Hence, the less government we have, the better,–the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation. – Ralph Waldo Emerson
Writer Neil Gaiman is promoting a new campaign called All Hallows Read, and it’s easy to participate; all you have to do is give somebody a scary book for Halloween. That’s it. No forms to fill out, no signs to carry, no rhetoric to spew; just give someone – anyone – a book. He talks about it a little in the first video below, while a suitably seasonal tableau unfolds behind him. He also provided the first link below the video and this 2004 essay on one of his favorite films, which also happens to be one of mine. Every link between this paragraph and the first video was provided by the indefatigable Radley Balko, and those between the two videos arrived courtesy of Gaiman, Brooke Magnanti, Mike Siegel, Amy Alkon, Marty Klein, Franklin Harris, Aspasia and Chi Mgbako, in that order. The second video, which comes to us via Marc Randazza, features the Reverend Dr. Phil Snyder making a Biblical argument on a gay rights ordinance in Springfield, Missouri; make sure you watch it all the way to the end. Finally, the link just after the essay by Ken White of Popehat was also provided by Ken.
- I’m sure everyone will agree that a young man’s life and the enormous settlement this is going to cost the taxpayers are not too high a price to pay for keeping people from the dreadful crime of possessing leaves.
- Detroit cops murder one caged dog and two fleeing ones, just for fun.
- A Chinese herbal medicine may yield a potent anti-cancer drug.
- The recrudescence of the concept of “sedition”.
- Welcome to our world, Houston drivers.
- I call Poe on this.
- Instant karma.
- UK cop tases blind man, claiming to have mistaken his cane for a katana.
- The 17th-century precursor of Snopes, Mythbusters & The Straight Dope.
- Another letter from a favorite author, this time Edgar Rice Burroughs.
- Oregon woman’s hamster taken into protective custody.
- French condom ads are definitely creative, if vulgar.
- This could be the start of a wonderful trend.
- Calling all night owls.
- Baby steps.
- Cop threatened to arrest 17-year-old boy and “ruin his life” unless the boy gave him a blow job; state allowed him to plead guilty to “bribery”.
- Ken White on recent events involving Reddit, Gawker and anonymity.
- Texas game warden “investigates” man who ate a dead bird.
- When madmen rule, only comedy dares to speak the truth.
- Why firing a bad cop is damn near impossible.
- Good riddance to bad rubbish.
“UK cop tases blind man, claiming to have mistaken his cane for a katana.”
Inferring from their behaviour, wherein they become altogether militant towards non-threatening objects and people, the rates of psychotic symptoms and sadism must be ridiculous.
Well, to be fair, they’ve been taught to regard pictures, normal behavior, common weeds and even words as evil and threatening to their power; in order to believe anything so ridiculous one pretty much has to become psychotic if one isn’t to start.
Just a point or two on gay “marriage”.
First – I have no problem with it … gays should be allowed to marry. Hell, I heard of a woman who wanted to marry a roller coaster – what the hell? I have no problem with it. You can’t legislate against against stupidity so why try?
Having said that … same sex “marriage” is NOT “marriage”. Sorry, but we have a millennia of data going back to the first humans who stood erect and, from that time, “marriage” has always meant “man and woman”. Same sex relationships were referred to as something other – by another term … but not by the term “marriage”.
“Sky Blue” has a meaning – it’s the color of “sky blue”. It’s not the color purple – purple is something … other.
It’s the same with same sex unions. I’ll never personally refer to them as marriages and no one can make me (nanny nanny boo boo!).
However, I DO recognize that there is a scientific basis for the existence of homosexuality – and I don’t think homosexuals should be punished for their sexual orientation. I just don’t think that refusing to define a word is “punishment”.
But … just as I am ANTI-ABORTION personally, and still support PRO-CHOICE as the appropriate legal status for abortion …
I am personally against redefining marriage (and no one can make me change that) … however, I DO think that gays should be allowed to call their unions whatever they want. My only reaction to the change will be the same reaction I have to those who teach creationsim …
a giggle.
What about man and many women is that marriage?
Why do you give a shit about the semantics?
Why do you give a shit about my personal thinking? Why is THAT important to you?
See – I wrote this deliberately to be provocative on this subject because I knew my THINKING on this would be attacked instead of my position.
MY POSITION – is that gays should be allowed to marry … I’ll support that, I’ll march for that … I’ll vote for pols who support that. Why then – does the rest of my THINKING on this subject interest you in the least?
I believe that Homosexuals are born that way – I see no reason to torment them for the way nature wired them. I don’t think they should be discriminated against in any way … so 90% of my opinion is on track with yours.
But because you don’t agree with the “semantic” that I personally will never call same sex unions a “marriage” – you’re ready to throw me into the dumpster!
