The Goggled View

A judge should have empathy. A judge should represent the views of a certain group of people. A judge should use the bench as a bully pulpit to bring about social justice and the rectification of perceived evil. It was fundamentally necessary for Obama to appoint a woman, or a minority (or better yet, a minority woman), because only through the diversity of the court can we achieve these wonderful goals.

The Ungoggled View

The place to work toward social justice is in the making of law, not in the interpretation of it. A judge should have an understanding of the law. Period. As a person, of course, any judge will have much more complexity than that, but when that judge puts on the robe and assumes the power of the bench, all complexity should be left hanging on the hook where the robe was. A judge is there for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to examine the evidence of a case, to examine the words of a law, and to determine whether the law was broken.

As a white male, I assure you that I would rather face a panel of judges who understood the position of a judge and the rule of law, than to face a panel who did not have that understanding. Quite frankly, it wouldn’t matter to me if the first panel was composed entirely of minority women, while the second was made up of white males, or if it was the other way around. Race does not matter! Sex does not matter! Only understanding the law matters!

Consider this (from The New York Times – "A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record"):

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

Set aside the racism, the sexism, the intolerance, the sheer ego of this statement and examine it carefully. All of those aspects are stunning, yes, but the truly breathtaking part is the assumption that a judge must reach his or her conclusions based on “the richness of [his or] her experiences”!!! Not on a knowledge of the law, not on an understanding of the position of a judge, not on an examination of the evidence of the case and the words of the law, but on the mere fact of having “lived that life.”

This must be a handy piece of territory to occupy, if you want to justify racist “affirmative action” rulings that use race to deny promotions (The Boston Herald – Jury’s out on Sonia Sotomayor) or if you want to use the US Court of Appeals to make policy (CNN – Sotomayor: ‘Policy is made’ at Appeals Court). But for those of us without the goggles, the prospect of seating yet another activist judge for the rest of her career is downright terrifying.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

North Korea is acting out in the only way we have left them, unable to come to the table because we have silenced their voice. If we simply respect them, and trust them, they will stop all this naughtiness. Another resolution will solve everything.

The Ungoggled View

The toxic-hazard suit that would allow me to immerse myself in American politics hasn’t been made yet, but let’s pretend. Let’s pretend I was president. Let’s pretend North Korea threatened human civilization (oh, wait, that’s not a pretence). My “resolution” would be as follows:

“You have three days to stop this nonsense and allow a United Nations inspection and demolition crew complete and unfettered access (no stunts like Iraq pulled) to all suspected nuclear sites in your country.

“This team will demolish all facilities and take into custody all records and data that are found to deal with nuclear armament. You will not interfere with this work in any way.

“If you do not agree to this inspection and demolition, then we will do it by remote control. We will bomb all suspected sites until all work stops. We will destroy the industrial mechanisms that allow you to pursue nuclear armament, we will destroy the financial mechanisms that allow you to pay for it, and we will destroy the diplomatic mechanisms that allow you to get away with it.

“Tick, tock, tick, tock.”

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

The media must remain unbiased. Absolutely no opinion must be allowed to creep into the reporting of stark, factual news. Opinion is for the op-ed page, and it not only can be kept there, but it must be. Only thus will the public need be served. In fact, there is no discernible bias in the media, because most journalists, if you ask them, describe themselves as “politically moderate.”

The Ungoggled View

The “media” is a bunch of people. Humans, just like you and me. And humans are full of bias. Every person on Earth is biased for something or against something, or more likely both for and against different things – sometimes holding quite incompatible views within one brain. It is not possible to separate bias from fact in the views or statements of any one person. Only by comparing and contrasting the views of many can we find anything resembling truth.

If I break into your house in the middle of the night, and you hear me bumbling around in your living room, and you wake up and call 911, and the cops get there just in time to catch me in the act of walking out with your brand-new ten-foot TV strapped to my back, the media will call me an “alleged burglar.” This is to prove that they have no bias. I am, after all, “innocent until proven guilty” (another deadly myth, but it will have to wait for its own rant – for now, just consider this: what kind of judicial system can prove an innocent person guilty? How is it even possible to be “innocent until proven guilty”? In fact, that phrase is a serious misstatement of a basic tenet of our judicial system).

