San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, March 1, 2013

Yes, I Read "Ask Amy"

Readers of this blog have been hounding me for the past year in order to find out if I am a reader of the daily personal advice column entitled "Ask Amy".  It is written by Amy Dickinson and seems to be the modern version of "Dear Abby" and "Ann Landers".  Today is the day I come clean and admit that I read Amy's column.  The reason I read it, however, may not be what you expect.  I am not interested in her advice as it might pertain to my disturbing and bizarre life.  I consider myself completely capable of messing up my life without the assistance of others.  Mostly I am interested in the stories of the people who write to her in search of advice.  I find that the stories seem to come in several popular flavors. Today I am going to play the role of Amy and give my advice to these people who are experiencing typical relationship problems.
Most of the requests for advice are related to the fact that some girl has made the foolish decision to allow a boyfriend to move into her home.  Inevitably the girl has a job, owns a home and pays her bills.  Her boyfriend, on the other hand, is usually an "artist" who finds his creative spark by either drinking beer all day or sitting around playing video games.  The girl professes her love for her boyfriend but expresses her frustration with the fact he is a total jerk.  What should she do?  The answer is simple.  Throw the bum out.  Now.  Do it.  You are setting yourself up for a lifetime of misery.  Get rid of him today, before you do anything else.  I don't care how you feel about this jerk.  He is a pathetic loser and he will continue to sponge off of you for the rest of your life if you do not toss him to the curb immediately.  Got it?
I am amazed at the number of questions that have to do with divorces and the problem of grandparents and their visitation rights with grandchildren.  In the typical scenario a couple will have divorced and the grandparents on both sides of the family want to be able to continue to see their grandchildren.  Depending upon who gets custody, or how the custody is arranged, fights and problems quickly erupt over grandparent visitation privileges.  Now I am the first to admit that I am out of my league here. Why anyone would want to visit a grandchild is a mystery to me.  The only reason I can see that a parent would want to visit his own children is because the law requires it, at least while they are minors.  Why a grand parent would want to visit his kids kids is impossible for me to fathom.  It seems to me that the divorce gives the grandparents the perfect excuse to stop visiting any of their family members and use their money to pay for some extended vacations.  So my advice to suffering grandparents is very simple.  Cut them off.  Get out of there.  Go on a long vacation.  Reconnect with each other and leave the waring tribes of children and grandchildren to duke it out among themselves.  Have you ever thought about a cruise around the world?  I highly recommend taking one.
Today's post to this blog was precipitated by a letter written to Amy a month or so ago.  It was so typical of so many people who write to her that I tore it out of the paper and placed it in the pile of "future blog post topics".  Since today is a slow news day, I have to tell you what it says.  A lady in Oak Park, Illinois writes Amy and asks, "My neighbor has three kids and a minivan.  I work at home and often notice she warms her car up for a long time, often 10 minutes or more, from a remote starter.  She is polluting the air we all breathe unnecessarily and wasting gas. I feel like she is infringing on my rights to live in a clean world where we already have such a climate crisis.  Is there a way to address this with her?"  What?!  I hardly know where to begin about all of the wrong things found in this request for advice.  Still, I will try.
Lady, get over your Yuppie hatred.  Yeah, I know, Yuppies are insufferable.  They drive around in minivans.  They warm their cars up for extended periods of time.  The woman probably has a seat warmer for the leather seats in her car and she has to give them time to warm up.  We wouldn't want a cold bum, would we?  Still, lady, get over it.  Leave the Yuppies alone.  They may be insufferable but they are harmless, most of the time.
Next, lady, speak for yourself.  What do you mean by "she is polluting the air we all breathe"?  This Yuppie woman is not polluting my air.  In fact, unless you make a habit of putting your mouth over the tailpipe of her Yuppie-mobile it is highly unlikely you have inhaled any pollutants yourself.  And, if this poor Yuppster wants to waste gas, let her waste gas.  She paid for it.  If she wants to burn it up while warming up her car, so be it.