Which means … you’re more interested in changing my thinking than you are in having my support.
Let’s all remember this the next time we talk about others who want to “control thoughts” … we should always look into the mirror to see if we, ourselves, are guilty of it.
Really marriage today is so divorced from it’s historical legal and cultural meaning you should probably only use the term “heterosexual unions,” though for the sake of simplicity and equality we might as well just say “partnership”. People may wish they had something more than just a partnership, but for the most part they actually have something less than that.
>Sorry, but we have a millennia of data going back to the first humans who stood erect and, from that time, “marriage” has always meant “man and woman”.
Are you so sure of that?
I can’t say for sure what hunter/gatherers did, as they didn’t leave many records. But in early human times, marriage has often been between a man and a number of women. As often, it’s been really between families, to merge property, and the wishes of the woman involved were secondary, if they mattered at all.
Marriage, or union, should be between any two consenting, capable adults. (Capable I suppose is too high a bar, and would leave many out.)
I can agree with polygamous marriage since, historically, it was a widespread practice. So yes I would consider a “marriage” between one man and multiple women a “marriage” or “marriages” – what have you.
I remember in catechism one day, a nun telling me that she was “married to Jesus” … sorry sister, but I don’t buy it.
My thinking on gay marriage has nothing to do with christian or religious teachings. It has to do with vocabulary – and what certain words mean. When I see an attempt to “redefine” a word by a certain political lobby – I might find reason within my libertarian thinking to allow them the right to do it – but I reserve my right to adopt the “re-definition” as my own and, in this case – I won’t.
It doesn’t hurt me in the slightest if gays call their unions marriages – so I’m fine with them doing so.
It doesn’t hurt gays – or anyone else – if I refuse to personally use the word “marriage” when speaking of gay unions – I think I should be allotted the same leeway here.
Why did I start this line of thinking in this thread?
Because of the ridiculous rantings of a preacher in one of the YouTube links where he uses the Bible to justify persecution of homosexuals. Our side, will use this guy to paint the entire opposition to gay marriage as being religiously based, based in homophobia, etc.
But – that’s a strawman – because LOTS of people on the other side are against it for logical reasons.
Take me for instance. I think it’s ridiculous for homosexuals to call their unions “marriages”. However, my libertarian side has a very easy test …
“DOES ALLOWING SOMEONE ELSE TO USE THEIR OWN DEFINITION OF TERMS HARM ME? OR ANYONE ELSE?”
My conclusion is … NO … it does not harm me – so they should have the right to do that as long they don’t take away my right to giggle at them when they refer to their “marriages”.
Were I CONSERVATIVE, and believed it proper for government to institute prohibitions in order to protect societal structures – I might very well be for using the courts and government to stop homosexuals from using the term “marriage”. But I am not a conservative and I’ve liberated my thinking and political positions to free myself from the belief that government can control people in this manner – or that it even should try.
In fact, I don’t believe the government should be “in” anything that’s called “marriage”. Call them civil unions for everyone and enforce them like a business contract. The participants in the unions can call their union whatever they wish but legally, they would all be civil unions.
Here’s the thing. At this time and in our culture (the US, I’m speaking of), marriage’s primary concrete legal function is to act as an enabling state for government services, permissions, and considerations. This applies to taxation, hospital visitation, insurance, inheritance, authority for plug-pulling and a host of similar issues.
The argument that marriage is about children is empty; you can have and raise children inside or outside of marriage; other than government involvement as noted above, there’s no difference unless you choose to create one. You can also marry (or not) and not have children; again, there’s no difference between the two states worthy of note.
Within extra-governmental society, marriage signifies commitment in the most general sense; within a religious context (if such a context is present) it may well have further non-legal meaning, but generally speaking, that meaning doesn’t extend beyond the religious group. Further, whatever opinions might be present in such a group have little to no effect upon the concrete legal benefits, or lack thereof, that accrue to one’s marital state.
These facts, taken together, indicate that the appropriate candidates for marriage are those who should rationally be qualified for the concrete legal / governmental services, permissions and considerations.
Modern thinking is that persons, without regard for race, sex, sexual preference, creed or color, are all equally valuable and should stand equally qualified in this regard.
Consequently, regardless of what marriage may have been regarded as for any particular time period in the past, the correct path *now* is clearly to eliminate the inequality created by government’s use of marriage as a qualification (for anything at all.)
There are two ways to do that.
First, one could get government out of the qualification business: simply forbid them to make any decision at all based upon marital state. This would be optimal, particularly in that it would remove the artificial prejudice against polygamy and polyandry, but in a practical sense, it’s not going to happen — just the tax issues alone would stop any such process before it got started, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how intertwined with marriage our government action and benefits stand today.