But all of those “unbiased” journalists, who call a man caught red-handed in an illegal act an “alleged burglar,” have no problem at all mischaracterizing, over and over and over, the legitimate, legal interrogation of terrorist suspects as “abuse” or “mistreatment.” I guess if you’re trying to save American lives, you’re guilty until proven guilty.

Go do a little bit of Googling on “waterboarding.” First off, it’s not new. I found evidence that it goes back to the Middle Ages, at least, and there is widespread evidence that it was widely used during World War II, by various countries on both sides of the war. Second, it seems to be a widely used feature of certain, shall we say, “entertaining” photographs and videos of women (to paraphrase the queen, “We are not entertained.”). In other words, it’s something people do to each other, of their own free will, to make a buck. But we can’t do it to save American lives, because, as we all know, Americans are arrogant. The Apologist in Chief said so himself (to the French! Believe me, it’s never a good idea to try to claim more arrogance than the French).

And yet we’re all having it dunned into our heads, over and over and over, that this is torture. This is abuse. This is mistreatment. This constant repetition, by an “unbiased” media, is its own form of torture, the constant drip of water on the forehead that slowly drives us into submission. And that is, believe me, its very intent.

Thomas Jefferson said "If you can only afford one newspaper, buy the opposition’s." It was expected that there would be bias in the newspapers. It was expected that different papers would come down on different sides of issues and elections, that one would back one candidate while a second backed another. How did we get from the point of knowing about, and being on guard against, the bias in our media, to the point of believing that there is no bias, so everything they say must be unbiased truth? How did we get to a point where the repeated statement that there was no federal response to Hurricane Katrina for four days outweighs the news coverage of the federal response during those four days? To a point where “torture” is whatever the touchy-feelies in the press say it is? How did we get to a point where the press acts as a mouthpiece for the Oval Office, and no one cares?

There can be no such creature as an unbiased media, and the belief that there can be is deadly, second only to the belief that there actually is one.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

Supporting local businesses is not only a good idea, but it is vital to the survival of the local economy. When you go outside your local area to obtain goods, just because they are better, or cheaper, or more thoroughly meet your needs and wants, you are taking money away from the local economy and hurting local workers. Never shop at the local branches of national chains, or at the infamous “big box stores.” Always support local, family-owned businesses.

The Ungoggled View

Businesses exist for one reason and one reason only, and that is to make money. They do this best by following the dictates of the profit motive, and the profit motive will ensure that businesses make as much money as possible by selling you the least you will buy for the most you will pay. This is how it works, and it cannot be changed!

This is good for the consumer, because the businesses that sell goods and services must compete with each other. There is never a time when competition is bad for the consumer, or for the local economy. If there is only one cabbage store in your neighborhood, that store can (and will) charge whatever it wants for cabbage. As soon as a second (or third, or fourth, or . . .) cabbage store opens up, the price will come down on cabbage. People will go to the store that sells the best cabbage for the least money, so the stores will attempt to outdo each other in lowering prices and raising quality. And guess what? The store that wins that competition will still be making money! The only stores “driven out of business” by competition are the ones that were unfit, that is, unable or unwilling to raise quality and reduce price to sufficient levels in order to survive.

Suppose there’s a store a block on one side of your house that’s a local branch of a huge discount chain. Let’s call it, oh, I don’t know, uh . . . Flor-Mart. Flor-Mart sells Brand X laundry soap. Suppose there’s a store a block the other way that also sells Brand X laundry soap. You’re told by the local businesses that you should “shop local,” so you go to the little store and pay more for the soap (maybe it’s not more there, but I’ll get to that). Suppose you didn’t. Suppose you went to the big store. Suppose everybody else did, too. The little store, bereft of all its customers, closes the doors.

So what? What happens next? Better yet, what happens if the big store goes away? Well, my local Flor-Mart store employs roughly 475 people. I’m pretty sure the little mom-and-pop on the corner doesn’t employ that many. The big store pays who-knows-how-much more in taxes to the local economy. The big store gives more to the local charities. And the big store sells more goods in the local economy, for better prices, BETTER SERVING ITS CUSTOMERS, AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY!!!!!

