I promise our chicken is still eatable

My entire Facebook feed and Tumblr has blown up recently with the news of Chick-fil-A's support of focus groups like the American Family Association. Since I work for a local Chick-fil-A store, I thought it might be fitting (or maybe not, I just wanted to) for me to offer a word on the subject. It's neither in defense or opposition to Chick-fil-A's stance, by the way; it's more like something in the middle.

Personally, as a private individual with moral ideas, I agree with Mr. Cathy, the president of CFA. I do believe that homosexuality is not part of God's sovereign plan for humanity, that it is a perversion of what God created, and that it is not moral. That is my personal belief. I hold that belief in the same way that I hold the belief that premarital sex is wrong, or that wasting your money on gambling is wrong. Yes, it's wrong, yes, it's not wise, but there's really nothing I can do to stop you.

Especially not through the law. The way I understand it, though, CFA has not done or said anything that would express their desire to do so. Basically, they just gave funds from their profits to AFA. Yes, AFA is pretty ridiculous with some of its stands (I mean, c'mon: the "War on Christmas"? Really?). But at the same time, any business is perfectly free to give their money wherever they want. I can guarantee that most businesses give money to places that the vast majority of people probably wouldn't like. That's the way it is, though. Businesses give money to organizations for lots of reasons, sometimes just to buy them off so they don't run into each other.

In the end, I think both sides are inflating this issue far beyond what it needs to be. If it will make you feel better to abstain from eating waffle fries and chicken sandwiches, fine. Your loss. If you whole-heartedly agree and are determined to shout down the opposition with Bible verses, I suppose that's your business. I'll just go back to selling chicken, as always, and let you live your life. Because this whole thing strikes me as kind of stupid.

Today We're Selling Rotten and Rubbish!

Last night, in an attempt to get back into the swing of politics and bridge an ideological gap in one fell swoop, I attended fifteen minutes of a Tea Party Patriots meeting. It turned out to be only fifteen minutes because, after we'd gotten there late, that's how long my mother managed to sit through it before walking out in disgust. Since she is my primary source of transportation (still), I went with her. I had no desire to walk ten miles back to my house. No thanks.

That being said, it is already clear that our local Tea Party has reduced this year's presidential race down to the media's level--which is why my mother was so disgusted. Basically, they are saying (as ever) that a vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate is a vote for Obama. Because, you know, we all realize and acknowledge the concrete fact that the GOP would never nominate someone who wasn't...well, ideologically sound with their beliefs, and sincere in his own belief in that ideology. Obviously.

In any case, besides the mathematical odds of your vote even doing anything for your candidate, much less against him or her, there is the matter of the choices I, a young voter, am being faced with. I feel a bit like a harried shopper. Let me explain.

Imagine, for a moment, that you walk into a grocery store. Perhaps you are hankering after some good beef, some potatoes on the side. And pie. (Pie is a necessary part of any good meal.) But as you go to select your steak, a wild-eyed employee comes running up, apron flying, hair rumpled as he screams in your face and quickly replaces the steak you'd picked up, practically yanking it from your hand. You protest, as you should, that you quite liked that steak, and had been planning to buy it. No, he screams, that steak is bad for you. That steak would ruin the store if you bought it! No, no--you want one of these steaks. And into your hands he places two old pieces of meat.

They smell as rank as they look, and for a moment you're nonplussed. Surely these two can't be the ones he means! And besides, look at the price tags! But the employee insists, and somehow you've dropped one of the steaks, and the employee has already put an arm around your shoulders and is steering you towards the check out, chatting your ear off about how you've made the right decision, and the choice was inspired, truly inspired, sir, and bravo and cheerio!

Ridiculously lame attempt to be British aside, it seems that sometimes this is precisely the kind of choice that is given voters. Romney or Obama, they say--"Here you are, have the compromising hack or the suave liar. Which do you prefer?" The media has reduced the debate down to which one stinks less, rather than which one will actually help the country and abide by the Constitution while he's at it. And then of course, there's the lovely citizens of this fine country, who insist that if we don't vote for their candidate, we're "wasting our vote"... and God Almighty forbid we vote outside the two party system! Why, that would be tantamount to treason.

