Wondering on Wednesday 5/11/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

We'll start with some random wondering today, and see where we end up.

For example, you know how when you're on an interstate or even some other highways, and there's a long, steep hill, and as you near the crest of the hill, there are signs advising truckers to check their brakes and use a different gear as they progress down the hill? Well, did you ever notice any signs as you near the bottom of the same long, steep hill, going in the opposite direction, advising trucks to check their accelerator or shift into a gear that'll help them get up the hill faster?

Me neither. And I wonder why that is?

And speaking of traveling on interstates and other highways, have you ever noticed how often the weigh stations are closed? I'd guess, in all our years of traveling, it's got to be at least 97%  of the time. In fact, they're closed so often we cheer when one's open. And what's got me wondering is, how are we supposed to be protected on the road if no one's inspecting or weighing the trucks? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

On a more serious note, the US Senate's GOP minority, plus one blocked an attempt by the Senate Dems (minus one) to codify the abortion protections in Roe. What's interesting here is that the plus and minus one, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-I'm in it to Win it for Coal!) would have supported a narrower bill. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R- I Can't Believe Kavanaugh Lied to Me, the Bastage!) also would have supported a narrower bill. But the Dems wouldn't have any of it, and so it failed, to advance, 49-51. 

The point of the vote, which was guaranteed to fail, was to get every senator on record for where they stand on abortion in advance of the midterm election this fall. And the wondering I have here is, will it make a bit of difference, in the overall scheme of things? Only time will tell, but I have my doubts - serious doubts. 

What else? Oh, Elon Musk. We must talk about Elon Musk, because it's in the code of conduct somewhere, I know I've read it. Musk says that Twitter's permanent ban on The Former Guy was wrong. Actually, what he said was 

I would reverse the perma-ban. ... Banning Trump from Twitter didn't end Trump's voice, it will amplify it among the right and this is why it's morally wrong and flat out stupid.

At the same time, Musk says he is  very much of the same mind with proposed new standards for content moderation for EU countries. And, at the same time, TFG says he won't go back to Twitter if his account's reinstated; he'd rather stay on his own platform, Whateveritscalled. So, what am I wondering on all of this? Well, will Musk really go along with local content moderation, causing his teams to do massive amounts of work to meet the standards, which, if we adopt anything like that here, will mean that Trump won't be able to tweet anyway, so what's the point of reinstating him? And does anyone believe him when he says he won't go back on Twitter as soon as he has the chance? I sure don't.

Another random thought... how much did it cost, I wonder, for folks to wash the chalk off the sidewalk in front of Sen. Collins' house in Maine? And, I further wonder, will they wash it off again, now that new messages have appeared? 

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like that women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

What are you wondering about tonight?

Wondering on Wednesday 1/5/22

Ready... Set.. Wonder!

Welcome to the first Wondering Wednesday of the New Year! Let's dive right in.

Does former Trump assistant Peter Navarro believe what he's saying, I wonder? All his talk about the Green Bay Sweep and the 100 Congressmen and Sen. Rafael Cruz (R-Cancun) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R- Even My Family Thinks I'm a Traitor) and the rest of the activities on 1/6/2021? And does he have any idea how damaging this stuff is to his former boss?

Speaking of the former president, it seems he's cancelled a planned press conference at Mar-a-Lago tomorrow, the anniversary of the insurrection at the Capitol. Apparently, he's going to wait and let the news of Sean Hannity's texts die down a bit, and instead speak at a rally in Arizona in ten days. I can't help wondering if that rally will happen as planned.

After all, the Supreme Court is gathering documents in advance of their fast-tracked review of Trump's claim of executive privilege over information requested by the House January 6th committee. Lower courts have held that the privilege no longer applies to him; here are some thoughts on what the Supremes, three of whom are Trump appointees, might do. If they refuse to get involved, or if they decide that privilege is no longer Trump's, might that Arizona rally  go poof like the one in Tulsa?