Lady, what is all this talk about climate change?  Don't you know that global warming is a myth?  And even if it is not a myth, do you not know that global warming is better for us than our present state of climactic conditions?  And where does the Constitution grant you a "right to live in a clean world"?  I have read the Constitution several times and do not recall ever seeing anything about being guaranteed a right to live in a clean world.  Besides, what in the world is a "clean world"?  Your definition of a clean world could be very different from my definition.  Is there an objective definition of "clean world"?  For example, does your right to live in a clean world mean that I have to scrape off the accumulated dust of the last 15 years from the corners of my office?  Does it mean I have to blow the dust off the tops of the books in my bookshelf that I have never read?   Lady, you have really put me in a quandary.  You have a right to a clean world so I have to dust my office.  But if I dust my office that dust will be propelled into the atmosphere and exacerbate global warming.  So what am I supposed to do to make you happy?
Let's cut to the chase here, shall we?  There is one, and only one, real problem here.  The problem is you, lady, refuse to mind your own business.  You think that everything your neighbor does is somehow your business.  It is not.  Get over it.  Stop minding the business of others.  And that, by the way, is my advice to everybody who draws a breath in this world every day.....do us all a favor and mind your own business!

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Comprehensive Drug Screens For All Drivers

As everybody is aware of by now the voters of Colorado decided to legalize marijuana last year.  On the other hand, most people are probably unaware of the fact that certain legislators in the Colorado legislature are doing their best to make sure that actually smoking marijuana rarely takes place.  The means they are using to accomplish their under-handed goal is the requirement of a legal limit for THC in the blood of Colorado drivers.  You heard that right.  Just like you can be arrested and fined for having a certain amount of alcohol in your bloodstream that exceeds an arbitrarily drawn legal limit, Colorado legislators want to be able to arrest, fine and imprison folks who drive with more than a certain amount of THC in their bloodstreams.  As you would expect, the exact amount of THC that one can legally drive with in his bloodstream is hotly debated.
The war against marijuana use is based upon the quaint concept that a person can be impaired by something to the point where it is unsafe for him to operate a motor vehicle.  Very few people ever take the time or the energy to consider the fact that the entire notion of being too "impaired" to drive a motor vehicle is wrongheaded.  As some marijuana advocates have pointed out, a level that might impair a 90 pound senior citizen would probably not impair a 300 pound football star.  Speaking of sports stars, Todd Helton had a bit too much wine a couple of weeks ago.  Despite the fact that he had consumed some wine, he decided to drive his car down to the local Kwik-E-Mart for some snuff and lottery tickets.  He managed to get to the Kwik-E-Mark without doing any damage to himself or others.  Still, he was arrested because his blood alcohol level exceeded an arbitrary limit set by the local rule makers.  Obviously Helton was not so impaired that he was incapable of driving his vehicle without causing damage to others.  Undoubtedly he would have returned home safely if the enforcers had just let him alone.  Why, then, should he be classified as a criminal?  It seems to me that it would make a whole lot more sense to arrest, fine and imprison people for actually doing harm to people and property with their vehicles, regardless of why or what it was that caused them to do damage to other people or property.  Would it not make a great deal of common sense for the local enforcers of the rules to practice what every kid who ever played basketball understands?  No harm, no foul.  It is that simple.
I can already hear the howls of protest against what I have written above.  How dare you advocate allowing people who are drunk or high out of their minds to drive on our highways!  How dare you endanger the children!  How can anybody be so stupid as to allow drunks or people who are high to drive?  Okay.  I tell you what.  I will make you a deal.  If we are going to arrest, fine and imprison people for being "impaired" while they drive, then let's apply that principle consistently and not just selectively against those who drink or smoke marijuana.  We need to arrest, fine and imprison all people who are "impaired" when they drive.  Agreed?
