Uncle Bob on Life, the Universe, and Everything

I recently tweeted that there were two fundamental kinds of Liberal: Those that wanted a Mommy, and those that wanted to _be_ the Mommy. Conservatives want neither.

I will admit that my use of the term “Mommy” was a bit snarky. So I’m not surprised that my tweet created a barrage of snarky responses, most of which were of the form: “You Suck”, or “Your a bigot”, or “You are stupid”, or the more elegant “You’re wrong.” etc.

What surprised me most was the sheer dearth of intelligent engaging responses. Come on, folks, if you are going to debate, you have to debate on substance. Name calling doesn’t move the argument forward.

Some responses were relatively clever, though bereft of real content, like: “So Conservatives want the country to be more like “Lord of the Flies?” or “Is someone trying to hide an Oedipus complex?” or “glad to hear that conservatives are all born out of arseholes ”

Then there were the “Daddy” responses that were both clever and had some content: “Conservatives want to be the daddy, protecting the house from the ‘bad guys.’” Yes it is true that Conservatives believe in strong defense; but since the military is under civilian control, and since we absolutely do not want that military exerting control over our civilian lives, the “Daddy” metaphor doesn’t really fit.

There were several replies that made reference either directly or indirectly to the issue of Gay Marriage. I’m not going to address that here because it is outside the scope of this argument. We’ll have that debate on another day.

There was only one reply that I would rank as thoughtful. @jediwhale said: “A reasonable position, until an orphan shows up.” This really gets to the heart of the issue; because the issue is all about where to set the governmental safety net.

There are some folks who want the governmental safety net set very high, because they intend to live their lives in it. These are the people I referred to as “wanting a Mommy”. These folks tend to vote liberal because it is in their personal interest to do so. We’ll call them L1.

Conservatives also think there should be a governmental safety net. Nobody should die of starvation in the United States. Nobody should die of appendicitis in the United States. There should be a legal framework to make sure that people in dire and immediate need are helped. However, Conservatives believe that the governmental portion of this safety net should be set very low, and that the rest of it should be left up to private individuals through Charities, Churches, and other philanthropic organizations.

Some folks don’t trust that Charities can do enough. They think that the majority of the safety net should be governmental. These are the second kind of Liberal, the ones who want to _be_ the “Mommy”. Let’s call them L2. These folks tend to vote Liberal out of conscience, and care for others. They think it is their duty, and the duty of all citizens, to hold the safety net high.

As an aside, this is clearly an oversimplification. There are some pure L1s who selfishly take advantage of the safety net. There are also some pure L2s (Hollywood starlets and Billionaires) who will never need the safety net but want it in place But there are also plenty of people who are currently using the safety net who want to get out; or who are not using the safety net, but who feel better having it there. So my division of L1 and L2 is much more complicated than I make it out to be. But then, that’s what abstraction is all about. We try to understand issues by creating simple models. So bear with me.

The dispute here is over the use of force. Conservatives want to be free to control their level of giving. They want to make individual choices about when, where, to whom, and how much they give. Liberals want to control a significant portion of everyone’s giving. They don’t want to leave it up to individuals, they want to use force (and that means guns) to compel everyone to give at the level that _they_ think is appropriate.

Who uses force to control other people’s behavior? Mommies do. L2 wants to be the Mommy who forces the rest of us to give appropriately. L1 wants to force us all to be the Mommy who takes care of them. Neither L1 nor L2 wants to give us the freedom to control our giving.

Recently President Obama stated that the builders of the Cordoba House Mosque and cultural center have every right to build it on their site near ground zero. In a later clarification he stated that he would not comment on the wisdom of choosing that site.

I can understand why the President of the United States would refuse to comment on whether the Cordoba house builders were wise to build so close to ground zero. This is not a government issue. The government should limit their statements and actions to the protection of the rights of private citizens to build a legal structure on their own property.

But that leaves the question. It is wise? I think not. I recently tweeted this opinion and, not surprisingly, was barraged by a wave of responses ranging from sad and condescending explanations of my error, to outraged accusations of hate and prejudice. What I found odd was that none of the responses actually addressed the issue of wisdom.

People tried to explain to me that the constitution allows the building. I agree, of course it does. The builders have every right to build the mosque on that site, and Americans should defend, to the death if necessary, that right.