Also going poof? A candlelight program which Cobb County, GA Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) had planned for tomorrow, which was to include streaming of Trump's remarks and "a prayer vigil for the jailed rioters still awaiting trial."  Yee hah, or something. I wonder what pushed them to cancel - complaints from real Republicans (the people Trumpers refer to as RINOs), or the fact that their fearless leader really isn't fearless? 

Others in the 'not fearless' bucket? The corporations and trade groups that have donated over $18M to members of the 'Sedition Caucus,' senators and representatives who supported the Big Lie, and to the national Republican re-election committees. I wonder if they remember the statements issued in the days after the insurrection, and how they justify the donations they've made in the year since?

What else is on the wondering docket? Well, there's a judge who just decided that members of the military can ignore a direct order, at least if they claim the order violates their religious freedom or free speech rights. I can only wonder what the hell the judge was thinking; does he really want Navy SEALs to do whatever they heck they feel like whenever they feel like it? And does he really think the Supremes are going to allow this ruling to stand? Never mind that last question; the judge clearly doesn't give a hoot about that.

There's more, of course - there's always more. But I'll leave you wondering with me about this: Melania Trump is selling a hat, a watercolor, and a "digital artwork NFT with motion" in her latest online auction. 

The starting bid? $250,000. Or, some 1415 rays of SOL digital currency.

What are you wondering about these days?

Wondering on Wednesday 10/6/21

Ready... Set... Wonder!

Tonight, I'm wondering on the Facebook thing: the whistleblower, corporate profits, marketing, artificial intelligence, actual intelligence, ethics, and more. 

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with every other social media outlet?

How do you regulate Facebook's algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do the same thing with Fox News, MSNBC, and every other television network?

How do you regulate Facebook's  algorithm, content, and the decisions behind what gets promoted, and not do that with the NY Times, the NY Post, and every other print and digital newspaper? 

How does Wikipedia survive this new regulatory framework? Anyone can enter anything they want - who's going to be the boss of that? Are we going to create a regulatory framework for that, too?

Who gets to decide what content is abusive or divisive? Artificial intelligence can't do it, and humans can't do it either. What or who is left? And, even more fun, who gets to pick the arbiters?

What about the 1st Amendment? Doesn't that protect divisive speech?

How is it not insanely ridiculous and hypocritical for members of the House and Senate - professionals all, at spreading misinformation and division - to complain about Facebook's failure to stop the spread of misinformation and division? Seriously - how is that not the most insane aspect of this?

If the said misinformation- and division-spreading legislators decide to change the rules and let Facebook be held liable for 'harm' on its pages, which one of them will be the first to file a suit, and how long will it take - more than 30 minutes, or less than 30 minutes - after the rules are passed? I'm guessing Devin Nunes and less than 10...

If Facebook can be held liable for harm done to someone who's under age and on the platform, will Facebook be able to sue the parents for allowing the child to use the service?

And why do six-year-olds have smart phones, anyway? Who is responsible for that?

Before they go all out and regulate potentially harmful content - something that, by nature of the 'potentially' label, cannot be regulated - will the legislators do something to increase access to and the affordability of mental health services, particularly for children, and particularly for rural areas?

Isn't it ironic, and more than a bit ridiculous, that the same people who would to deny treatment options that would help transgender kids are all up in arms about body image issues on Facebook?

Why would the people who complain about their own voices being stifled on Facebook be willing to stifle other voices on Facebook? Is the algorithm unfair, or do they just not like what it does? Do they really care about any of this, or does it just look good to care, in which case they can make a profit, i.e., get re-elected because they 'showed they care?

How is Facebook to control the viewing habits of its users? For example, how are the people who ignore multiple notices that what they are reading is not real and then argue vigorously, and share widely, their outrage about the outrageously fake posts, supposed to be  protected from themselves?  Who's job is that, anyway?

Or the folks who wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit them on the butt cheek in the checkout line at Wegmans? (That's sarcasm, by the way. Sarcasm doesn't have actual teeth.) How is Facebook to be held accountable for them? 