Teenagers in their first year of driving are clearly impaired.  They account for a dramatically disproportionate number of the motor vehicle accidents that occur each year.  They are impaired by their extraordinary lack of experience.  They are impaired by their overwhelming sense of misplaced self confidence in their abilities to drive a motor vehicle.  They are impaired by their practice of texting while driving.  They are impaired by their inability to concentrate on the process of driving when their friends are in the car.  Clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, teenage drivers are impaired when they drive.  They should be ticketed anytime they are on the road.  They are a clear danger to the lives and property of others. 
Senior drivers are clearly impaired.  They account for a dramatically disproportionate number of the motor vehicle accidents that occur each year.  They are impaired by their slow reflexes and poor vision.  They are impaired by their stubborn refusal to admit that they are no longer qualified to safely drive a car.  They are impaired by dementia and denial.  Clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, senior drivers are impaired when they drive.  They should be ticketed anytime they are on the road.  They are a clear danger to the life and property of others.  It does not matter that they have not yet run into anything. They are impaired and that is all that matters.
An overwhelming number of people who drive are impaired by their own massive stupidity.  I propose a simple test.  If a driver does not understand the rules in regards to making a left turn he should be classified as "impaired" and have his license revoked.  Do you know the rules about the simple left turn?  Are you aware that when you approach a busy street and plan on making a left turn onto that street that you are required to yield to a car on the other side of the street that is going to go straight through the intersection, even if you arrived at the intersection first?  Almost nobody knows that rule.  Clearly most drivers are impaired by their own stupidity!
I watch a lot of drug commercials on the television.  You know the commercials I am writing about.  They always have some pastoral scene with pleasant music playing in the background while the lawyer reads the disclaimers about all of the horrible things that could happen if you use the drug being advertised.  Almost without exception those disclaimers include things like "this drug will cause drowsiness, impair your ability to operate machinery, impair your vision, cause you to have thoughts of suicide or homicide, cause your tongue to swell up to the size of a pumpkin" and so on.  In addition, all of you who have ever purchased a drug, either prescription or over the counter, and actually read the instructions that come with it will have to admit that practically every drug available in this country comes with a long list of warnings about how it can impair your ability to function.  That being the case, does it not make sense to prohibit those who are under the influence of any of these drugs from driving?
If you take a sleeping pill, no driving.  If you take a decongestant, no driving.  If you take a mood elevator (and who doesn't these days?), no driving.  If you take Viagra or Cialis, no driving.  I don't even want to think about the horrible impairment that could possibly occur under the influence of those two drugs.  If you take anything that can possibly impair your ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, no driving.  That brings me to my suggestion for the day.  I believe that the best thing to do to make sure that motor vehicle accidents never happen again is to initiate mandatory comprehensive drug screens for all drivers.  The local enforcers of the rules should set up roadblocks at all major intersections and force each person who is operating a vehicle to submit to a blood draw and comprehsive drug screening.  Anyone found to be operating his vehicle while under the influence of any drug will be arrested, fined and possibly imprisoned.
Once again  I can hear the screams of protest.  But, am I the only one in the world who cares about the children?  My plan will work, if for no other reason than it will result in almost nobody being on the roads.  Is that too high of a price to pay for the public health and well being?  Is that too high a price to pay to protect the children?  I don't think so.  So here's to you, Colorado legislators.  Don't stop with THC. Don't stop with alcohol.  Press on to the new frontiers of teenage and senior impairment.  Press on to mandatory drug screening for all drivers.  It is the only safe thing to do.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Bill O'Reilly Is Wrong About Drones

I was hanging out in my basement last night, working on my dance moves and putting the finishing touches on a rap song I am writing, when Bill O'Reilly came on the television.  Under normal conditions I would not watch Bill's show.  Although his show is purported to be an interview type show it seems to me that he spends the great majority of his time lecturing his guests rather than asking them questions and listening to their answers.  His style is so abrasive to me that I prefer to ignore him. I saw something, however, that caught my eye.  He was going to have an "interview" with John Stossel on the subject of drone warfare.  I took off my dance shoes, put down my microphone and turned up the volume on the television.
