5 Years On: Hitler and Guns Still Reign Supreme

Hitler with gun

It’s now been five years since I began this blog, with the purpose of ferreting out, exposing and correcting myths, misinformation and disinformation in a variety of fields. In many ways, it’s been a productive five years. I’m pleased with the work I’ve done, and of all that I myself have learned in the process. And I’m pleased to see that I have a steadily growing following, and that I have received some wonderful feedback from readers. Equally telling, I’ve received my share of nay-saying and nasty attacks from those whose ideological feathers I’ve ruffled. The readership is not as large as I’d like, but considering that I’ve done next to nothing to promote it (I’m a very busy man, and not very tech savvy), it’s rather impressive.

These investigations have turned out to involve, much more frequently than I ever imagined, debunking the talking points of right-wing extremists. Which inevitably has prompted the accusation that I’m just here to promote a “liberal agenda”. Which is, alas, far from being the looniest thing right-wing extremists have said.

Which brings me to a fact that really bothers me. Out of 162 posts that I have written to date, the most popular by far is the one titled The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban. And when I say by far, I mean really, really by far. More precisely, it receives more than twice as many views as all the others combined.  That’s right: more than twice as many as all the others combined. In one day alone, right after being linked in a commentary by pundit Randi Rhodes, it was viewed more than 23,000 times. It also has elicited about a third of the total comments.

I mentioned all of this to my wife and she said, “Well, maybe reading that post will make people want to read your other posts as well.” But the evidence indicates that this is not the case.  The blog is averaging barely more than one page view per visit. Most people come here to read just one thing. And most of the time, it’s the same one thing.

And it is far from being the best of my articles. Oh, there’s really nothing wrong with it, except that it’s rather cursory. Which is why I wrote two sequels that explore the topic in greater depth. But guess what? Those two posts are no more popular than any of the others. It’s bad enough that people consider this subject of such vital importance — I actually wrote the first post to show that it’s a bullshit question, and really not very important except as a historical footnote. What’s even worse is that so many readers don’t want to know the ifs, ands or buts. They just want a simple answer: did he or didn’t he?

They believe this question is vital because they have been duped into believing it’s vital by a relatively small cadre of gun culture propagandists who keep hammering away at one of their favorite little formulas: (a) Hitler banned guns and (b) therefore, any attempt to regulate guns is superlatively evil. Not only are both premises patently false, they are by no means interdependent, as the propagandists insistently suggest.

The irony is that, far from shunning firearms, Nazis embraced them with a white-hot passion. And it’s hard to imagine that anyone who knows anything about history at all doesn’t realize this. Thus, it’s hard not to suspect that the gun fanatics who conjure up the specter of Der Fuhrer are doing so not out of revulsion, but out of some level of admiration. Not for the man himself, or his policies or evil deeds. But for the way he and his followers fashioned such a powerful and influential movement — aided and abetted by guns.

In any case, there are numerous subjects I’ve written about that deserve far more attention, especially from American readers. There is, for example, the Christian Right’s Nazi-flavored campaign to marginalize gays. (No, “Nazi-flavored” is not an exaggeration.) There’s the way a shamelessly partisan media cartel colluded with Republicans in the hijacking of the 2000 presidential election. Or, if we must talk about guns, there is the way the gun lobby manipulates statistics to make it appear that guns make us safer; and in particular, there’s the frequent naive reliance on bogus “statistics” that grossly inflate the frequency of defensive gun use, giving gun owners a dangerous false sense of security and coincidentally swelling the coffers of gun merchants. Instead, many readers just zero in on a bit of minor marginalia in the history of Twentieth-Century Europe.

But there is a bright spot. I omitted something from the stats I referred to (and one reason I did so is to illustrate how incomplete information can be misleading). The counts do not include visits to the home page, which presumably reflect readers checking out the latest post without actually clicking on it. That count is on average nearly as high as that of the Hitler-gun post; in fact, for the past couple of weeks, it’s actually been considerably higher almost every day. If this continues, it certainly offers some encouragement.

Still, I’m glad that this blog is geared toward those who have a sincere interest in learning the truth. If it had been designed for the edification of the general public, one would have to conclude that it’s been a dismal failure.

Science Deniers, Flat Earthers and the Modern Galileo


“Ted Cruz DESTROYS Sierra Club President Over Global Warming”. So said the headline of one of the Internet spinfests making the rounds recently. Another said “Ted Cruz 1, Sierra Club 0”.  Or in the words of a blog writer for Michelle Malkin, whose problems with the real world we’ve discussed before, “Global Warming Causes Sierra Club President to Melt During Ted Cruz Questions About ‘Cooking’ Planet”.

Cruz’s own website even crows about his supposed triumph by posting links to gushing reports about the incident from the mainstream media and from right-wing propaganda outlets. (But I repeat myself.) All of which just goes to show that you can spin just about anything to your advantage if you have your skull inserted into your rectum far enough.

This take on events achieved search engine saturation — it was almost impossible to find an accurate account of the incident referred to, because the spinmeisters had piled up such a deep heap of rubbish to dig through. Unfortunately for them, they committed — as they often do — the fatal error of providing a link to a video that is supposed to buttress their cause, but in fact totally explodes it. (Compare, for example, the birthers who provided a link to a video which they claimed depicted an attorney for President Obama admitting that his birth certificate is forged.)

Suppose the spin were true. What if Cruz really had handed Sierra Club president Aaron Mair his testicles on a salver. What exactly would have been the significance? Damn little. Mair’s background is in sociology, history and political science, and he is by profession an epidemiological-spatial analyst, which is basically someone who studies the geographical distribution of disease. He does not claim to be an authority on climate science, which just might be why he accepts the research of those who are experts.

Cruz, however, is another matter. With a background in public policy, law and politics, he believes he does know more about climate science than those who study it for a living. He’s even dubbed climate science a “religion.” He knows that global warming is a hoax because it still snows in New Hampshire. No, really. In fact, he places himself in some rather elite company as a maverick scientific thinker:

Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

Aside from the fact that he is turning reality on its ear, fancying himself a modern Galileo and casting the scientific community in the role of a backward religious establishment, there is something staggeringly stupid about that utterance, even by Cruz’s usual standards. But we’ll return to that later. First let’s look at what actually happened at that hearing.