Sorry. Got a little worked up there. Look, suppose the local school held a track meet. Nine other schools, from (gasp!) outside the area, send their best runners. Ten students run the one-hundred-yard dash. Who wins? The first one across the finish line, or the first one from the local school? If there’s only one student from the local school, and if they know they’re going to win the race, no matter what, then why are they going to run? Why not walk? You’re going to win, so you don’t have to compete, so you’re never going to improve.

Competition is always a good thing. Always.

Consider this. Under what circumstances do I have to be told to “shop local”? If the local business has a better price, for a similar product, no one has to tell me to shop there. It’s just a sound economic decision. If they have a better product for a similar price, again, I can figure it out. Even if they have a similar product for a similar price, but they offer better service, I know where to go (assuming that the product is one where service matters. If I’m buying bread, I really don’t care how surly you are to me, as long as you’re the cheapest place to buy bread. But don’t get complacent in your surliness, because most of the world does care.).

In other words, the only time you have to tell me to “shop local” is when it’s an economically unsound decision!

One last thing: walking through a local Big-Clothing-And-Hardware-And-Paint-And-Stuff branch, I heard two women who worked there talking about the importance of buying local, and how they didn’t like to spend money in non-local businesses. Now there’s an idea – try to put yourself out of work.

Shop local. The job you eliminate may well be your own.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

Toll Rises as Iraq Slows Surge – WSJ

The Goggled View

Iraq was a peaceful, prosperous country where everybody was happy, gently led by a caring and fun-loving benefactor who had been reelected by his people over and over again because they loved him so much. Then George W. Bush lied to the American people, maliciously claiming that there were nuclear weapons there, when everybody knew it wasn’t so. Over the objections of Congress and the American people, and in blatant violation of every law ever passed by any civilized people, he waged his own personal war on this tiny, harmless nation, mostly so his oil buddies would get richer. He personally led the invasion, personally oversaw the occupation, and personally destabilized the entire Mideast. Now the world hates us, and we need to go home. This will cause the previous peace and harmony to return to the area, and, with enough time, enough bowing to foreign rulers, and enough selling of our assets to foreign governments, the US can rebuild its esteem in the eyes of the world.

The Ungoggled View

Saddam Hussein was a vicious, sadistic butcher who ruled the people of Iraq with bloodied iron fists for thirty years. When the US-led coalition invaded Iraq, it was with the authorization of Congress, and the intent, among other things, was to search for the weapons we know beyond any reasonable doubt that he had, because we can detail all the times he used them on his own people. The UN told him repeatedly to get rid of them and to prove that he had, and he refused repeatedly. There is no doubt at all that he had chemical weapons, had biological weapons, and was attempting to build nuclear weapons.

It is mostly true that we didn’t find them. But suppose your neighbor shoots your dog from his upstairs window with a rifle, and the entire neighborhood sees it. You call the police. They arrive, pound on his door, and tell him they need to search his house for a rifle. He says “OK, no problem. Next Saturday, from 10:00 to 10:15, you can search the kitchen, and Monday, from 3:30 to 3:45, you can search the living room.” How many days of such “searches” would have to go by before you decided there never had been a rifle in the house, that you must have been imaging things, and that your dog simply happened to drop dead at an inopportune time?

But I digress. Back to today’s news. When the US-led coalition toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, after seven weeks of military history (at the risk of digressing again, let me point out that no army had ever advanced so far and taken so much territory in so short a time, with so few casualties), we had an excellent opportunity to help the Iraqi people set up a government that would let them live in the peace and prosperity and self-rule every nation on Earth deserves. Instead, we bogged down, distracted by the irrelevant whining of an illogical left, a small but vocal minority that voiced such pieties as “The human toll is too high!” in spite of the fact that there were single days in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War (yes – I said it. The Vietnam War. So sue me.) that exacted higher tolls, and in spite of the fact that the goal was the liberation of millions. But then, in the goggled view, 1) those people don’t deserve freedom, because they’re foreigners, and 2) they had all that peace and prosperity before W got mad cowboy disease and went over there and messed things up for them.