Others explained that all muslims are not terrorists. Of course this is true too. Though the number of radical muslims is not small, it pales in comparison to the numbers of peaceful muslims who were just as hurt and aghast as the rest of us as we watched the towers fall.

Some pointed out that allowing a mosque to be built on ground zero would be America’s finest hour. Hyperbole aside, I agree with the sentiment. Tolerance and the defense of rights is American. The builders have every right to build that mosque on their own land.

One person cast my “unwise” statement as a veiled Corleone-esque threat. He said I should just talk plainly and tell the builders that their mosque will be vandalized if they build it there. I frankly doubt this will happen to any great extent. I think if the mosque is built, it will stand relatively undisturbed. There will likely be a bit of extra ugly graffiti for a few months but I doubt much worse than that. Any vandals who do manage to damage the building should be caught and punished.

Then there were those who compared the building of the mosque to the building of a Christian church, republican office, or army recruiting center near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing. Their point is that all members of an organization are not guilty when a few members commit a crime. This is true as far as the logic goes.

But this gets to the heart of the matter. You see, there were no images of Christians, Republicans, or Army soldiers cheering as the Federal Building fell in Oklahoma City. Unfortunately there _were_ images, many images, of cheering muslims as the towers fell. And these misguided folks will cheer again when the mosque is built.

Three Thousand people died when the towers fell. It would be disrespectful and insensitive of the dead, and of the bereaved to give those who cheered at their pain another opportunity to cheer.

By the same token, it would be an act of healing and understanding for the muslim community to publicly acknowledge this, and to move the site of the mosque. It would send a message to those who celebrated so much death and pain, that muslims in general were not celebrating with them.

In a tweet recently, Brian Marick asked me for my positions on certain political topics. 

@unclebobmartin Positions on abortion, gay marriage civil/unions, drug legalization, prayer in schools, sex out of wedlock.

 I have answered the first two in previous blogs on this site.  Here are capsule answers to the others.

• Drug Legalization.  — Legalize them all and increase DUI and related penalties to zero tolerance and very high fines and jail terms.  If you want to do drugs, fine.  If you hurt anyone, or even expose anyone else to risk, you’re going to pay whopping fines and do time.  Regulate and tax the hell out of drugs, and severely punish black-marketeers.
• Prayer in school.  — Let them pray.  Who cares?  Getting all self-righteous about bible studies in school, or student prayer groups is asinine.  School administrators and teacher should take no position of any kind, either for or against, any form of religion or religious expression (violence excluded of course).  They should not encourage it.  They should not discourage it.  They should be utterly neutral.
• Sex out of wedlock.  — Who cares?  If adults want to have sex out of wedlock it’s none of my concern so long as they don’t irresponsibly have children and then dump them on the dole!   I don’t want to pay for someone else’s children conceived in carelessness.  So parents who abandon their children should pay higher taxes to support those children.  Nobody should ever be let off that particular hook.

I’ll add a one bonus point, just so Brian doesn’t have to ask for it.

• The teaching of Intelligent Design.  — It’s nonsense.  It doesn’t belong in the schools.  Intelligent Design is a Trojan horse for Creationism, which is a Trojan horse for Religion.

Three lawyers: Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury and John Yoo, offered their legal opinions regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques. They were very careful about these decisions. They made sure that the interrogators were not causing physical harm, persistent mental harm, or physical pain. Their motive? To save American lives while remaining within the boundaries of the law.

Obama, our waffling president, released the so-called “Torture Memos” and promised that there would be no prosecutions. The next day, after the memos were released, he reversed his position and said prosecution would be up to the Attorney General.

And who is likely to be the target of prosecutions, investigations, and interrogations? The three lawyers who offered their opinions to a nation at war. Three men who were trying to serve to the best of their abilities. And now, for their efforts, they will be castigated, interrogated, questioned, and possibly prosecuted. Even if the prosecution does not happen, this will cost them hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, and careers left in shambles.

The lesson we all can learn from this? If you have an opinion, don’t offer it because they’ll come for you. If you are asked to serve, avoid it, because they’ll come for you. Don’t say what you think. Don’t say anything the current, or any future, administration might disagree with. The jackboots are on the stairs. The knock is at the door. And they will take you. That’s the hope and change our new president has brought to us.