It helps to understand how hearings work in a GOP-controlled Congress. When Planned Parenthood was the target of a smear campaign by a group circulating deceptively edited videos, Congress went after (not the perpetrators of the fraud, but) Planned Parenthood’s CEO, Cecile Richards, whom they subjected to a very nasty, one-sided, accusatory inquisition.

When terrorists attacked an American consulate in Benghazi, Republicans went after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who coincidentally was the favored contender for the Democratic nomination for president — even though there’s really nothing to investigate, they’ve reportedly now investigated Benghazi more than they investigated 9-11, which occurred on American soil, had a much heavier toll, and actually involved an administration’s gross negligence. And many of us still remember the congressional shark orgy around Clinton’s husband over his sex life, a witch hunt mounted under the comically transparent pretext that it was somehow in the national interest.

So it shouldn’t come as a great shock that given the platform, someone like Ted Cruz would seize the opportunity to grill a Sierra Club representative in an attempt to vindicate his own ineptitude. And while Aaron Mair was not as well prepared for the vicious onslaught as were Richards or Clinton or Clinton (this one was, after all, unscheduled), he was equally firm and patient — I’m not sure that he rolled his eyes even once.

The “platform” was a hearing on government regulation. But at one point Mair observed:

That people of color and low-income communities are disproportionately impacted by pollution, and climate disruption should not be up for debate any more so than the science behind climate change itself.

Well sir, Cruz saw his opportunity, so he pounced.

I’m curious: Is the Sierra Club, is this a frequent practice to declare areas of science not up for debate, not up for consideration of what the evidence and data show?

Among other things, this is a false attribution. It isn’t the Sierra Club that declares “areas of science not up for debate”. It’s scientists themselves. As Mair repeats far too many times (but what else can you say to such Cruzian nonsense on the spot — he had a better response later), the organization stands behind the consensus of 97 percent of scientists. At one point, however, he did refer to the “preponderance of evidence”, which gave Cruz another golden opportunity, noting that as a lawyer he learned that it only took a certainty of 51 percent to establish a preponderance.

I don’t know what kind of lawyer Cruz was, but surely he is not so inept a mathematician as to confuse 51 with 97. If only one scientist says something, or only one percent of scientists say something, by all means you can take it with a grain of salt. If 51 percent of scientists say something, you can consider it a matter of legitimate debate. If 97 percent say something, you’d do well to start paying attention.

Actually, Mair was wrong. He was citing a commonly quoted figure when he said that 97 percent of scientists concur with the global warming scenario, but this figure is off. The actual percentage is more than 99.99 percent. Yet Cruz still knows better.  And he has a simple explanation for why virtually all the scientists are wrong: those scientists only say what they do because they receive “massive grants”.  The “grant” card is a standard component of the anti-sciencer’s toolkit; if all else fails, just suggest that giving scientists money hopelessly corrupts them — unless of course that money comes from a petroleum company, and then the research is above questioning.

The implication is that nearly all scientists, even the best and brightest, can be bought. If that were true, it’s hard to imagine that science would have made anywhere near the progress it has — we might well be still in the bone knives and bearskins stage.

I’m curious, Senator Cruz: would you prefer that scientific research be carried out by shoe salesmen in their basements on weekends — or by individuals wealthy enough to fund their own research? Just how big does a grant need to be to qualify as “massive”? Should it be in the neighborhood of, say, the 15 million you received from major polluters this year?

Cruz asks whether it’s true that there has been no warming trend for the past 18 years. Mair responds, simply but accurately, that no, it isn’t true. Cruz presses on, laying a trap by asking whether Mair knows what “the pause” refers to. Mair fails the test. So what? “The pause” is a statistical burp that absolutely does NOT show a cessation of global warming. Cruz believes it does. So which of them is more uninformed?

In short, it’s true that Aaron Mair wasn’t stellar in defending himself at his de facto trial; but however bad he may have looked, Ted Cruz definitely looked much worse. And it was entirely his own doing. That tends to happen whenever a pompous individual poses as more knowledgeable about a field than the collective experts in that field — unless of course the individual in question really is a Galileo.

Which brings us back to that little statement Cruz made above. Let’s look at it again. Sorry, but it’s just too good to use only once.

Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers. It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.

As you probably realize, the clash between Galileo and the church had nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It occurred because Galileo had stated the earth revolved around the sun, while church officials insisted that the earth (and they themselves) were at the center of the universe. They were dead wrong about that, but they at least knew the earth was round — as virtually everyone else did.

Today, the term flat earther is applied figuratively to a person who clings obstinately to a narrow-minded belief that is contradicted by the evidence — like, oh, certain senators from Texas. But once upon a time, many people literally believed that before modern times. people literally believed the earth was flat. Not only is Cruz buying into this myth, he is quite ignorant about a key event in the history of science and the iconic conflict involving the scientific genius whose shoes he presumes to fill.

Did we mention that this character is chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness? Did we mention that he wants to be president of the United States?


Ricochets From Roseburg (Random Notes on the Latest Gun Massacre du Jour)

chris mintz

The man in the photo is Chris Mintz, a 30-year-old army veteran and student at Umqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. When the shooter began his rampage, Mintz blocked his path and took 7 bullets, possibly saving lives in the process. See how easy it is to publish his name and photo instead of the name and photo of the killer, whose actions almost certainly will inspire imitators? Wouldn’t it be nice if the news media instead lavished all the attention on the heroes, so maybe more people would follow their example? (Fortunately, some media personalities are indeed catching on.)

Think I’m exaggerating about the imitation game? The killer is quoted as having written on a blog post that it “[s]eems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight,” And the day before his rampage, 4 high school students in California were arrested for plotting a Columbine-style event of their own, a scheme to storm into their school and murder as many people as possible.

This photo did make the rounds of Facebook, where it was hijacked for a meme with the text “Took 7 bullets; No White House invite”, or some variation thereof. Well, sure. If there’s just been a multiple murder, isn’t this a great time to take a cheap shot at President Obama? For christsake, this crap started immediately after the shooting, when Mintz was in the hospital with two broken legs. Couldn’t they have waited at least a couple of days?