So now we turn tail and run. (No wonder the world thinks less and less of us. Since April 30, 1975, we’ve made quite a habit of tucking our tail up under our non-existent genitalia and leaving our comrades to die on the battlefield.) Now we are supposed to be surprised that violence is increasing in Iraq, as the only stabilizing force the area has had for decades runs away.

I am not surprised.

(Mr. Bush, please accept my sincere apologies. I needed to make the point. I am firmly convinced that history will give you the accolades you deserve, eventually. I thank you for your service, sir, and for your sacrifice.)

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

Poverty is something artificial that is foisted upon the masses by the greed, ignorance, and insensitivity of the wealthy. Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable to take from the wealthy, by the heavy hand of punitive taxation, and give to the poor, by means of governmental handouts. As a matter of fact, wealth redistribution is the number one priority of government, and may be the only reason for its existence.

The Ungoggled View:

The root of poverty is inherent in the concept of private property. The only society without poverty will be the society in which private citizens own nothing at all. Everything, down to the shirt on your back and the underwear you’re sitting in, belongs to Big Brother. It’s only on loan.

If you are capable of being a mechanical engineer, you’ll be one, and you’ll do it for the roof over your head, the aforementioned clothing, and three bars of Soylent Green a day. If you can’t be an engineer, but you can sweep floors, you’ll sweep floors, and you’ll do it for the exact same benefits. (There, will, of course, be exceptions. The ruling class, for instance. The High Priests and Priestesses of Government will have to live in lavish palaces and wear golden robes. Feel sorry for them, if you must, but do not question their need. Don’t worry; there’s a perfectly good reason for their sacrifice. They would love to live like you do, but they just can’t. You won’t be told the reason. You wouldn’t understand. But it’s a very, very good reason.)

If, however, there’s a way for you to work extra hard and get a second shirt, then you have something I don’t. You’re wealthy, and I’m poor, and the old boogyman of poverty has reared his ugly head again. To fix it, the High Priests and Priestesses will take your second shirt. They can’t give it to me, because then I’d be rich, and you’d be poor. So they’ll just keep it, because there is no end to the sacrifices they’re capable of making to ensure that you and I are able live in the utopian harmony they only wish they could have, themselves.

Consider this, though. If there’s a way for you to work extra hard and get a second shirt, then can’t I just do the same thing? Do I really have to go to the High Priests and Priestesses, hat-in-hand? (Metaphorically speaking of course – I have no hat. Hats are for the Priestocracy.) Perhaps I could get a third shirt. Then you’d be . . . oh, wait. Then you’d be poor.

There’s a PSA airing a lot right now about “fighting homelessness.” It begins with a gravelly, pathetic, male voice asking if you can “Spare a dollar?” Then an earnestly concerned female voice asks what you do when you see a homeless person. Do you look for spare change? Do you look the other way? How about doing something that goes to the heart of homelessness, like working with your local planners to ensure there’s affordable housing for everybody?

Now wait a minute. We’re talking about someone who makes his living begging for “spare” dollars. (I’m not sure what that is. Is that the one in the trunk, with the jack?) Never mind the fact that he’s going to quit as soon as he has enough for a Value Meal at Micky D’s and a bottle of Mad Dog. Let’s pretend he’s going to do this all day. How much do these people think he’s going to make? How do they propose to “make sure there’s affordable housing” for someone who chooses to make his living begging rather than working? I heard that! Someone just said “It’s not his choice!” Well, I beg your pardon, but it is a choice. There are people who choose to work two jobs, who choose jobs that are “beneath” them, who walk dogs and wash windows in their spare time, in order to keep from having to beg in the streets.

Not to decide is to decide.

Pretend you could ensure that there was affordable housing for a beggar. Pretend you could house him and clothe him and give him this day his daily Soylent Green. How much longer will your mechanical engineer continue to toil away over his hot keyboard every day, when the the beggar gets exactly the same thing for holding his hand out? How will you build bridges? How can you run an insane asylum with no doctors?