At the recent peace rally in DC, Jane Fonda blamed the US for the genocides of Pol Pot and Uncle Ho.
(more…)

Hillary’s new spin on why she voted for the war.
(more…)

Farting, cheating, stealing, murdering, and screwing on every accommodating surface. I don’t understand the attraction.
(more…)

It is utterly absurd, in my humble opinion, that a 15 year old girl needs her parent’s consent to buy aspirin, but can get birth control for free and be guaranteed that her parents will not be notified.  It is equally absurd that parents are not notified when their under-age daughters request, and receive, abortions.

I understand that some parents may react badly.  I understand that there are parents who are just plain bad.  But that doesn’t mean that the state should take responsibility for all under-age children in matters of reproduction.  These are very personal matters that parents shoud be deeply involved with, not excluded by the state. 

The state holds parents responsible for the actions of their children.  If my under-age child damages someone else’s property, that person can legaly sue me for compensation, and would likely win.  If the state presumes that parents are responsible for the actions of their children, then the state must not subvert that responsibility when it comes to sex and reproduction.  You can’t have it both ways.  If parents are to be held responsible, then the authority of parents must be presumed.  If the state subverts that authority by refusing to notify parents, then the state cannot hold parents responsible for their children’s actions.

Most parents want to be responsible for their children.  Most parents find the notion of state interference with their authority to be ahorent.   Laws that subvert that authority are often justified in terms of "safety" for the child; but that’s simply nonsense.  Yes, there are some situations in which a child might be at risk if their parents are notified.  But in the vast majority of cases the notification will do far more good than harm.  It is silly, even irresponsible, that the state prioritizes the welfare of the few over the welfare of the many.

When I was in 8th grade, a new kid came to our school.  He had been kicked out of his last school in a "tougher" part of the district, so he was an instant hero.  A real "hood".  He would greet you for the first time by giving you a big smile with sparkling eyes while enticingly pointing his thumbs to his crotch.  As you inevitably looked down to follow his pointing gesture he’s say: "Bagged ya!".  Ha, ha, ha.  Hee, hee, hee. Ho, ho, ho.  Nothing brightens the day like teenage boy humor.

Twenty years ago I worked as a chief software architect at a network management startup.  I was in the mens room one day and two guys in business suits sidled up to the urinals.  As they finished one said to the other: "Carful how you shake the dew off that lilly!"  As if on cue the other responded: "Any more that two shakes and you’re playing with it!".  Ha, ha, ha.  Hee, hee, hee.  Ho, ho, ho.  Nothing brightens the day like thirty-something urinal humor.

I was watching ER last night and saw one beautiful young female doctor tell another beautiful young female doctor that she had dropped her recent boyfriend because he was "orally challenged — he wouldn’t go south of the 32nd parallel — he didn’t want to eat at the Y."  Ha, ha, ha. Hee, hee, hee.  Ho, ho, ho.  Nothing brightens the day like the writers of a once great show succumbing to the temptation to use teenage urinal humor.

I will be quite amazed if that show gets another season.  It’s gone from great to complete crap. 

In the United State marriage is a legal institution which provides a few benefits for the two people entering into that relationship. 

• Spouses inherit their mate’s estate by default, and there are tax benefits to that inheritance.
• Spouses have power of attorney over each other by default.
• Couples (sometimes) pay a slightly lower tax rate than individuals.
• And there are others.

As a taxpayer, I am vested in the economic strength of our nation.  To a large degree that strength is based on population.  Therefore I am willing to pay a little extra in taxes as an incentive to couples to marry and increase the population.  On the the other hand, I have no interest at all in paying higher taxes in order to incent gay couples to marry. 

All the other benefits of marriage can (or should) all be attained through other legal instruments such as civil unions. 

The reason I want to see heterosexual marriage is that I want more American children born into American families.  But I have no reason to want to subsidize gay men or gay women who wish to enter into a tax-advantaged relationship and who cannot, in exchange, provide me the benefit of their procreation.  Why should I have to pay more so that they can get married?  Their marriage does not benefit me the way a heterosexual marriage might.

So, from my point of view I am willing to subsidize, through my taxes, hetero-sexual couples who can procreate and build families.  I am not willing to subsidize homosexual couples who cannot.  I have no objection to civil unions that grant homosexual couples every other benefit of marriage.  But I think the potential for procreation is worthy of nominal and subsidy distinction.