Are we going to regulate comedians? Celebrity magazines, with pictures of stars or wanna-be stars and their "boldly topless" photos? The Kardashians and their puffy lips, 'trained' waists, and abundant behinds? People try to emulate them, and cause themselves real physical harm in the process; clearly, that can't be allowed to continue? 

How ironic is it, that the people who don't think the government should be able to require masks or vaccines during a pandemic are now contemplating having the government dictate what we're allowed to see on Facebook? What about "my mind, my choice?"

If we're going to ban detrimental content on Facebook, can we please ban Love Island, Big Brother, Hoarders, My 600-lb-Life, Married at First Sight, Real Housewives, Love After Lockup, Cellmate Secrets, 90-day Diaries, You, Me and My Ex, Ex-Rated, Naked and Afraid, Addicted to Marriage, 90-Day Fiancé, RuPaul’s Drag Race, My Big Fat Fabulous Life, and the rest of the unreal reality TV shows? Without much difficulty, I could make an argument that each of those shows is detrimental in one way or another...and I've never watched any of them.

Who gets to determine how 'good' a company must be in order to be allowed to make a profit? And how will those decisions be made? 

Are we going to require every company to provide us with their internal research on everything they internally research? Or is that just going to be shared with regulators? Just legislators (they're not the same thing as regulators, I can assure you.) And what if someone who gets the information as part of their job decides to leak it, for fun say, to the Wall Street Journal? What's the accountability there?

Based on the number of times the quote was shared, the big soundbite from Frances Haugen's testimony was, "Almost no one outside of Facebook knows what happens inside Facebook."  

I'm wondering if anyone reading this post can tell me everything that happens inside their current employer, or any of their former employers? I maintain that it's probably true for every company, even those in highly regulated industries, that outsiders don't know what happens inside, and neither do employees. I also maintain that that lack of knowledge can be positive (allowing a company to launch a new product, charitable plan, marketing campaign, etc. without leaks) as much as it can be negative (e.g., Enron, Wells Fargo, and perhaps Facebook, too). 

Especially in a country where we're supposedly working on improving the privacy rights of people. And, of course, where we consider corporations to be people, too. Unless, of course, corporations aren't really people after all. And isn't that a whole nother world of wonderment we can attack... 

What are you wondering about tonight? 

Sidebar: Voter Beware

We learned in Sunday's post that there's an effort underway in Texas to make it illegal for individuals attempt to influence someone's vote once mail-in ballots have been issued or the voting process has started. 

As I noted, this provision seems more designed to limit a person's 1st Amendment rights than to protect a vote from fraud. I mean, unless you're willing to pay dearly for the privilege of having a heartfelt political conversation with a friend or family members - penalties under the bill max at a $4000 fine and a year in jail -  would you take the chance of being arrested for strongly encouraging someone to say, not vote for a rude, crude, lying New York businessman?  And, it extends far beyond the paper ballot which might be sitting unopened on the dining room table to include "the voting process" which could be interpreted to include any early voting windows as well as election day.

If the folks in the Texas legislature are not able to change the language, or if they refuse to, I really hope someone sues bigly to prevent candidates, PACS, and super PACS, corporations, unions, small businesses, trade associations, other loose affiliations of people, and individuals from issuing any TV, radio, and Internet ads; billboards; public transportation cards; yard signs and posters; campaign mailings; handbills, bumper stickers, tchotchkes or any and all other types of advertising once early voting is open and/or once distribution of paper ballots commences.

And no money can change hands either - no political contributions, no in-kind donations, no nothing.

And no talking, either. No door knocking, no interviews...not a word from any politicians, their spokespeople, party people, or plain old ordinary people. I mean, if I'm not able to try and sway anyone's vote, why would we allow the politicians to give it a try?

Maybe we need to take a page out of president Trump's book:

veritable pastiche is calling for a complete and total shutdown of political advertising, once the voting process has started, until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

According to multiple studies and tons of anecdotal evidence, there is great hatred towards political advertising by large segments of the American population; the hatred crosses ideological lines and comes from all socioeconomic groups.  