You simply can’t penalize the productive to sustain the nonproductive. It is up to each person who passes that beggar to determine how much, if anything, to give him. That’s called charity, and it’s fine and good and noble. But it has to be on a person-to-person level.

The fact is that you can’t eliminate poverty without eliminating private property altogether. And that’s a place I never want to live.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

Marriage is a right that heterosexual people have, and gay people are being denied. The only reason anyone would be against extending the same right to gay people is because of rampant discrimination against gay people, rooted in fear and ignorance. You either embrace the gay mantra, or you’re an ignorant homophobe, scared spitless that if gay people are allowed to marry, then somehow, sometime, you will become homosexual.

The Ungoggled View

Marriage is not a right at all. No one has the “right” to get married. Marriage is, and always has been, a privilege granted to those who meet its requirements. It’s not even a question of what marriage is for, or what it should be rooted in. It’s not about love or lust or sex or reproduction. Marriage is simply a privilege you earn by meeting certain requirements.

Consider this. Two men are walking along a city street. On the right, you have Michael, forty-plus, heterosexual, and single. On the left, you have Bruce. Bruce is also forty-plus and single, but he is “gay.” Bruce is actually pretty angry right now, because he doesn’t have the “right” to marry, while Michael does. Let’s follow them a while.

Look! Here comes Allie. Allie is beautiful, all sunshine and smiles and long blond hair. She’s also thirteen. Is she the person Michael has the right to marry, while Bruce does not? No. She’s thirteen. No one has the right to marry her.

How about Susan? She’s just as beautiful, with big green eyes and dark red hair, but she’s twenty-seven, happily married, and the mother of two young boys. Is she the person Michael has the right to marry, while Bruce does not? No, she’s married already.

Well, here comes Troy. Troy’s twenty-one, single, good-looking, and actively “in the market” for a mate. But he’s male. Is he the one? No, he’s male. Neither Michael nor Bruce have the right to marry him.

Here’s Briana. Briana is tall and dark, handsome rather than beautiful. She’s thirty-one, single, and eager. Perhaps she’s the one? No, because while Michael certainly has the right to marry her (pending her approval, of course), so does Bruce!

The point is, obviously, that Michael and Bruce can walk the length of Manhattan and never find that elusive person, the one Michael has some mysterious “right” to marry and Bruce does not. The only time you’ll find that Michael has the right to marry someone Bruce does not have the right to marry is when that someone is Bruce’s sister, mother, daughter, or first cousin. In order to compare identical circumstances, in those cases, you would have to ask if Michael has the right to marry his sister, mother, daughter, or first cousin, and the answer, of course, is no.

I know what you’re saying. “Oh, but Michael has the right to marry the person he wants to marry! He has the right to marry the person he’s in love with. Bruce doesn’t, and that’s not fair!” Well, sorry, but no. Michael only has the right to marry the person he claims to be in love with under certain circumstances. Suppose Michael claims he’s in love with Allie? Will that make it permissible for him to marry her? Obviously not; she’s thirteen. How about Susan? What if she’s the undying love of his life? What if she’s the absolute curry on his rice? Can he marry her? Not unless she gets a divorce, at which point Bruce can marry her!

Suppose Michael claims to be in love with Troy? Michael’s heterosexual; he has the right to marry. Therefore he can marry Troy? Of course not. As a matter of fact, that may be the most telling question, right there: if heterosexual people have the “right” to marry, then can two heterosexual men get married? If not, why not? They are heterosexual, right?

It could be argued, I suppose, that a society that extends the definition of marriage to include a union between two men or two women is also granting those unions to heterosexuals. However, it is undeniable that this constitutes a fundamental shift in the definition of marriage, not simply the granting of an existing right to a group of people who have been overlooked.

It is so blindingly obvious that only the willfully obtuse can refuse the point: homosexual people have as much right to marry as heterosexual people do. Their continued demand for “equal rights” is nothing more and nothing less than a thinly disguised attempt to force society to accept their lifestyle choices. It will end only when it is illegal to believe homosexuality is abnormal. I, personally, don’t want to live in a society where certain beliefs are illegal. I don’t even want to live in a place that outlaws the beliefs I disagree with. A society that outlaws a belief in a flat Earth, or the belief that aliens were found in Roswell, is a society that is giving up its freedom.