The segment began with a video clip of a debate in which John Stossel was paired off against John Bolton.  Bolton is a former ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration.  He argued in support of the use of drones by King Obama.  Speaking before an audience of a thousand libertarian students who had assembled for Stossel's annual "Students for Liberty Conference", Bolton discussed why he believes a neoconservative foreign policy is best, as well as continuing his defense of King Obama's "sensible" drone execution program.  Here is a part of what he said, "The commander-in-chief authority vested by the Constitution in the president gives him the direction over the war capabilities of the United States, and his efforts, both in the Bush and the Obama administration, to go after the terrorists, I think is entirely justified."
As you expect, Stossel disagreed with the argument that the use of drones by King Obama was either legal or moral.   That debate, however, is not the focus of this posting.  After showing the short video clip the camera came back to a split screen featuring John Stossel and Bill O'Reilly.  It was now time for the "interview".  Although it probably should not have surprised me, what followed had me sitting up in my chair with incredulity.  Being the neocon warfare statist that he is, O'Reilly came out in full support of Obama's drone attacks.  That was to be expected.  His argument was a simple one.  The Socialist Democracy of America is at war.  When the SDA is at war the Constitution grants the "Commander in Chief" the right to wage war against the enemy.  Since we are in a war against a noun ("terror"), anywhere that noun can be found is a war zone and, therefore, subject to attack by the King of the SDA. Any person that can be defined as a terrorist (never defined by the way) is subject to immediate execution.
The presupposition that we are at war with "terrorism" is fascinating.  There is no doubt we are at war with Afghanistan.  There is no doubt we are at war with Iraq.  There is no doubt many in Washington want to be at war with Iran.  But what does it mean to be at war against a noun?  According to O'Reilly, any person that King Obama declares to be a terrorist is automatically deemed to be an enemy combatant and subject to immediate execution by drone attack.  Stossel, during one of his very brief opportunities to speak, pointed out that there have been hundreds of drone killings in Yemen and Pakistan, two countries with which the SDA is not at war.  According to O'Reilly that did not matter.  All that matters is that the target is labeled a terrorist.  The war on terror covers every single square inch of the earth.  If a terrorist is found somewhere, and it does not matter where he is found, he is a viable target for execution by drone attack as ordered by the King.
At this point Stossel asked the question (I thought he was the one being interviewed) that exposed the weakness of O'Reilly's entire position.  At a point where O'Reilly had to take a breath to keep from passing out Stossel asked him how the King knows who the terrorists are.  Obviously that is the most important question in this entire issue.  Being classified as a terrorist is a matter of life and death.  In particular, he wanted to know the means by which a person living in a country with which we are not at war could be put on the list of those who are deemed to be terrorists and therefore subject to immediate execution by drone attack.  O'Reilly's response floored me.  According to O'Reilly, we simply have to trust that King Obama knows what he is doing when he executes people, at least one of whom was a citizen of the SDA living abroad but still theoretically protected by his Constitutional right to due process.
This was the first time in my life that I have ever heard Bill O'Reilly instruct his audience that we have a moral duty to trust King Obama.  Just minutes earlier in the show he had been mercilessly ridiculing Obama for his inability to speak without the use of a teleprompter.  He even said that Obama has a note on his teleprompter telling him when to take a drink of water.  Over the years O'Reilly has constantly pounded away on the theme that Obama is an immoral low life who can't be trusted.  O'Reilly has constantly said that Obama is a liar who should never be believed.  But now, when it comes time to kill some foreigners, O'Reilly believes it is time to rally behind our Commander in Chief and trust that he knows what he is doing as he kills thousands of people around the world.   Am I the only one stunned by this grotesque reversal?