In fact, the White House announced shortly thereafter that the president would be traveling to Roseburg to meet with families of victims (and speaking with Mintz as well), which no doubt made his critics quite happy, yes? Well, not quite. They responded with online declarations, in the vilest and most execrable terms, that he wasn’t welcome in Roseburg (as if they were authorized to speak for everyone there), and even calling for his assassination for daring to make such a visit. They accused him of “politicizing a tragedy”, even as they relentlessly politicized a tragedy. There’s obviously absolutely nothing the man possibly could do that would inspire them to do anything less than hate him full throttle; they’d despise every breath he takes even if he gave their children free Uzis to play with at school. They’ll take any excuse they can get — even what the guy does with his friggin’ umbrella.

Meanwhile, the president made a somber speech for the umpteenth time about how we have to do something to stop this kind of senseless “routine” violence, even though he probably knows damn well it’s never gonna happen, because he’s been in Washington long enough to know that the NRA has too many politicians by the musket balls.

Speaking from the crowded GOP clown car chortling down the campaign trail, Jeb Bush (who, bear in mind, is supposed to be the most intelligent member of the Bush clan) brushed off the need to take measures to prevent shootings like this because “stuff happens”, which he subsequently tried to clarify and justify by amending to “things happen”. And not wanting to let a perfectly good false analogy go to waste, he suggested that passing gun laws because people get shot is as pointless as passing laws to require fencing around swimming pools because kids drown. Thing is, some states do just that. Florida, for example, passed such a law in 2000. And it was signed by — let’s see, who was governor then? Oh, yes, one Jeb Bush. You can’t expect me to remember the name of every governor who was instrumental in rigging a presidential election for his brother, can you?

Other wingers and assorted members of the gun culture responded to the president’s concerns with astoundingly, excruciatingly boring predictability.  They always thrash about looking for something else besides guns to blame for for the carnage — video games, music, movies, even the “banning” of prayer from schools — even though such a ban, as you know, never actually happened. But maybe they’re inadvertently on the right track; maybe “things happen” because of other things that don’t happen.

If God allows gun massacres in churches where people pray constantly, why the hell would He stop them from happening in schools because people pray occasionally? Well, maybe those people in the churches (especially if they’re black churches) just brought it all on themselves. Ted Nugent (who, mind you, is not only a member of the NRA but a board member) referred to unarmed shooting victims as “losers”, thus carrying on the hallowed wingnut tradition of blaming the victim. They’ve even been known to blame Jews for dying in the Holocaust.

Rolling Stone was prompted to run a little piece called “4 Pro-Gun Arguments We’re Sick Of Hearing”. And what are those 4 arguments? Okay kiddies, let’s all follow the bouncing bullet: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people”; “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”; “But, mental health!”; “Second Amendment, baby!”

There is some validity to the “mental health” thing, but otherwise these are incredibly inane arguments, which just might have something to do with why they’re so incredibly popular. And there’s at least one more that’s equally inane and insane and stupid: “Hitler banned guns, and look at what happened.” There are at least three little problems with that widely circulated soundbite. First, regulating guns does not mean “banning” them. Second, Nazi gun laws had very little if any impact on the Holocaust or The Third Reich’s ascension. And third, Hitler did NOT ban guns — he actually loosened firearms restrictions.

Yet I always can tell when there’s been another mass shooting without even hearing the news. All I have to do is check my stats for this blog and see that there’s been a sudden spike in readership. Which means there’s been a sudden spike in people checking out my post “The Myth Of Hitler’s Gun Ban”. Because in the discussions about the shooting, there are invariably lots of people who toss out the idiotic notion that Nazi gun policy has some relevance to Twenty-First Century America. (Nazi propaganda techniques and Nazi self-delusion, yes. Nazi ideological fanaticism, maybe. Nazi gun policy, no.) The irony is that the Nazis passionately loved their guns — they had a slobbering love fest with their guns that almost rivals that of contemporary American reactionaries.

Plenty of myths have been trotted out as gospel during the past few days. There’s the myth that the shooter was a Muslim. Or that he was part of a widespread anti-Christian sentiment in America. (Which dovetails nicely with the myth that Cassie Bernall, one of the students murdered at Columbine, was killed after saying she believed in God.) There’s the myth that he was a Black Lives Matter protester out to kill whites, and that he was in general a librul; in fact, he was, like most rampaging gunmen, part of the right-wing loony fringe.

Above all, there’s the myth that the shooting occurred in a “gun-free” zone, and that mass shootings almost always do.  It didn’t. They don’t. Another popular gun culture myth riddled with bullet holes. Rush Limbaugh put the figure at 92 percent, prompting Media Matters to observe that he was “only off by 79 percent” — an usually high degree of accuracy for him.

There is no evidence that mass shooters have ever deliberately targeted gun-free zones. But if you think gun-free zones  are the problem, or more firepower is the solution, perhaps you should talk to this fellow:


His name is John Parker. He’s also a veteran. He’s also a student at the college. And he was also present when the shooting occurred. Furthermore, he was armed. Wait, wait, time out. He was armed?? And yet he didn’t stop the massacre??? How could this be? Doesn’t it run counter to the order of the universe? In his explanation for why didn’t get involved, he said:

And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we were. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.

That’s just one of several reasons why armed intervention by civilians is usually not a good idea. Other veterans and tactical experts also weighed in on the “armed good guy” meme, calling it “insane”.

Sorry, but being an armed civilian does not increase your chances of becoming a hero. It increases your chances of becoming an aggressor or a victim. That may be counter-intuitive. It may be unfair. It may be unprofitable. But it’s reality. (I know, I know. Statistics and probability apply only to other people, and if you and your guns ever get the chance, you’ll show the bad guys, by god.)

Still, the NRA pushes the deranged belief that the only answer to guns, guns and more guns is more guns, even more guns and still more guns. And the cash registers ka-ching their chorus of amens.

In Roseburg, Candi Kinney, owner of the Roseburg Gun Shop, was nearly salivating on her trigger finger over the influx of new business the carnage was bringing her:

I’ve just ordered some more ARs (assault rifles).There’s always a rush on them after a big shooting. We can’t keep the stuff on the shelves.

Whenever there are obscene profits to be made, human life is very cheap. (Just ask Dick Cheney.) And just to make certain her customers know who the real enemy is, Kinney’s armaments emporium features this subtle visual aid:

Obama gun shop

Coincidentally, the killer’s mother stockpiled firearms because she was convinced Obama was going to try to disarm the populace. As I’ve mentioned before, one of the major problems with guns is that there is no legal minimum intelligence requirement to own them. Or to sell them. Or defend them or promote them.