Americans should have the right to be governed according to their own decisions and their votes, without the undue influence of political money and political advertising. 

Even without looking at the polling data, it's obvious to anybody that the hatred of political advertising is widespread, and growing. We know where it comes from, and why. But until we are able to determine how to fix this problem, the decisions of American voters cannot continue to be obscured and overridden by the overwhelming influence of political advertising.

We need to Make the Vote Great Again. 

Wouldn't that be fun?

Voter Beware

Ah, Texas: one of my favorite red states to write about, where everything is bigger and more bigly, even. Like their attempts to make sure voter fraud doesn't happen.

There are currently investigations under way in the Lone Star state to determine if there was some election fraud- which is absolutely a good thing. States should vigorously investigate and prosecute voter fraud, to protect the votes of the rest of us who participate in the process correctly and legally.  Here's what they're looking into, according to a Huffington Post article:

The Texas legislation comes as Dallas officials investigate a potential case of voter fraud. Election officials have sequestered 700 ballots from the city’s municipal election in May that they believe are linked to a fake name. Officials have also arrested a man they say collected a woman’s blank ballot, filled it out, forged her signature, and mailed it in.

As the investigation is under way, the Republican-majority Texas Senate is working simultaneously to strengthen the laws and punishment for such crimes. As part of that effort, they have dropped in language that appears to make it illegal for family members to talk to each other about elections or politics.

 Look at (a) (1) below (emphasis added):

SECTION 11. Amends Chapter 276, Election Code, by adding Section 276.013, as follows: Sec. 276.013. ELECTION FRAUD. 

(a) Provides that a person commits an offense if the person knowingly or intentionally makes any effort to:

(1) influence the independent exercise of the vote of another in the presence of the ballot or during the voting process;

(2) cause a voter registration application, ballot, or vote to be obtained or cast under false pretenses; or

(3) cause any intentionally misleading statement, representation, or information to be provided to an election official or on an application for ballot by mail, carrier envelope, or other official election-related form or document.

(b) Provides that an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) Provides that an offense under this section is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of an offense that the defendant was previously convicted of an offense under this code, the offense involved an individual 65 years of age or older, or the defendant committed another offense under this section in the same election.

(d) Authorizes the actor, if conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, to be prosecuted under this section, the other law, or both.

SECTION 12. Makes application of this Act prospective.

SECTION 13. Effective date: December 1, 2017.

Oh boy - my whole family would be in jail under this provision, especially if my Dad were still alive. He and I talked politics and current events from when I was a pup. I remember 'voting' in 1968, going with him into the booth, him picking me up so I tug the cranky lever over to close the curtain. I'm pretty sure let me push a lever or two - heaven forbid.

Yeah, we'd be in jail for sure, and we'd still be talking politics.

The pols say their intentions are pure - we can't have anyone try and influence an old person, or a disabled person, whether through coercion or by having someone else fill out their ballot without their approval, and what not -- things that are included in other sections of the statute.  All of those include family member exceptions, and are specific to the physical ballot, how it must be mailed, and so on.

Maybe it's just me, but this seems more an attack on freedom of speech than it does a protection of the sanctity of the ballot.

There's a chance that the bill will be changed when it goes to the Texas House, and per the HuffPo article, it seems even some Republicans are willing to consider changes.  There's probably an equal chance that no changes will be made, though...

Let's keep an eye on this one -- because if it flies in Texas, it'll likely be on the legislative slate in all of the other red states, as Republicans continue their march to voter suppression and driving election outcomes in any way they can.

I'm #NeverTrump: The Rest of the Story

wonkette.com

In Sunday's post, I looked at Donald Trump's positions on immigration and health care, two reasons I cannot vote for him.  Those are not the only ones.