By the way, take a good long look over the shoulders of the “gay rights” people. Who is that, standing in line right behind them? The pedophiles, that’s who.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

The Goggled View:

Some people are born gay. It’s just what they are. It’s the way God made them, or Mother Nature, or Darwin, or Gaia, or whoever you credit with such things (in the goggled view, they’re all equal, except God is less equal). Being gay is not a sin, or a crime, or an illness or disease or disorder. There’s nothing they can or should do about it, and nothing you can or should do. As a matter of fact, it’s none of your business at all.

The Ungoggled View:

There is no such thing as a “gay” person. There are only people who practice homosexuality. You can no more define a “gay” person without reference to homosexual acts than you can define a painter without reference to painting, or a musician without reference to music. Just as it would be absurd to say that there could be a person who was a painter, who was simply born one and would remain one for his entire life, whether he ever painted anything or not, so it is absurd to claim that there are people who are homosexual from birth, and will remain that way until they die, regardless of whether they ever practice homosexuality.

A painter is a person who paints. A musician is a person who makes music. A “gay” person is a person who lives a homosexual lifestyle. Period.

And don’t try to tell me there is no choice involved. I could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. I do not so choose. A “gay” person could choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle, but does not so choose. Don’t tell me that’s not a choice. I choose to remain heterosexual, just as I choose to remain faithful to my wife, to abstain from sex with animals, and to not molest little girls. I choose not to rob banks. I choose not to hunt people with high-powered hunting rifles. These are all choices, and they are all choices that other people, at various times, have failed to choose.

Not to decide is to decide.

If you don’t believe me, consider this: I get a lot of junk email. A lot of that is ads for porn (98% of everything on the Internet is ads for porn, I believe). A lot of those ads seem to be advertising photo sessions or videos detailing “her first lesbian sex.” If she was lesbian, period, if there was nothing she could do about it, if she’d been that way since she was born, why would her first lesbian sex not simply be her first sex? Google “bi-curious.” I just did. I got almost 1,800,000 hits. Why is there such a thing as “bi-curious” if sexual “orientation” is fixed by genetics? Why is there a whole subset of “gay” men known as “chicken-hawks,” whose passion is seducing young “straight” men? If it’s not up to choice, then how can they be seduced by men?

There is no such thing as a “gay” person. There are only those who live homosexual lifestyles.

Take the goggles off. Think about it.

Who am I?

You might or might not recognize my name, if I told you. I’ve been active on the Internet for some years, posting widely in various communities. In fact, it is partly to protect those communities that I am wrapping myself in this cloak of anonymity. You may hate me if you wish, but if you could point that hatred toward my friends and comrades because you knew who I was, that would be my fault.

Secondly, I’m remaining unknown so that you will have to think about my postings, not about me. How easy is it to hate Rush Limbaugh because he’s a large, rich, white man who smokes cigars and had a drug problem? How easy is it to hate Perez Hilton because he’s flamboyantly gay? Malcom X or Martin Luther King, Jr, because they were black? How easy is it to get caught up in the fact that the messenger is not like you, and so therefore he must be wrong?

If you hate my message, fine. It’s even okay if you hate me. But let’s not confuse the two.

My Comment Policy

I’ve turned on comment moderating. This is not to squelch dissent. It’s just so that this will remain my blog, not yours. I won’t allow you to use a comment on my blog to change the subject, spread misinformation or lies, or practice your hate-mongering skills. If I speak out against “gay” “marriage” (I will), that doesn’t mean it’s open season on gays in my blog. It means I’m opposed to special rights for a group of people who have chosen an alternative lifestyle.

An argument is a list of statements and a conclusion which is claimed to be derived from the statements. It’s not bickering, spitting, spewing, etc., and I won’t tolerate such behavior here. If that’s you, then grow up or go away.

All of that being said. . .

Welcome! I hope you find these posts thought-provoking. That’s all I ask.

Coming tomorrow:

Why there’s no such thing as a “gay” person.