Welcome to the new normal in America. Where lead is considered one of the basic food groups. To Jeb Bush, shit happens. To Bill O’Reilly, senseless mass slaughter is just the price we pay for our “freedom” to be armed to everyone else’s teeth. And there’s nothing to be done, so just suck it up, buckaroo.

Meanwhile, the sheriff who responded to the UCC shootings had previously declared that he was not going to enforce any gun laws passed by the current administration — which he suggested had staged the Sandy Hook massacre as part of a plot to confiscate everyone’s guns. And after that incident, Congress quietly decided yet again to ban funding for research by the Center For Disease Control into the causes of gun violence. Yes, you read that right: the Second Amendmenters in Congress don’t even want anyone to research the factors that cause people to Second Amendment each other so much, a line of investigation they have branded as “propaganda” for “gun control”.  John Boehner’s cookie cutter dismissal of this potentially life-saving research was so robotic and dumb it was priceless.

I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.

Do people really say “guns don’t kill, people do” in what is supposed to be a serious discussion? People do. I’m sorry, John, but while a single gun may not be a disease, guns in the plural most definitely are. If you have doubts about the nature of the pestilence on the land, see Exhibit A: the diseased gun vendor mentioned above. And many others like her.

Many of the communities in which these bloodbaths have occurred — Roseburg,  Newtown, Blacksburg, Charleston, Aurora, Jonesboro, Littleton — are places I have visited several times. I always found them to be serene and charming in the past. But now that image has been shattered — not just for me, but for everyone. And there are surely many more to come. The plague years in America are just beginning.


There’s Videos, and Then There’s Videos


Gosh, Dana Loesch is really outraged by doctored videos, isn’t she? Well, no, actually. The right-wing radio mouthpiece didn’t seem to have a problem with the doctored videos targeting Planned Parenthood — she even praised their supposedly revelatory nature. But when someone released a doctored video that featured her, she went apeshit.

Granted, it was a different ball of wax altogether; the Planned Parenthood videos were presented as being accurate, whereas the cartoonish video of her  apparently shooting herself was an obvious satirical riff on her (rather deranged) pimping video for the NRA — a playful but blunt reminder of what happens when people play with guns.

Now you could always call this video unfunny and in questionable taste if you like (I might tend to agree on at least the latter point). But Loesch wasn’t satisfied with that. She tabbed it as a threat to her life, and a typical gesture by gun-grabbing librulz; she even contacted the FBI. See if you can follow the logic here: Them librulz hate her because they hate guns and she loves guns. So they want to kill her using some of those guns they hate. One of the big problems with firearms is you don’t have to be particularly bright to own one.

She even thought it pertinent to point out that she’s a mother, which didn’t seem to stop her from hawking a product that kills thousands of children every year; yet her own children apparently are supposed to be an impenetrable shield against anyone illustrating the very real consequences of her actions.

Loesch posted the clip online, and her fan base took the bait, denouncing it as “sick”, “disgusting”, “hateful”, and entirely typical of them librulz. (And by the way, it wasn’t  nearly as “grisly” or “graphic” as they all proclaim, but only implies the gunster shooting herself in the head, by a splatter of obviously fake blood.) None of them have seemed particularly outraged about her own sick, disgusting and hateful allegation that Planned Parenthood is “selling black market baby parts”.  And few if any of them have shown any outrage over reports that Trayvon Martin’s killer boastingly posted a photo of his trophy kill. But if you dare impugn The Almighty Gun, all hell breaks loose. As one commentator so succinctly put it:

People tweet gun related violence threats against government and President Obama on a daily basis, but nobody on the right cares. One spoof video and everybody loses their minds.

Let’s emphasize that whatever you may think of the video, it was the work of one person. It did not represent the “gun control” movement or any other group. Yet Loesch and her drones did their best to dishonestly link it to Moms Demand Action. And they proclaimed in loud and unanimous chorus that it was a tactic typical of gun-grabbers and librulz in general. (This is an example of conflating a small number with a large number, as discussed in a previous post.)

In short, this episode serves to illustrate a sobering and inescapable fact: the rabidly delusional, toxically polarized, shoot-first-and-ask-questions-never mentality pervading the gun culture is what makes gun ownership in America such a problematic and deadly proposition.


Culture Of Confrontation

Argument clinic

Of all the many great Monty Python sketches, I think my favorite is Argument Clinic. In addition to being just plain hilarious, it makes — as great comedy often does — some very astute observations about what passes for modern culture. It underscores how people love and crave interpersonal conflict. It illustrates that a great deal of what we call argument is just mindless “automatic gainsaying”. And it suggests that a great deal of arguing is as pointless and absurd as voluntarily being insulted or hit on the head.

But perhaps the most amusing aspect of all is the preposterous irony of the premise that a person would have to frequent a special clinic in order to find a confrontation. In truth, you’d be more likely to have to hit a clinic to avoid confrontation. It’s all around us. Modern life is saturated with it — as you well know if you’ve done very much driving. Or watching TV. Or attending sporting events. Or browsing online forums. Confrontation is the coin of the realm in contemporary America. Many people seem, quite literally to live for it. They’ll spit venom at you on the excuse of just about any topic they can seize, though there are three in particular (politics, religion and guns, not necessarily in that order) that are just about guaranteed to generate fireworks. Coincidentally, those are probably the three topics that Americans on the whole consider most vital.

We’re not talking about mere conflict, which is a healthy thing. Conflict makes us stronger, gives us direction, and ultimately solves rather than creates problems. But we get all the conflict we need (and sometimes more than we can handle, it seems) in the natural course of living. Confrontationism is the act of creating conflict artificially: attacking someone physically or verbally, not for the sake of defending your turf or accomplishing a purpose, but for the sake of sheer antagonism.

Mind you, there’s really nothing new about any of this. In what is considered the world’s oldest recorded story, the epic of Gilgamesh from about 5000 years ago, the Babylonian king Gilgamesh and the wild man Enkidu engage in a head-butting, eye-clawing, mud-rolling fight to the death, such as a couple of WWE gladiators would have you believe they do. In the end, the fight is a draw and so, each impressed by the other’s ability to wage a viciously senseless donnybrook, they become the best of buds. Likewise in the medieval yarn about Robin Hood and Little John crossing the footbridge.