On Guns:
Trump proudly notes that we're the only country with a Second Amendment, and he subscribes to the "individual right to bear arms without any infringement" mindset. He's got a concealed carry permit, which may be the six most frightening words I've ever written, and he believes concealed carry here should be concealed carry there. As do many others, Trump draws a parallel between a concealed carry permit and a driver's license. To me, the fact that you can actually see the car is but one important difference.

One of the big pieces of his Second Amendment plan is that we expand mental health treatment programs because "most people with mental health problems aren't violent, they just need help." For those who are violent, he notes, "a danger to themselves or others" we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. As I noted in the previous post, he plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which brings with it expanded care for mental health and substance abuse diagnoses, would counteract whatever he wants to expand here, right? Furthermore, how is it possible that every American mass shooter (and by that, you know, I mean non-Muslim) in recent years had some kind of mental health red flag that was ignored, but the ones committed by those other Americans, well, those are terrorism? I don't support calling one terrorism and the other a mental health issue, sorry.

On Education:
I do not support "immediately adding an additional $20 billion to school choice" and allowing the money to be put into private schools. Parents are welcome to send their children to private school; they can save their own hard-earned money to pay for it, they can participate in a car washes or bake sales, or they can hope their child can get a scholarship - but we should not be paying them to leave the public education system.

On Child Care and Maternity Leave:
Trump's child care plan is designed to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children (and elderly dependents). The plan allows stay-at-home parents the same deduction. So, you deduct child care expenses when you have them, and you deduct child care expenses when you don't have them?

Trump's maternity leave plan makes changes to unemployment insurance law to allow paid maternity leave at the same level as a laid-off employee would receive. It would only come into play if a company didn't already offer maternity leave. There will be unquantified 'reductions' in the unemployment programs to pay for the maternity leave. The plan also notes that "employers in a competitive marketplace" should not get rid of any existing maternity leave plans to participate in the new unemployment insurance maternity leave program.

Similarly, companies should not have eliminated company sponsored health insurance to move employees to the health insurance exchanges; they shouldn't have dropped people to just below the minimum hours requirement to avoid having to pay for insurance and, well, you get the drift. It's hard to imagine that businesses would only be unscrupulous when it comes to insurance, but not when it comes to maternity leave. Silly me.

On the plus side, he has clarified that the plan would cover same sex couples provided their marriage was recognized by their state. Same and opposite sex couples who are not married? SOL. Paternity leave? SOL. Adoption? Not sure, it's not spelled out - but the whole plan seems to be predicated on a married lady getting preggers, and all other circumstances be damned.

On the Military:
Trump wants to make the military YUGE, even YUGER than the military wants it to be, which always makes me wonder what the politicians think they know that the military experts don't. As noted in the article, Trump's plan is reminiscent of Mitt Romney's, which called for a bigger Navy and which led to the classic debate moment where Obama noted we have fewer bayonets and horses in the military than we did back in 1916, when we have a big Navy.  Ah, the good old days.

On the Rest of the Constitution:
The Second Amendment is the first amendment to Trump and others. He does plan on protecting our constitutional liberties, and freedom of religion and of speech and of the press. Which is ironic, given we have him on tape talking about how we need to limit the press, and how he's limited the press throughout his campaign.

He will fill Supreme Court vacancies in the 'originalist' manner, a la Antonin Scalia, which puts at risk rights owned by members of my family and by my friends. I cannot support those changes.

So: immigration, health care reform, guns, the military, child care and maternity leave, education, the Supremes, and more -- I don't agree with and can't support his positions.

And, of course there's the whole issue of what his America looks like: maybe we abide by treaties, maybe not; maybe we pay our debt, maybe not; maybe we support our allies, maybe not; maybe we defend our freedoms, maybe not; maybe we're a global citizen, maybe  not; maybe we punish women who have abortions, maybe not; maybe this, maybe that, maybe something else. Or maybe not.

And, finally, there's his assassination of our democratic process. When you pronounce our whole system as being rigged well before the election even occurs, well before a decision has been made, you belittle us before the rest of the world. On purpose. I can't support that either.