Stossel continued to press his point about how an enemy combatant is defined.  O'Reilly refused to answer his questions.  Two separate times O'Reilly lifted up his hands and professed total ignorance about how the citizens of the SDA can come to know who Obama is executing with his drones.  Two separate times he said it was none of our business to get involved in the process of determining who will live and who will die.  Two separate times he told us that we simply have to trust that Obama knows what he is doing and those he is killing truly deserve to be killed.  It was staggering to see how a man like O'Reilly could go from total distrust for Obama to blind obedience in one moment simply because he likes the idea of drones being used to kill people that Obama has told us are terrorists.
Perhaps feeling some of the power of Stossel's argument that the use of drones is illegal and immoral, O'Reilly made another statement (two times) that almost made me fall out of my chair.  He said, "OK, maybe the use of drones is not moral, but it is legal."  I scratched my head.  Now if memory serves me correctly, O'Reilly opposes abortion.  In fact, O'Reilly readily admits that abortion is immoral, but legal. He considers that to be a reprehensible state of affairs.  Something that is immoral should never be legal.  But when the light of logic is shining upon his precious drone attacks he readily admits that it is probably immoral, but legal.  And apparently that position causes him no consternation whatsoever.  So much for logical consistency.  I turned off the television.
The entire argument in support of the use of drones is that they are necessary to save the lives of SDA military personnel in the war on a noun.  We are in virgin territory here.  The SDA has never waged a war on a noun before.  All other wars had readily identifiable enemies that we could go after.  Now the enemy is something called terror and the combatants are humans called terrorists. They can live anywhere. They can be anyone.  And, according to O'Reilly and Obama, the King of the SDA has the right to use a drone to execute anyone the King personally deems to be a terrorist, regardless of any other considerations.  Although many people will consider the next clause in this sentence to be far-fetched, what happens when King Obama identifies a cell of terrorists in your backyard?  What is to prevent him, according to the current law, from sending a drone to your neighborhood to take out your neighbor?  The answer to that question is, "nothing".
The content of this blog posting is probably sufficient to have me judicially classified as a terrorist.  Just look at the list of things that can get one classified as a terrorist these days.  According to the Department of Homeland Security the following behaviors/thoughts can get you classified as a "domestic terrorist":
  •  Any public expression of libertarian philosophy.
  • Second Amendment oriented views, especially NRA membership.
  • Any survivalist literature or self-sufficiency type behaviors.
  • Fear of economic collapse and the purchase of gold.
  • Religious views, mostly Dispensationalism, from the book of Revelation.
  • Publicly expressed fears about "big government".
  • Homeschooling.
  • Repeated declarations about your Constitutional rights.
  • Belief in a New World Order conspiracy.
These points of classification to determine if you, a citizen of the SDA, are a potential terrorist are what agents from the Department of Homeland Security are teaching to local law enforcement agencies in order to identify you as a domestic terrorist.   According to the rules established by the DHS, I am a domestic terrorist because I believe in the Bill of Rights, I homeschool my kids and I have been known to shoot a gun once in a while.   If King Obama gets wind of my thoughts and actions he would, according to Bill O'Reilly, have a legal right to send a drone to my home and execute me.  What about you?  Would you survive the test?


  •   Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
  •   Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
  •   Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
  •   Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
  •   Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
  •   Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
  •   Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
  •   Homeschooling
  •   Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
  •   Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
  • - See more at: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-dhs-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter#sthash.2jWZespr.dpuf


  •   Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
  •   Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
  •   Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
  •   Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
  •   Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
  •   Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
  •   Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
  •   Homeschooling
  •   Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
  •   Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
  • - See more at: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-dhs-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter#sthash.2jWZespr.dpuf


  •   Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
  •   Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
  •   Survivalist literature (fictional books such as "Patriots" and "One Second After" are mentioned by name)
  •   Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
  •   Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
  •   Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
  •   Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
  •   Homeschooling
  •   Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
  •   Belief in a New World Order conspiracy
  • - See more at: http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ridiculous-dhs-list-you-might-be-domestic-ter#sthash.2jWZespr.dpuf

    Tuesday, February 26, 2013

    Louisiana Refuses To Allow A Mission To Feed Bums

    A reader of this blog sent me a link to a Fox News report that shocked and astounded me.  (Here is the link if you want to read the original report:  http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/health-dept-homeless-cant-eat-deer-meat.html)  The reporter tells the story of how a petty Louisiana bureaucrat enforced a ridiculous law that ended up forcing people who feed bums to turn them out onto the street hungry.  Allow me to explain.