But this is a different world now. We can get our thrills from bungee jumping, skydiving and alligator wrestling. We can also watch other people beat each other senseless in the ring or on the football field, and blow each other to bits on the big screen. And we can indulge in all sorts of violent video games and other simulated delights.  Yet our thirst for confrontation does not seem to have abated one whit.

I rarely read online discussions about topics that are the least bit controversial, because it seldom takes more than a few exchanges for them devolve into “flame wars”.  Even on this present site, although most of its readers are a cut above average in the maturity department, there are plenty of people who try to replicate the same cafeteria food fight atmosphere they’ve seen elsewhere. But you may not be aware of it because I’m more fastidious about filtering it out than most blog moderators — I don’t want this site to become another one of those. Consequently, I just delete the attack messages unless there’s a compelling reason to publish them — e.g., they contain factual or logical errors that it would be instructive to examine.

I remember reading about a guest on one of the Fox “News” screaming fests — Bill O’Reilly’s, as I recall — and during commercial break he was advised that he was not being combative enough, so he should ramp it up.  Viewers might assume that the sparks are a by-product of debate; but they’re actually the steak rather than the sizzle.  It’s an addictive vicious cycle, with Fox etc., etc., giving the public the in-your-face clashes it craves, which in turn fuels further craving.

And it isn’t just a matter of experiencing vicarious confrontations in the media. It isn’t at all unheard of for people to get into violent, and sometimes fatal, disputes over parking spaces or other matters even more trivial. Sure, people do stupid things behind the wheel, and they might make you justifiably angry; but is that any reason to call them names, threaten them, shoot at them or follow them home?

One day I was riding my bike across an intersection on a thoroughly green light when a car whipped around the corner and nearly ran me over. Justifiably peeved, I yelled at the driver to watch where he was going; and then I went on my way. He, however, chose to take it as a personal insult that I would reprimand him for being reckless and nearly killing me, so he yelled after me angrily, calling me a “pussy” and challenging me to duke it out. I ignored him, but I could still hear him yelling for as long as I was in earshot. A similar experience occurred even more recently with the driver of a vehicle who nearly hit me when I was crossing on foot — only this time I didn’t even say anything first. The motorist just started yelling, threatening and challenging me because I dared to be in his way.

Nor is it just among strangers. Friends and relatives sometimes shout it out, slug it out or shoot it out, with the initial conflict beginning with the silliest of matters — e.g., who gets the dark meat of the Thanksgiving turkey (the actual impetus for at least one fatal family shooting I read about).

One of the strangest and most disgusting experiences I’ve had in this regard occurred back during the Bush-Cheney years, and involved a friend (or so I thought) whom I’ll call John (since that was his name). John was a very intelligent and well-read fellow who possessed several degrees in a variety of disciplines — or so he claimed at every opportunity. He was also, as I understood it, essentially a Libertarian; and thus I would not have expected that he would have been fiercely defensive about Dubya. Big Mistake.

Pursuant to some comments his wife had made on a related topic, I sent her an article describing how the present GOP in general, and the Bush administration in particular, had a habit of glossing over, if not downright throttling, scientific research that did not support their ideology. It was John, and not his wife, who replied to me, and in the most scathing terms. After first assailing the credentials and credibility of the author — with whom he admitted being unfamiliar — he ridiculed me as a scientific illiterate (after himself regurgitating the myth that scientists in the Seventies had subscribed to a global cooling model) and a believer in “conspiracy theories” (after himself suggesting that thousands of the world’s top scientists were cooking the books on climate change).

Ignoring his surprise invitation to a schoolyard pissing contest, I gently reminded him that neither I nor the writer in question had expressed a stance on any issue involved — e.g., stem cell research. The discussion, I pointed out, was about the Republican attitudes toward science, not my own. And I sincerely urged him to pass along any information on that subject that he thought I didn’t have.

Instead, he responded with more insults and unfounded speculations about my beliefs, motives and background, declaring that he couldn’t explain anything to me because I didn’t have the capacity to understand. Politely insisting that I had the utmost confidence that a man of his talents could summarize recent political developments in such a way that even I could grasp them, I asked him again to clarify why he felt the criticism of the administration was unwarranted. Which just prompted even more insults and bizarre assumptions.

The upshot was that after three or four exchanges like this, John announced that he was terminating our friendship and wouldn’t read anything else I sent him. It was entirely his decision — I’d always enjoyed talking with him even though his pomposity had been evident from the start. In his last message to me, he said it was time for the “Monty Python Solution”. It wasn’t a reference to Argument Clinic; it was a reference to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, in which one combatant gets all his limbs whacked off by the other, and agrees to “call it a draw”.

Let me emphasize that at no time did I return any of John’s puerile insults.  At no time did I challenge his opinions or express any of my own. I didn’t even correct any of his factual errors, although he certainly committed a few. Yet in his mind, we had engaged in a clash of Gilgamesh-Enkidu proportions, which he of course had won with his diplomas tied behind him.

I wish I could say that this incident was unique, but alas, it isn’t. Just recently, there was something eerily similar with a longtime reader of this blog who in the past had been a valuable contributor to discussions on the forum. But he apparently decided that it would be more fun to indulge in “automatic gainsaying”. He became obsessed with trying to discredit me about something, anything — even if it meant putting words in my mouth or contradicting his own. Among other things, he played three of the most common attack games: ad hominem (shooting the messenger, a la John), tu quoque (“you’re a hypocrite who commits the same offenses you criticize others for”) and what I call psychic psychoanalysis (“You may say X but you really mean Y because you secretly believe Z”).

I’d seen all of this before, so many times that it made my eyes roll; and normally I’d just ignore it. But because this reader had made comments of substance in the past, I thought I’d try being patient with him, and made some short replies to him to the effect that if he would be patient, he would see that his assumptions were off track. Big mistake. Lesson learned. He just interpreted my lenience as an invitation to attack further, and became so desperate to find a reason to snap at me that he offered wild — and wildly inaccurate — predictions about what I was going to write in the future so he could attack his own predictions.