Let it be known here and now, then, that I will vote for whoever I please, fearmongering notwithstanding. And I know, quite well, that my vote will not be wasted.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

John Quincy Adams

The Government Must Tell Us

Amidst the debate over the Supreme Court case that is challenging some provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act, it seems that an interesting phenomenon has arisen. It's one I've seen other times, as well: this idea that the government has to tell us what to do, or else we will be completely incapable of, you know, being adults and taking care of ourselves.

Which is, obviously, why the government must tell us that we are required to buy health insurance. Because, naturally, we can't expect to make our own decisions about our healthcare and make the choices that are best for us. No, the government must come and tell us what to do, or else we will be physically and mentally incapable of taking care of our own business.

You have to love the Nanny State mentality, whether you partake in it or not. Whatever else you might say about it, it offers limitless opportunities for amusement.

According to this article, the Obama administration is claiming the interstate commerce clause as justification for the mandatory health insurance bit, once again proving that the government can fit anything under that label. So long as it requires monetary exchange, they can tax it and say that it's interstate commerce, so it's okay for them to get involved. Besides all that, of course, we must think of all those poor people who can't afford health insurance...

And must steal money from taxpayers in order to pay for them. O, having a government that is simultaneously extravagantly spendthrift and also practically bankrupt is sometimes very interesting.

Atlas Shrugged Review

I finished reading Atlas Shrugged last night. It took me five months, but only because for the first two I was reading several other books and not giving it my full attention. Finally, however, I came to the end (and I want to know what happened to Eddie Willers. I mean, really?), and my mother made me promise to write a review about it. So here it is.

Atlas Shrugged seems, without exception, to be one of those books that is met with only one of two reactions--on the one hand, hatred to rival that afforded Hitler, or a mindless sort of love that equals that given to Mouch's policies amongst the unthinking rabble. I'm going to be the odd woman out and strike a middle road.

While I agree with Rand in some respects (I do believe that a government that keeps itself to the defense of life, liberty, and property is the best sort of government), much of her analysis struck me as simplistic and, at times, downright unrealistic. She, along with most of the people who love her book so ardently, failed to realize that what she was dealing with were fictional characters who were living in a fictional world. Of course they behave in a certain way. They were written that way. The way most of them behave would be entirely ridiculous in the real world; to expect every member of her society to behave in exactly the same manner, no matter the world around them sounds like some sort of really bad twist in a modern YA dystopian novel.

Which, of course, leads to the fact that all the "bad guys" think exactly the same way, and so do the "good guys". Despite her vociferous rejection of the absolutist thought that gives rise to the ideas of Thompson, Mouch, and Co., John Galt, Inc. does exactly the same thing. Except, of course, under the guise of being good and righteous, because making money is the only thing that is moral in the world. In essence, one can only be a good sort of person if one is just like John Galt, and is utterly and completely brilliant. Rand, and Galt with her, are rigidly absolutists when it comes to their ideas. In essence, either you are with them, or you are against them, and no thought that does not agree with their's can be permitted--which is the essence of tyranny. It may not be the tyranny of the looters, but it is still tyranny.

In addition, Rand seems to think that, so long as you can come up with some wonder product that you can give to the world, you will be acknowledged for your amazing talent and immediately given a place among the highest of the high...despite the fact that real life doesn't work that way, and never has. Capitalism is not a meritocracy any more than socialism is.

All of that isn't even touching on the flat characters that clogged the pages of this book. The story was reasonably engaging, but I couldn't get past Dagny's meek submission to every "worthy" man that came along, and the fact that every single "thinking" person worded their "thoughts" exactly the same way. Whether on the side of the looters or the side of the mighty paragons of business virtue, they all articulated exactly the same thoughts in exactly the same way, without pause or dissension.

So, it gets three stars because it managed to hold my attention throughout most of its 1,000 pages. I could have done without the 80-page speech that was a thinly-veiled rant against religion, but we readers can't have everything.

Kony 2012 and the Myth of Redemptive Violence

You know when it's easy to oppose violence, war, and murder? When it's a popular movement against a brutal, universally hated criminal in a distant land like Joseph Kony.