    There are hundreds of charitable organizations that exist for the purpose of feeding bums.  The popular term for a bum today is "homeless person".  I am not a fan of that term because it tells me very little about the person except that he does not own a home.  In fact, "homeless person" may be a misnomer for bums if my understanding about the life and behavior of most of them is accurate.  Every once in a while, generally during ratings season, the local television stations will produce features on the bums who panhandle on Denver street corners.  Inevitably the point of the report will be that many of these panhandlers are not homeless at all.  Many of them have cars.  Many, if most, of them actually have a place to live.  Their home may be a cheap motel or apartment, but it is still a home.  Very few of them actually have no home whatsoever.  That is why I do not think calling them "homeless" is accurate.  Bum, on the other hand, is a precise description.  A bum is a person who would rather beg for food and money than work.  Hence, I will use the word "bum" in this blog post.
    As I was saying, there are hundreds of charitable organizations in the Socialist Democracy of America that exist for the purpose of feeding bums.  These organizations are always on the prowl for donations of food and money to support their charitable activities.  In areas where there are a large number of people who hunt, it is not uncommon for the folks at these organizations to solicit wild game for their patrons.  It is also not uncommon for hunters to donate their kill to these organizations.  It is a pleasant symbiotic relationship that allows each party to accomplish its goals in a voluntary and cooperative fashion.  All is well until the long arm of the state intrudes.
    The Fox News report begins, "Hunters across Louisiana are outraged after state health officials ordered a rescue mission to destroy $8,000 worth of deer meat because venison is not allowed to be served in homeless shelters.  The Dept. of Health and Hospitals ordered the staff at the Shreveport-Bossier Rescue Mission to throw 1,600 pounds of donated venison in garbage bins -- and then ordered them to douse the meat with Clorox -- so other animals would not eat the meat."  This action on the part of the State of Louisiana raises many serious questions.  Why is the state involved in making laws about what people may or may not eat?  Why is it the role of the state to determine what people may eat?  Why did the state determine that venison is an illegal meat?  Why is the state involved in determining what may or may not be served to bums?  Why is it, apparently, legal for a person who kills a deer to eat it but, at the same time, it is illegal for a person who did not kill a deer to eat that exact same animal?  What is the political philosophy that has brought about this amazingly contradictory state of affairs?
    Fox News contacted an official in the Health Department for a statement.  This is what the official said, "Deer meat is not permitted to be served in a shelter, restaurant or any other public eating establishment in Louisiana.  While we applaud the good intentions of the hunters who donated this meat, we must protect the people who eat at the Rescue Mission, and we cannot allow a potentially serious health threat to endanger the public.''  What!?  Since when is eating a little venison a "potentially serious health threat"?  Since when does eating a little venison pose a serious health threat that will "endanger the public"?  Has the poor fool who said this lost his mind?  Yesterday I posted to this blog about the bill in the Colorado House that will remove the law prohibiting adultery from the state statutes.  The reason lawmakers want to remove the law against adultery is because they believe it would constitute an "invasion of the bedroom on the part of the state".  Can someone please tell me why this Louisiana law does not constitute an invasion of the kitchen on the part of the state?  Where in the Constitution of the State of Louisiana does it state that it is the function of the state legislature to determine what people may or may not eat in a public restaurant?  Once again we have an example of bureaucracy run amok.