I mention these two episodes because they illustrate four important points about confrontationism. First,  it’s essentially a proactive rather than reactive mindset. Confrontationists may claim that their nastiness is a response to something that someone else has said or done, but it’s usually an aggression rather than a defense; and to the extent that it may be a response at all, it’s usually vastly overblown and altogether inappropriate. John and the reader may have convinced themselves that they were arguing with me about something or other, but the former was arguing against a straw man, and the latter against himself.

Second, while attacks like these are generally, to quote Ambrose Bierce, “merely stupid, although a few add the distinction of silliness”, one can’t always chalk them up to ignorance or ineptitude. John and my reader were both rather bright and very well-educated fellows; clearly, then, their combativeness was a matter of calculated intent rather than unwitting default. Hell, maybe even the two drivers I mentioned were brilliant guys.

Third, they all indeed were guys — and it would be hard to imagine otherwise. Confrontationism is unmistakably linked to the Y chromosome. There are certainly exceptions, of course. In the verbal arena at least, Ann Coulter can Hulk-Hogan with the worst of them. And in peer pressure settings — e.g., schools — there very well might be as many female bullies as male bullies, verbally if not physically. But in the vast majority of cases, this is a behavior mode that goes with being male, not female. Which suggests that maybe one cause might be body chemistry or cultural conditioning. There’s a reason verbal assailants so often use “pussy” as an insult (“dick” is also sometimes pejoratively, but the contexts are very different.) And it’s interesting to note that John’s first vicious missive included a demand that if, in the future, I had any reading matter to send his wife, I instead should send it to him for screening.

The fourth and most important point is that these confrontations are counterproductive and stifling.  As you can see (I hope) the antagonism that these two gentlemen chose to vent toward me totally quashed any chance for fruitful dialog. And that, mind you, is the best-case scenario. Quite often, as we’ve mentioned, such incidents escalate into pointless violence.

Does confrontationism serve any useful purpose at all? It’s difficult to see what that might be, aside from its cathartic value — which, as we’ve noted, can be satisfied through other means. It’s possible that some people use it, even if subconsciously, as a way to test the mettle of a potential ally. It’s possible that if I’d been as nasty toward John as he was toward me, he would have had a great deal more respect for me. Even so, it’s just not worth it as far as I’m concerned. If I have to kick someone in the crotch to win their respect, they’re probably not the kind of person I’d want to deal with anyway.

Many people seem to think confrontationism is really cool and empowering. For my part, I just wish I could make it go away. But I can’t. And it won’t.

Rushing to Misjudgment


As you may have heard, police raided the Los Angeles home of Gene Simmons, bassist for the musical group Kiss to conduct a search for evidence of child pornography. This may have caused a great deal of shock and alarm among Kiss fans. (Are there really Kiss fans?) How could such a perennial pop icon have been involved in such despicable activity? Well, he wasn’t. When you read past the headlines, you see that neither Simmons nor his wife is a “person of interest” in the investigation — which apparently involves another individual who stayed in their home last year when they were away.

But how many people have the wrong impression because they only pay attention to headlines? Quite a few, probably. Headlines can be, and often are, misleading. Yet headlines are what grab people’s attention, and what people tend to remember longest. And even when people read past the headlines, it is the initial report that captures and holds their attention.

Which is a problem itself because news coverage, and particularly in initial reports, tends to be overwhelmingly sensationalist, superficial and slanted. Journalists and editors are under constant pressure to get a story out there fast and get it to the public in such a way that it will appeal to the public’s heavily divided and taxed focus and attention span. But they are seldom under pressure to provide accuracy, depth and balance.

Consider what happened when the news broke about videos that allegedly showed that Planned Parenthood sells “body parts” from aborted fetuses. Many people took the story at face value and ran with it, Facebooking it ad infinitum. It turns out that the videos had been heavily doctored (not only were conversations edited, but imagery of a stillborn baby was passed off as a fetus), and PP absolutely has been cleared of the charge of selling body parts. The problem, as usual, was not anything the organization actually does, but the sleaziness and dishonesty of “pro-life” fanatics. But by the time the truth came out, the damage had been done: the reputation of Planned Parenthood had been irreparably tarnished. Which was the whole idea.

Unless you live on Uranus, or just live with your head in your anus, you’ve probably heard more than you ever wanted to about the Ashley Madison scandal.  The website’s 37 million members included many politicians, some of the holier-than-thou variety. It also included “family values” media darling Josh Duggar, who’d already been exposed as a child molester and porn addict.

But it wasn’t until a few days later that we learned something else: Ashley Madison did not verify the email addresses of its members. Which means that theoretically, any email address that you or I have used in the past few years could have been “borrowed” and used by someone else to join the site.

And later still, facts surfaced that were even more interesting. It turns out that about 90 percent of the site’s members are known to be male. Of the remaining 10 percent, most are apparently fake profiles submitted by men or by persons connected with Ashley Madison itself.  There are, in other words, very few real female members at all; and of those few, almost none have responded to messages on the board. Which is to say, Ashley Madison is a colossal ripoff; and despite the huge membership, it’s highly unlikely that any given member actually cheated with another member. Yet divorces reportedly have been filed because of names being listed in the leaked database.

People have a habit of rushing to judgment. Why? We’ve already examined the compulsory tendency of the American public to form an opinion and voice a strong reaction to anything and everything that comes down the pike. But even if you feel obligated to form an opinion, does that mean that you have to do so immediately?  It will still be just as possible to react later after more facts come in as it is when the story first breaks. And it’s wise to wait until the other shoe(s) fall, if you don’t want to make a fool of yourself.

If you are a frequent reader of this blog, you may have noticed that it’s often considerably behind the curve when it comes to discussing recent events — you’d probably never be able to accuse it of getting a scoop . There’s a method to this slackness. I want to make certain I have the full and accurate picture before analyzing anything. And with current events, that usually involves a cooling-off period of at least a few days; I find it’s often better to wait at least a month. That doesn’t guarantee total accuracy, of course — it may turn out that Gene Simmons is really as much a perv as Jared Fogle (who according to initial reports was not a suspect) and Planned Parenthood is a grisly organ mill after all. But the evidence at this point says otherwise, whatever the malicious rumors may say.

Of course, my readership would be much larger if, like many other news-related blogs and like Internet gossips, I eagerly joined in the game of telephone. But unlike them, and unlike most news outlets, I’m perfectly willing to sacrifice popularity for comprehensiveness and accuracy.