You know when it's hard to oppose war? When the American government imposes sanctions that kill 500,000 Iraqi children. Or when the American government tortures suspects that have not been convicted of a crime. Or when American troops torture, rape and humiliate prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Or when American troops are recorded raping young girls. Or when the American government approves indefinite detention and torture without charge.

All of these things happen too. How many Christian Facebook movements have there been calling for an end to, or voicing opposition to, those things? I've seen none. We should absolutely unite for the cause of peace and hope for children at home and abroad. I have no problem whatsoever with raising awareness for what Kony does, and making him a household name. The world will be a better place when he is no longer doing what he does, and thousands of children will be safer. But we must realize that although men like Kony are the worst of the worst, evil is evil, even if it's wrapped in stars and stripes.

Here's to being against war, murder, and the myth of redemptive violence, no matter who is involved. Always.

By the very wise Sam Smeaton of Liberty, Faith, And America.

God's Work

For some unknown reason, I receive emails from the American Family Association. I do not know when this happened, nor why, but it happens. And I've not yet sent their emails forever into the morass that is my spam box. Once again for completely unknown reasons.

Actually, I think I might know why, just a little. Because it's so utterly amusing to get emails like this, sent direct to me!

In case you're too lazy to click the link (and because I want to relieve my feelings), the AFA is now upset because the Rapid Capabilities Office removed from their patch-logo-thingamajig a reference to God. That was in Latin. And replaced it with Miracles. Which is basically the same thing. But I digress. Apparently, the removal of that little "Dei" on the logo will forever change the way the military is allowed to worship.

Because, obviously, one little office represents the entire military, and one little change in its inside-joke-oriented logo will counteract every Christian chaplain, Republican/Christian soldier and Christian-oriented harping from home. Obviously.

What I find even more ironic is what this little logo actually said. Translated, it stated that the RCO is "Doing God's Work With Other People's Money."

So apparently, according to the AFA, "God's work" is no longer feeding the poor and helping orphans and widows, it's now stealing from citizens and figuring out how to more effectively bomb people.

Who knew.

Coming for the Internet

The newest governmental attack against its citizens (on the behalf of its buddies at Hollywood) is aimed at the internet. Surprise, surprise.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and its fellow, the Protect IP Act (PIPA) are two bills currently being debated in congress and halls of internet wisdom. Their stated purpose is to curb online infringement upon intellectual property. Pending these bills, sites like Megaupload have been shut down.

Because, obviously, online piracy is so much more important than a balanced budget and dealing with an escalating sense of dissatisfaction with our foreign policy. Definitely more important.

There is a lot of fear that these bills would potentially shut down sites like Youtube, Wikipedia, and Tumblr, along with lesser-known sites like Fanfiction.net. In effect, the bill would take out legitimate sites just so Hollywood can make a bit more dough, and leave a bunch of people out in the cold as they find their online lives empty. (Doesn't that sound pathetic?)

On Wednesday, Wikipedia led a blackout protest that shut their sites and several others down for the day--I know my Tumblr blog was blacked out for the day--and a massive caller campaign began, people sending letters and calling their representatives and senators. (It's satisfying to note that the Congressional support for the bill has since dropped. Apparently they're realizing that if they pass it, the next civil war will be led by teenagers who have never seen the light of day.)

Just one more way the government wants to dictate to us. Silly people--thinking they can act like China and get away with it.

This is Not a Joke

This morning, the Obama campaign sent out an email to all their supporters--plus two ardent libertarians who like to laugh at said emails--that was, of course, full of self-congratulatory propaganda. What else do you expect from the beautiful American election cycle? Freedom? Choice? A hassle-free consideration of all the options?

Of course not. That's naive and idealistic. No, what works far better is being beat over the head by how one side's right and the other's wrong...from both sides. But don't worry. It's for your own good. After all:

We also know that candidates who take these extreme positions can, in the right circumstances, win not only a primary but also a general election in just about any state.