    The paternalism inherent in statements like the one above is reprehensible.  Who appointed this state official to the position of food-god?  I can envision him sitting around at night, after completing a full three or four hours of work, contemplating his future pension payments (scheduled to begin at age 50, after 20 years of service and at 100% of his high three salaries) and praising himself on how he protected the good citizens of Louisiana from their own rabid stupidity.  Those poor Cajuns are so dumb they would eat deer meat, he thinks to himself.  Not on my watch, he tells himself.  As he sips another glass of wine from the bottle he purchased at his taxpayer financed lunch, he praises himself for his people skills in dealing with this situation.  He tells himself that he is quite magnanimous and worthy of a promotion and raise since he exercised superior people skills when he praised the neanderthals who donate deer meat for their "good intentions".  Disgusting.
    When the Executive Director of the mission found out about the state's plans for the meat, he pleaded with them to allow him to keep the meat for another purpose.  The meat had been processed and packaged.  It was not simply hanging, uncovered, from hooks in the ceiling at the Mission.  The Director asked for permission to at least return the meat to the processing plant.  His request was denied.  Not only was his request denied but he was treated to a show of the brute force of the state.  When the jack-booted thugs who came to enforce the law learned of the Director's desire to return the meat to the processing plant they promptly confiscated the meat, took it to a dumpster, tore open the packaging and doused the entire pile with Clorox!  When asked to defend its actions, the spokesman for the Health Department said that they had to "exercise extra precaution so that animals would not eat it from the dumpster and become sick or die.  This is a process called 'denaturing.'"
    So let me get this straight....the Louisiana Department of Health believes that it has the authority to regulate what wild animals in Louisiana should be allowed to eat?  Am I reading this correctly?  These lunatics actually justified the destruction of the private property of Louisiana citizens on the grounds that they have the authority to regulate what animals might drag from a dumpster?  Talk about an inflated sense of authority.  Then, to top it all off, these idiots attempt to sound scieintific and describe the wanton destruction of private property at the hands of the state as "denaturing".  My dictionary defines "denature" as "to take away or alter the qualities of something".  Well, they certainly did that.  Anyone for a deer steak, marinated in Clorox?

    Monday, February 25, 2013

    You Must Legislate Morality

    One of the most ridiculous and idiotic expressions of our era is "You can't legislate morality."  This expression is inevitably utilized anytime one group wants to stop another group from creating a law that will hinder the first group's desire to behave immorally.  In the past lawmakers wanted to be free to commit adultery. They eliminated laws that made it illegal to commit adultery under the guise that they should not have been legislating morality.  Today lawmakers want their constituents to be free to engage in homosexual relationships.  They are presently eliminating laws that make it illegal to engage in homosexual activity.  They are doing so because they believe it is not their business to legislate morality.  At some point in the future lawmakers will abolish the laws against having sex with children and animals.  They will do so because they want their constituents to be able to have sex with children and animals without breaking the law.  They will justify their actions by claiming that it is impossible to legislate morality. 
    House Bill 1166 is presently working its way through the Colorado House.  As described by the Denver Post, "a proposal to repeal laws that make it a crime to commit adultery or promote sexual immorality survived its first hearing in the legislature Thursday, after comments that ranged from the silly to the serious."  Representative Daniel Kagan (D-Cherry Hills) was quoted speaking in favor of the bill to abolish laws that legislate morality.  He said, "Adultery is a matter between a person and their spouse and their conscience and their minister, but not between a person and the full enforcement of authority of the state of Colorado.  Let's keep the police out of our bedrooms."  There is so much wrong with what Kagan said that I barely know where to begin.
    First, adultery is a matter that is first and foremost between the adulterer and God.  Somehow Kagan managed to forget that.  God has a very strong opinion about adultery.  In fact, He despises adultery so much He commands the death penalty for guilty parties.  You would think that a morally sensitive person like Kagan would have some moral repugnance for an action that God requires the death penalty for but apparently he does not.  In fact, it seems to be the case that just about everybody living in the Socialist Democracy of America considers adultery to be the moral equivalent of stealing a piece of gum from the local Kwik-E-Mart or pinching a grape while standing in the produce section of the supermarket.  A lot of people are in for a very big surprise when they eventually learn God's opinion about adultery.