6 Silly Narratives About the Gay Marriage Ruling and the Confederate Flag Flap


What, the world is still standing? After the Confederate flag started coming down and the rainbow flag started popping up in a single week, the word on the street was that The Final Days were at hand. Although the two developments had little if anything in common, the same reactionaries tended to react to both, and in a similar fashion. And they did their damnedest to squeeze both into a cohesive narrative of degeneration, persecution, oppression, and ominousness.

If you thought the cultural purge over the Confederate flag was breathtaking — wait until you see what LGBT activists do with Christians.  (Todd Starnes of Fox “News”)

Talk show host Bryan Fischer, who evidently can get better drugs than you can, commented about the Court’s ruling, “I saw Satan dancing with delight”. And of the backlash against the Confederate flag he said:

If we are going to remove symbols of oppression from our culture, if we come to the point where we say any flag that represents bigotry, any flag that represents hatred, any flag that represents slavery or oppression needs to be removed, then I want to suggest to you that the next flag to go ought to be the rainbow flag of the Gay Reich.

Fischer is a one-person Bartlett’s of loony right-wing soundbites. As is this guy:

This could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back – that camel being the up till now silent, passive Americans who have been cowed into “tolerating” societal changes that go counter to their fundamental beliefs (Allen West)

These people have been silent and passive up until now??? Heaven knows what kind of earplugs we’re going to need if they ever decide to start mouthing off. West and Fischer didn’t go it alone, of course, but had plenty of other people echoing their inflammatory rhetoric.

“Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history”, lamented Ted Cruz to Sean Hannity of fairandbalanced Fox “News”, who promptly agreed, “I couldn’t have said it more eloquently”. (All too true, alas.) Which presumably puts this ruling right up there with Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the same court’s hijacking of the presidential election in 2000.

Some individuals mused about what would happen if a gay couple wanted to put a Confederate flag on their wedding cake — would the baker have to oblige? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. This is a simple conflation of a hypothetical refusal to portray a certain image on a cake with a hypothetical refusal to serve an entire class of citizens.

Other responses to these disparate events didn’t necessarily try deliberately to bundle them together, but did often place them on parallel tracks. Here are six of the most frequent narratives.

Silly Narrative #1: It’s an anti-American thing

Many Americans responded joyously to the news of the Supreme Court’s decision by decking out their Facebook pages with the rainbow flag. Not to be outdone, many right-wing reactionaries responded in protest by draping their pages with the American flag. Huh??? How exactly is that supposed to be a protest? Is it intended to suggest that gays aren’t really Americans? Not even James Buchanan, a gay U.S. president who was elected more than 150 years ago? If they are Americans, how can it be un-American for them to get married?

The reactionaries also denounced it as un-American that some people aren’t in love with the Confederate battle banner. Just try wrapping your head around that one for a moment.  The Confederacy, lest we forget, was a treasonous faction that fought  an extremely bloody war against the United States Of America, brandishing this very flag – a battle fought primarily (contrary to revisionist spin) for the “right” to enslave and oppress an entire race. (Note that the iconic X-flag so often displayed was not the official national flag of the Confederacy itself, but a flag specifically designed for military forces.) Yet now, many self-proclaimed “patriots” proudly celebrate their Dixie “heritage” by exhibiting this symbol of bigotry, tyranny, insurrection and violence alongside the Stars and Stripes they claim to revere.

Silly Narrative #2. It’s a government overstepping thing

How dare the government try to dictate to us what flags we can and cannot fly? Well, don’t look now, but the big bad guvmint has done no such thing. What did happen was that the government of South Carolina, via due democratic  process, resolved to stop rubbing its “proud tradition” of insurrection and oppression in the public’s face, and no longer fly the Dixie rag on government property. And a few retail chains decided, of their own volition, to stop selling such emblems, at a loss in profits to themselves – the free enterprise system at its finest. But nobody is trying to tell you that you can’t fly that flag in your own yard or stick it under the gun rack on the back of your pickup or even tattoo the damn thing on your scrotum if you choose to.

And the Supreme Court decision? Though reactionaries have almost unanimously bemoaned that the Court has “redefined” marriage, it has done no such thing; what it has done is extend the right to get married to all Americans. Don’t look now, but governments at various levels have been dictating for a long time who can and can’t get married. The Supreme Court just put an end to that. You’d think that anti-guvmint fanatics would be out dancing in the streets along with Satan rather than bitching and wringing their hands over the impending End Of The World As We Know It.

Silly Narrative # 3: It’s a political correctness/ liberal tyranny thing

Ah yes, political correctness. It’s been the source of many wretched excesses, hasn’t it? Actually, it would be very hard to find a single example of supposed “political correctness” or “liberal hypocrisy” that pans out to be anything like it’s portrayed by right-wing reactionaries – who never bother to define what political correctness is really supposed to be. We just gather that it’s something often perpetrated by them librulz – who are never really defined either. But apparently both are identified with progressives and the Democratic Party, which sometimes at least makes a pretense of being progressive.  And that makes the reactions to recent events very curious indeed.

Right-wing reactionaries are very fond of reminding us, when it suits their purposes, that it was the “Democrat” Party that was on the wrong side of slavery and the Civil War – and pretending that the two parties haven’t changed a whit in the interim.  The governor of South Carolina who spearheaded the movement to remove the Confederate flag form the capitol, Nikki Haley, is herself a Republican. (She’s also a native of her state, contrary to assertions by the eternally clueless Ann Coulter.) As is a solid majority of the state legislature that voted to back her up.

Meanwhile, many of these reactionaries would prefer to forget that there are a good many gay Republicans (though it’s hard to fathom why), and even an official organization for them, the Log Cabin Republicans. Furthermore, the Supreme Court justice who cast the tie-breaking vote to legalize gay marriage was appointed by none other than St. Ronald himself.

Silly Narrative # 4: It’s a First Amendment/ religious freedom thing

Even though nobody is saying that you can’t buy or fly a flag (see above), some people see the recent reactions to its presence as, somehow or other, an incursion against freedom of expression. Evidently, that freedom is supposed to apply only to people who love the Rebel banner, not to those who don’t.

