Orombi-Williams, the two Anglican priest who "married" this past month.

Never mind that their calling as ministers of Jesus Christ is to magnify Him. No, these asshats are in the business of magnifying the gay agenda while tearing apart their denomination (which, given its focus on social issues as opposed to, say, the Gospel, might not be such a bad thing).

Mr.-and-Mr. Orombi-Williams -- you are the Wieners of the Month for June! Congrats (I think).

As The Anglican Church Turns

When I think of liberal Christian theology, the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church is the first to pop into my mind. Whether it be gay priests, or gay marriage, they're at the forefront of being trendy rather than boldly magnifying our Lord.

Now two Anglican priests have married. Huzzah, huzzah.

Two male priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites – a decision seen as blasphemous by conservatives.

The ceremony broke Church of England guidelines and was carried out last month in defiance of the Bishop of London, in whose diocese it took place. News of the "wedding" emerged days before a crucial summit of the Anglican Church's conservative bishops and archbishops, who are threatening to split the worldwide Church over the issue of homosexual clergy.

Why is it that those who oppose turning their church into "singles night at the gay bar" are labeled "conservatives", which, in Liberal-speak means "those holding back progress"? How about maybe they simply wish to live within Biblical guidelines?

Now, mind you, I'm of the opinion, as a practicing libertarian, that when it comes to marriage, people can do whatever they like, and the government can call marriage anything it likes. It doesn't make it "marriage" in the eyes of God...but it's a nice social contract. After all, the only definition of marriage that really matters is the one from Genesis: one man, one woman, one lifetime.

Neither am I particularly offended by homosexuality nor homosexuals (the non-strident ones, anyway). I see homosexuality as a sin no more offensive to God than adultery, fornication, serial lying, stealing, hate, or pornography. As Jesus said, break one part of the Law and you've broken it all. And I have my own sins to deal with; I haven't the time nor the energy to sit around and judge others for theirs.

Vox Day sums up the libertarian view of government involvement in marriage quite nicely.

Being a libertarian, I see no reason why the government should be involved in any way with the private social contracts written between individuals. Marriage is no more subject to legal definition than friendship; what passes for government-defined "marriage" is no more marriage than a fish is a frog. A marriage license is simply a binding legal contract between three parties that happens to share a name with the ancient institution. The state governments didn't even control the licensing until 1853, so either no one was legally married in America before then or there is a complete distinction between marriage and the tripartite legal institution that was redefined [May 15th] in California.

But Vulture, this isn't an issue dealing with government involvement in marriage, so why even bring that up? I bring it up to show you where I'm coming from, so that when I speak out against these showboating Anglican priests, you'll have a context within which to understand my views, and also so that I can't simply be labeled and ignored by asshat liberals.

This is typical of the agenda of strident gay militancy. They're not content with gay people being left alone. They're not content with gay people being tolerated, or even treated as "normal" (whatever THAT is). No, they've got to be in your face 24/7, rubbing your nose in their stridency.

This "marriage" is both a publicity stunt and a way to poke the "conservative" Anglicans in the eye. These "progressives" WANT to trigger a crisis within the Church in order to assure that THEIR AGENDA is the CHURCH'S agenda. They don't care if the "conservative" Anglicans break away and form a new church; they'd be peachy-keen all kinda happy with that. All that matters to them is that they get what they want.

So to Mr.-and-Mr. Orombi-Williams I say this: Nice stunt. But does it magnify Jesus? I mean, isn't THAT what you are supposed to be doing as ministers? Hmmm?