It's true. And we just can't expect you to know who to vote for, so we have to kindly inform you that, number one, all the Republicans are corporatist hacks. Even though Barack Obama received more in corporate funds than any other candidate in the 2008 elections. Not to mention the horror of this:

The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

Yes. That evil, extremist Tea Party that's led by...Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney, who has all but said that he wants to do the same things as Obama, just dressed up in a facade of conservative Christian principles. Just like practically every other Republican. Including Santorum and Perry and Gingrich and Bachmann. And especially Huntsman. And other than the obvious that the troops were supposed to be brought out of Iraq in December--Wall Street isn't capitalist, Medicare is already broken, gay rights and abortion don't belong on the federal docket... and Social Security is both already gutted and bankrupt anyway.

In closing, it is interesting to note how, sometimes, the Democrats seem to realize more about the Republican party than the Republicans do.

But it's curious that no one can really explain how, when or why the 70-plus percent of Republicans saying in polls and in Iowa that Mitt Romney's not their candidate will suddenly come around.

Yes, that is a curious thing to try and explain. Which is probably why Mitt Romney shan't win, and Obama will have to contend either with the Flavor of the Day, Santorum, or Ron Paul--I mean, He Who Shall Not Be Named. We'll see how that works out.

Welcome to 2012

We're all supposed to die this year. At least I will have died knowing who would have been the next President of the United States (*nudgevoteRonPaulnudge*).

That, and I'll get to vote against our representative for my district. I may or may not have to bite back a cheer when I get to do that. You see, he's a warmongering, statist hack who thinks nobody knows he voted for the PATRIOT act and TARP. Trust me, I know.

Welcome to 2012, may it treat you nicely, and may it bring us some good things. I will resume posting soon. I hope.

"Anyone But Obama"

Last night's GOP debate sickened me. There were a few exceptions, of course--Ron Paul's answers were, typically, quite good, and Romney was surprisingly well reasoned in a few places. Gingrich was his usual slimy self, and I've discovered that Huntsman just doesn't sit well with me; he strikes me as too much of an oily politician playboy for me to enjoy listening to him talk. Bachmann regaled us with her usual ignorance and then protestations that she wasn't ignorant, sprinkled with several ill-timed jabs against Obama, Santorum trailed behind the rest of the candidates, and Ron Paul made everybody uncomfortable when he said Iran wasn't a threat--and was heartily ridiculed by the commentators, who set themselves up as "rational Americans".

And then we reached the end of the debate, and I decided that the Republican Party, en masse, has entered their bid for a personal vendetta. Because winning this election isn't about helping the American people. It isn't about lowering taxes. It isn't about bringing freedom back into our society. Heck, it isn't even about the triumph of civil discourse over the evil liberal hordes.

No, of course not. This election is about one man: Barack Obama, duly elected ruler of the United States of America. At least, according to everyone but Ron Paul at last night's debate. Apparently, the GOP field has only one goal, and that goal trumps all others: to beat Barack Obama on November 6, 2012.

Naturally, this sentiment was heartily embraced by Newt Gingrich, who is convinced that he (with his upstanding moral record and his proven ability to follow through on his political promises) is the only one who can beat Obama. In fact, he had quite the moment up on stage as he all but said--"If you don't vote for me, you're voting for Obama and you'll rot in hell." The others heartily backed up this sentiment (except of course for Ron Paul, who offered a somewhat inspiring speech about political discourse and its place), and every single one of them managed to put in a plug about their future administrations. Of course.

But what really concerns me is that so many people who aren't sitting on a cushion are buying into this idea. That is, the idea that anybody (absolutely anybody) would be better than Obama.

Hey, at least his replacement wouldn't be a Democrat.

Because that makes a whole ton of difference, you know. I mean, it kept Obama from starting wars--just like Bush--and giving out taxpayer money to wasteful businesses--just like Bush--and ramping up government control of things that aren't theirs to control--just like Bush--and used the media to propagandize the public so they'd accept ridiculous security measures--just like Bush. As we can see, having someone from a different party in office can completely change the government's policies. And changing from "Democrat" to "Republican" next year will completely reverse this trend. Because a Gingrich/Romney/Bachmann/Perry/Santorum administration would be utterly different from an Obama one.

Honest.

Let's just put it this way: If I see another "Anyone but BO" bumper sticker, I think I'll puke.