Second, we can stop artificially limiting which two consenting, informed persons may marry. This is easily done in that it would take little legislative action, upset no legislative or government-departmental apple-carts, and brings no change in concrete status or benefits to those already married. It leaves the poly-issue unresolved, but still represents a significant step forward. The door to option one isn’t closed or made more difficult, either.
Finally, I’ll address the “it’s always been that way” argument directly: For the vast majority of times past, slavery has been considered a good thing. But it wasn’t. Same problem for considering women as intellectual and workplace equals. I could go on, but I think those are sufficient to make my point:
Time in place does not, in fact, serve to validate an idea as “really how it should be.” What we need to do — in all cases — is look at whatever idea is on the table, evaluate it under the lens of our best current understanding of the best ethical practice of the day as it relates to our current legal and social structure, and act accordingly.
“Marriage” has a much older and broader history than that, and its accepted meaning is the uniting of two or more people into a family.
I see no reason why any two or more sane adults should not be allowed and encouraged to organize their lives together. It’s tempting to say that government shouldn’t even be involved in the process; that’s impractical because a large part of the point of getting married is to be considered related for the purpose of getting to take care of your loved one(s)’ affairs if they get hurt, killed, put in jail, etc. Certainly the law should not be imposing one-size-fits-all conditions on marriages, whether about community property, potential causes for divorce, child rearing, or how many people of what sexes can participate. Among truly civilized people this would not need to be said.
So in a sense, you’re like Laura, who personally wants nothing to do with prostitution and wishes it didn’t exist, but is for decriminalization because it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the government’s job to ruin people’s lives over such things?
I have my bullshit monitor finely tuned, and whenever bs appears in an article, video or whatever, it’s an instant turn off. So, when I hear “my name is the Reverend Doctor Phil Snider” I reach for the off. That phrase is not his name. At a guess, his name is “Philip”, though I’d not really object to “Philip Snider”. But “the Reverend Doctor” is not a name but titles. And if “Phil” wants to understand this better, there’s a good explanation in the conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty. [/rant]
I did watch it to the end — it was well worth it, if not for the reasons that “the Reverend Doctor Phil Snider” would have wished.
Hey! It’s National Fisting Day! Just Saying…
It’s also International Nachos Day. I don’t think I want to know about any celebrations that combine the two…
I don’t know if that ducks thing was Poe, though it seems likely. I don’t care though, because it led me to THIS, which is awesome by far:
Animals are amazing. These stories are actually common; the beasts we share our lives with are so wonderful.
Scary books for Halloween. I like it. I’m lucky to be able to buy a little candy, but this certainly goes on my “if I were a rich man (da-dee, da-dee, da-dee)” list.
UK cop tases blind man, claiming to have mistaken his cane for a katana.
Um, WHO is blind here? I note that the police have apologized and are looking at reforming their tasering policy. Well, that’s the UK for you; here the cops would still be trying to say that they were justified and making the standard “you walk those mean streets” speech to anybody who didn’t cheerlead for them.
You know, I think I like this Ackerman fellow!
French hentai for a cause! Good.
I got so caught up reading the comments for that night owl thing I forgot I was supposed to be reading stuff HERE. Some real LOL moments in those comments.
We ‘Merkins kind of admire the Brits. Oh, sure, we sneer at everybody somewhat, but we kind of like the Brits. If they decriminalized or legalized some of the less harmful drugs, it would help those in the US wanting to pursue the same reasonable course. This report they did over there could go a long way towards that.
Except that Theresa May and I suspect the rest of the politicians (there may be a couple of “kook” exceptions) seem determined to ignore it all and go right back to “gateway drug” and other such nonsense.
Amen! Reverend Snider!
You’re right, Sailor: British politicians nearly always ignore drug reports: except when the reports recommend increased legislation against various substances. The head of the Govt drug panel was sacked for saying the wrong thing – that most illegal drugs are relatively harmless — too many times. British Govts want evidence based legislation, but only when the evidence agrees with their own prejudices. And we’re so in thrall to the US (and our own right wind newspapers) that we’ll never make any substantial changes to our drugs policy.
The police regarding the hamster showed a rare good sense, I thought. The alternative would have been what? Killing it? Letting it go (pretty much the same as killing it)? Locking it in the car? From the report, they seem to have done the best thing they could by the creature.
Oh, I totally agree about the hamster; the reason the story was in my opinion noteworthy was A) the police compulsion to use overblown, pompous language (“protective custody” indeed) for mundane actions, and B) the sharp contrast with the way most of them treat dogs nowadays.
So… the British would be more likely to grow a brain about drugs if the US did, and the US would be more likely to grow a brain about drugs if the British did?
Chicken, meet egg.