So the decision, for me, to be #NeverTrump is an easy one.

Social Media and Terrorism

Much has been made lately about using social media to combat terrorism. What people say on their pages, and in their comments, and in their emails and what not can (and should) be used to identify potential terrorists, those radicals who would do us harm, we're told.

See, we coulda stopped that Muslim woman, that foreigner, from killing 14 people and wounding 22 in San Bernadino if only we had been paying attention to what she had been saying and looking at and who she had been talking to on Facebook. The fact that her fellow trigger puller, her husband, was born and raised right here in The Homeland, well, let's not talk about that.

Just like we won't talk about Scott Anthony Orton, known as 'Joseywhales' on multiple social media sites. He's an American, a white man from Washington State, and he's an honest-to-goodness terrorist, even though I suspect no Republican presidential candidate would agree with me on that.

Orton was arrested for making threats against employees of StemExpress, the biotech firm which gained fame and notoriety earlier this year when the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood employees talking about baby parts came out. StemExpress is one of the companies on the receiving end of the aborted tissue, which is used by researchers for things like, you know, trying to cure cancer and find other ways to save lives, as opposed to the videos themselves which are used to inflame people like Orton, and the American terrorist who killed three people at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, and those aforementioned Republican presidential candidates.

Orton threatened people in California using social media from his terrorist base in Washington, saying things like:

The management of StemExpress should be taken by force and killed in the streets today.

Stop the death of innocents, Kill the killers.

Now you might think that's OK  -- I mean, what's a little free speech among friends, right?

How about this:

Kill StemExpress employees. I'll pay you for it.

StemExpress your lives don't matter nearly as much as your deaths do.

Or this:

The (specific person) of StemExpress is a death profiteer. The (specific person) of StemExpress should be hung by the neck using piano wire and propped up on the lawn in front of the building with a note attached.

Or this:

(Specific person) must die. End of story. If we as humanity accept her actions, we're to be judged in the harshest manner.

He had also threatened a specific Planned Parenthood employee. And another Fox Fanatic. And the FBI. And get this: the FBI has known about him, they admit, since 2009. That was when he sent threatening emails to the city council where he lives.

I am coming for you, creeps. You have committed crimes against freedom. You MUST be put out of office, permanently, and I loathe you for your deeds.

Guess who else he's threatened?

I'll pay $10,000 to whomever takes out Marilyn Mosby (the prosecutor in  Baltimore's Freddie Gray death-in-police-custody case).

 I'd pay to have a hit on Mosby. She needs to be taken out.

I'll pay ten thousand dollars to the one who fires the shot that takes out Marilyn Mosby. 

Or this one:

N----- Holder you are a dead man you are a dead man walking. We got us a dead man walking here. Dead man walking.

And then there are these:

WE NEED VIOLENCE AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE!

Hey Barack ever seen a skull explode?

Hey Barack you should face a firing squad.

Hey Barack, you should hang by your neck until your feet stop kickin.

Everyone knew this guy was a terrorist. Fox certainly knew it, since he was a very active participant on their comment boards. Everyone knew he was threatening all kinds of people on multiple social media sites. Screen captures had been done, they'd been reported. For six years, this guy has been terrorizing American citizens, including FBI agents, a (black) prosecutor, the (black) Attorney General and the (black) President of the United States.

The argument can be made that this was just talk, he's not a real threat, he was just shooting his mouth off, I mean, does this guy even have $10K? Je Suis Charlie Hebdo, and all. It's just free speech.

When Orton appeared in court, the prosecutor asked that he be held without bail. Despite that request, and despite his history, he was released on an appearance bond and told to come back at the end of December.

After all, it's not like he had a Pakistani wife or anything.

If we're really going to use social media to combat terrorism, we need to open our eyes, accept the fact - and deal with the fact - that terrorism doesn't only come from outside our borders, and that it's not only radical Islamist jihadis that we need to worry about.

We ignore that at our continued peril.