If you think that’s batty, try this: many of them also believe that the court’s ruling damages, somehow or other , “religious freedom”.  Both reactions seem to be predicated on the notion that freedom is a finite commodity; and whatever you grant to one person, you must take from someone else. They see no irony in proclaiming that gay marriage tramples their First Amendment rights because their religious beliefs should dictate the actions of everyone; and they forget, if they ever knew, that not so terribly long ago, Good Christians believed that God gave them the right to fly their Confederate flags over their slave shacks.

Okay, we get it:  many fundamentalists hate “Sodomites”. No, wait, we mustn’t put it that way. It’s really all God’s fault – He’s the one who’s declared that they’re “sinners”, and so the fundies are just following His wishes by condemning them. Yeah, that’s the ticket. And while they can’t prove it by quoting Jesus, who never seems to have gotten around to mentioning homosexuality at all, they can pull up an out-of-context injunction from the Bronze Age code laid out in the Old Testament that seems to support their cause –while ignoring even more draconian passages from the same book, including one that instructs them to sell their daughters into slavery.

Well, guess what? If hating fags – oops, mustn’t use that word – if condemning fags unto hellfire is part of your religious bag, you’re under no obligation to stop it just on account of 9 guys and gals in black robes.  You don’t have to like gays or gaydom. You don’t have to perform or attend gay weddings. You don’t have to enter into a gay marriage yourself. You don’t even have to give up your own marriage.

Please note, however, that this does not mean you always can use religion as a shield against the responsibilities of doing your job; most employers either want you to do your duties, quit, or be dismissed. This is particularly true if your employer happens to be a government entity, because government entities in the U.S. are committed, officially at least, to non-discrimination.  You have the option to comply with that commitment or step aside and make room for someone who will. But it’s entirely your choice, not an assault on your “religious freedom”.

Here’s a helpful tip, free of charge. If you really and truly believe that gay weddings somehow infringe on your religious freedom, then maybe it’s really, really time you started shopping around for a new religion.

Silly Narrative # 5: It’s a slippery slope thing

The “slippery slope” is one of the favorite tropes of the reactionary crowd to just about anything they don’t approve of.  Rarely do any of those things actually involve a bona fide slippery slope – don’t hold your breath until wingers get their thongs in a bunch over environmental desecration, for instance. But the decision to remove the Rebel banner from government property and certain retail outlets? Totally different thing, doncha know. After all, let THEM, whoever they are, snatch away the Confederate flag, however exactly they’re doing that, and they’re certain to do the same to the flag of the Confederacy’s enemy number one. Makes sense in a very nonsensical sort of way.

The pants-pissing over gay marriage is even more intensely Jeremiah-ish. For a long time, the reactionaries have been warning that if gays are allowed the same rights and rites as us unperverted folk, it well lead to all sorts of sexual aberration: polygamy (you know, like certain right-wing Mormons), bestiality, pedophilia, marrying your sofa, etc, etc.

Some people in the Alex Jones/Glenn Beck brigade are even warning, with cobbled evidence too scant to even qualify as tenuous, that pedophiles already have been inspired to make a drive toward legitimizing their thing under the same logic that gays have legitimized theirs. Well hey, it wouldn’t be unheard of for fringe groups to try to capitalize on a court case; but it certainly doesn’t mean they’ll succeed in that laughable endeavor.  They’d have to make it past the courts. And courts, however radical, will surely understand that there is a big difference between matrimony involving two consenting adults and predatory behavior toward minors. Almost everybody understands that. Even right-wing reactionaries understand that. Don’t they?

Silly Narrative # 6: It’s a (insert inappropriate analogy) thing

Naturally, one way to convince people how terrible these two events were was to compare them to other things that people already know are terrible. We’ve already seen how some commentators suggested that “banning” the Confederate flag (which Bill O’Reilly said stands for “bravery”) will almost certainly lead to “banning” the U.S. flag. Chairman of the South Carolina League of the South Pat Hines, meanwhile, characterized the movement to remove the flag from his state’s capitol as “cultural genocide”, while a certain perennially pompous radio talk show host declared it was all about “destroying the South as a political force”.

When it comes to excoriating court rulings they don’t like, wingers have a favorite whipping boy that they frequently juxtapose with Roe V. Wade:

What if no one had acted in disobedience to the Dred Scott decision of 1857? What if the entire country had capitulated to judicial tyranny and we just said that because the Supreme Court said in 1857 said that a black person wasn’t fully human… (Mike Huckabee)

It hardly could be a worse comparison. The Dred Scott ruling limited the freedom of an entire class of people while the current ruling expands the freedom of an entire class of people.

And there was a whole truckload of other inappropriate comparisons, including these:

Next we’ll get the arena and the lions, get the arena and the lions and bring them in from Tunisia.  (Michael Savage)

Essentially, this is gay Sharia … “Love” has won; now it’s time to shoot the prisoners– (columnist John Zmirak)

I fear for our country, quite frankly, because this is a spiritual 9/11. (Tim Wildmon, American Family Association)

I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch.  (Mike Huckabeeagain)

June 26, 2015: a date which will live in infamy. (Bryan Fischer, yet again)

What’s next? What’s next is what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. It is just a question of how soon the wrath of God is going to come on this land. (Pat Robertson)

And of course when all else fails, there’s always a certain short dictator with a funny mustache:

…the parallels to Germany in the Thirties… when German people had no idea where this was really going to end up… (talk show host Eric Metaxas

Are you okay with a baker saying that he’s not going to make any goods for a Nazi party rally? (Bill O’Reilly)

Another obligatory tactic is to suggest that rejection of intolerance constitutes intolerance itself, at least as intolerant as the intolerance it isn’t tolerating. Forty percent of the American public still disapproves of gay marriage, the reactionaries say, so why shouldn’t their wishes be respected too? Would they say the same if forty percent disapproved of interracial or interfaith marriage? Besides, who says their wishes aren’t being respected? Nobody’s forcing them into a gay marriage. (See above.)

Well, here we are two months later, and Obama’s storm troopers still haven’t raided anyone’s house to search for Dixie flags or hetero marriage licenses. Nobody has married their alpaca or DVD player. And God hasn’t unleashed a plague of locusts on America. In fact, the results of these two actions have been overwhelmingly positive; while there have been zero negative consequences. Get back to me in 20 years if any of that changes.