    Second, adultery is a matter between the adulterer and his/her spouse.  Adultery creates a real victim of a real criminal act.  Assuming that one of the partners to the marriage is actually innocent (ie. did not commit adultery herself), the innocent spouse has a moral claim upon the perpetrator of the adulterous act.  Indeed, adultery is such a vicious act of hatred towards a spouse that God allows the woman to enforce the death penalty against her wayward spouse.  I wonder how many people would think twice about adultery if they knew their innocent spouse could have them executed for doing so?  I guess these days, with a majority of the citizens of this land now actually guilty of having committed adultery, it just does not make sense to have a law against something so many people are doing, eh?
    Anyone who has ever been an innocent victim of adultery knows that what I am writing is true.  A victim of adultery does not just feel bad for a while.  The harm that is done is not just the impartation of some negative feelings.   Adultery does real harm.  The victim loses legal standing.  The victim loses what was rightfully hers.  In most cases where a divorce follows, the victim, especially if it is a woman, loses a significant amount of money.  The family is destroyed.  The children are harmed.  Damage extends outward to the extended family as well as to the affected families on the other side of the adulterous affair.  We cannot allow the fact that most people in this country are guilty of adultery to deter us from recognizing that adultery is a serious moral failing, a sin and a crime.  It needs to be punished. 
    Kagan's call to "keep police out of the bedroom" is wildly hypocritical.  He is echoing the refrains of abortion advocates of course.  Keeping police out of the bedroom and keeping the state's hands off of women's bodies are essentially the same thing.  Too bad Kagan and his ilk do not apply this principle consistently.  The Colorado Democrats are purveyors of the nanny state.  None of them ever met a law designed to infringe on my privacy that he did not like.  I have a law telling me what type of light bulb I must use in my house.  The police are in my house.  I have a law telling me what type of handrail I have to install on my backyard deck.  The police are in my backyard.  I have a law telling me what type of electrical switch I have to use in my garage.  The police are in my garage.  I have a law telling me what type of ventilation I have to have in my basement.  The police are in my basement.  I have a law telling me what type of toilet I can have installed in my house.  The police are in my bathroom.  I have a law telling me what I can and cannot do with my old mattress.  Shock!  The police are now in my bedroom.  Yet none of these laws bothers Kagan.  All that bothers him is that somebody should stand up and say that the state needs to enforce the law against adulterers.
    Lost in the popular delusion of the crowd is the simple fact that "morality" is all the state can legislate.  As is usually the case with statists, when it comes to morality, they get it exactly backwards.  All of the attempts to legislate aspects of my life that have nothing to do with morality (which way my child car seat may face, the fact that I must use a child car seat, how long I may water my lawn in the summer, how quickly I must shovel the snow from my sidewalk in the winter, and on and on and on) are miserable intrusions into my life that rob me of my right to life, freedom and my property.  Oh yes, I forgot, we abandoned the Constitution long ago.  In its place we have created a nanny state that exists to legislate everything except morality.
    When the state makes it a crime to commit murder, is it legislating morality?  When the state makes it a crime to steal, is it legislating morality?  When the state makes it a crime to lie, is it legislating morality?  When the state makes it a crime to bulldoze my neighbor's house, is it legislating morality?  When the state makes it a crime to shoot out the windows of the local gas station, is it legislating morality?  The answer to all of these questions is, of course!  That is what the state is supposed to do.  However, cowardly legislators who want to justify their own immoral activity as well as the immoral activities of those who elect them are the first to flee to the "we can't legislate morality" argument whenever they sniff the possibility of more votes in the air.  They do so because they are cowards, fools, and self-justifying sinners.  They are all going to be in for a big surprise when they meet the Author of morality face to face.  He is going to want to know why they spent so much time making laws that had nothing to do with morality.  He will also want to know why they purposefully decided to remove the laws against adultery, something He hates so much He would execute the perpetrator.