Politically Incorrect? Or Just Rude?

Have you seen this one yet?

This is the sign that a the owner of a bakery in Springfield OH put up, alerting potential customers to his self-proclaimed politically incorrect beliefs.

Now, we all know that the store itself is not politically incorrect. It's just a bakery after all, with a nice tile floor and a pretty sign on the door. Stores don't have beliefs, after all.

And you know what? I don't think the owners are politically incorrect, either. They're just exercising their First Amendment rights, which would be politically correct, wouldn't it?

Now, some people are getting all up in arms about this, for example pointing out that there are 30-some-odd celebrations in December, and over 4000 religions in the world, and how being Christian is not the only one that matters or the best one, and so on -- keeping the focus on the religious aspect of this.

My first reaction?  Seems pretty rude to pretend that it's not possible to love our country and be thankful for those who serve without also being a Christian or having 'Merry Christmas' as the December greeting of choice. These are not mutually inclusive, or mutually exclusive; I presume the bakery owner knows that and opted for self-persecution and rudeness as way to express frustration with (or, in the case of some political candidates, support for) the current state of religion in general and (supposedly, per Fox News) on Christians in particular.

On the slim chance that he's truly unaware, I can assure him that people of many faiths (or without one) can and do love America, and serve in the military or as first responders; they die for our country on foreign soil and right here at home, right next to the Christians who do the same.

They buy doughnuts. They run for office, teach school, drive trucks, process insurance claims, bag groceries, wait tables, lead companies, build homes and skyscrapers, deliver babies, cure diseases, act in movies, sing their hearts out, own guns, vote, give to charity, write poetry, create great art, go into space, pay taxes, serve on school boards, take care of their homes, raise their families, and so on, right smack dab in the middle of all the Christians. They're Muslims and Buddhists and Satanists and Jews and atheists and Sikhs and tribalists and whatever else -  and they are Americans.

They pledge allegiance to the flag (maybe skipping the 'under God' part) and spend money just like Christians do - even when the money says In God We Trust, and when they don't believe a word of it.

Here, people can have religious beliefs, and can express them as they choose. They can also not have religious beliefs, and express or not express that, as they choose. Equally, people can choose to be rude, and can choose to think that there's only one way to love America.

Me? I'm a Happy Holidays kind of gal, for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which are that it's easier, and that I don't really think about it all that much. I'm not religious but I love America just as much as the guy who put up this sign wants us to believe he loves America.

I also respect those who currently serve, and those who have served in the military, and respect police and firemen and people in all different professions and religions, even though some folks, regardless of profession or faith, have shown they're not worthy of that respect. They -- as individuals -- no longer get mine, but I don't stop respecting the whole kit and caboodle of them.

The best part? As an American, I get to pick and choose where I'm going to buy baked goods -- and if I were in Springfield, I'd hope there was another bakery, because I would not patronize this one. Not because he appears to be a Christian and I'm not religious, but because I  think he doesn't want my business, and I don't want to offend him by patronizing his shop.

I do appreciate that he puts his attitude on the door, though -- that'll save me a trip.

The Sixth and First vs. the Second

In yesterday's post, I explained the real reason Kim Davis is in jail.

Among those who believe, erroneously, that  Davis is being persecuted for her religious views, for being a Christian, are some of the Republican presidential candidates. Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee have clearly come out on that side of the equation, as I noted yesterday. But where do the rest of the Rs stand on this?

Well, here's a sampling.

Front runner Donald Trump thinks that others in the Rowan County Clerk's office should be able to issue the licenses, or that frankly, people should leave town and get one somewhere else.

I would say the simple answer is to let her clerks do it. Now from what I understand, she's not letting the clerks do it either.  The other simple answer is rather than going through this -- because it's really a very, very sticky situation and terrible situation - 30 miles away they have other places they have many other places you get licenses. And you have them actually quite nearby, that's another alternative. 

He's half right - others in her office should be able to issue the marriage licenses, and in fact began doing so last week.  However, his suggestion that citizens cannot receive services in their own county because one elected official decides that her beliefs are more important than the law, is not acceptable.

Kentucky's own Senator Rand Paul says the answer is for states to stop issuing marriage licenses all together.

There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts. But I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage, on something that's different than most people defined as marriage for most of history. So one way is just getting the state out completely, and I think that's where we're headed, actually.

Paul's answer is at least consistent with his beliefs in smaller government, and it removes the issue entirely by making marriage a contract between two parties with 'blessings' coming from a church if that's what you believe. But he too stays away from addressing the issue of an elected official not doing her job.

Rick Santorum, on his website, notes his respect for Davis, and vows to protect the First Amendment if elected.

I have great respect for Ms. Davis and her courage to stand up for her faith. In America we should not have to choose between keeping our job and practicing our faith. Today only reinforces my belief that the First Amendment Defense Act must be passed now at the Federal and state level. More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people cannot just worship but live out their faith in their lives.

Santorum, like others, chooses to ignore the fact that Ms Davis is not just living out her faith, but insisting that everyone else live by her faith as well.

Similarly, Louisiana's Bobby Jindal  is on the wrong side of this. Speaking to the Huffington Post, he noted

I don't think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions. I think it's wrong to force Christian individuals or business owners. We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it's clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that's wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience. I absolutely do believe that people have a First Amendment right, a constitutional right. I don't think the court can take that away. 

And Wisconsin's golden boy Scott Walker?  He was "out there" in his response, (which is where he believes religious beliefs are practiced).

It's a balance that you've got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion.  That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.

So, in general, these folks who would be president think that:

• it's OK for an elected official to put his or her personal religious beliefs above the law, and 
• it's generally OK for an elected official to impose those personal beliefs on everyone else,
• or that citizens should just find another jurisdiction to obtain the services they're entitled to,
• or that the government should just get out of the business of doing things that people may find objectionable.  

OK.  Let's pretend those are the right answers, the correct positions to have here. And let's say that I'm an elected official, and among my duties, I'm required to issue gun licenses and permits for folks who want to concealed-carry.

And let's say that it is my personal belief that guns kill people, and I steadfastly believe that 'Thou shalt not kill, and therefore I refuse to issue any gun licenses or concealed-carry permits.  And say that a judge orders me to issue the licenses and permits, and I not only refuse to issue them myself, but I also refuse to allow anyone else in my office to issue them. And say I try to get the Supreme Court to hear my case, and they refuse. And I still will not issue the permits, because of this 'heaven and hell' position my beliefs put me in (as Davis says), and so I go to jail.

• Would Mike Huckabee hold a rally for me, and petition the President to free me right now?
• Would Rick Santorum craft legislation to protect me? 
• Would Rand Paul suggest that the government get out of the gun permitting business, and have that just be a contract between two parties?
• Would Donald Trump simply send me to a different jurisdiction to avoid this "very, very sticky situation and terrible situation" in which I placed the citizens I was elected to serve?  

I think we all know the answer to that: Of. Course. Not.

Because a citizen exercising her personal right to practice her religion and live by her personal belief  that guns are killing machines and are against her religion, thereby barring other people from being able to exercise their right to own a gun? Well, that's a completely different constituency, and we know it's one that no Republican is going to defy.

These folks would be committing political suicide if they stood by me in a battle of the Sixth Commandment and the First Amendment vs. the Second Amendment.  I know it; you know it; and they know it. Add another twist - say I was a Muslim, or an atheist -- and we'd barely be able to see them in the rear view mirror.

These candidates should all take a page out of Carly Fiorina's book:

When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And while I disagree with this court's decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case, this woman now needs to make a decision of conscience -- is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government's will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government ...?

That is exactly the issue here. And that's exactly the right answer.

That we have so many people running for president who pretend not to understand  this, and who would not have the courage of this 'religious freedom' conviction if the belief-holder wasn't a Christian, and wasn't complaining about same sex marriage, is frightening.