There is one theme that pervades the discussion on gay marriage: “this debate is the same as the debate we had on skin color in the 1960s.” Memes fly around the internet comparing the two fights. One recently on my newsfeed showed a picture of an interracial couple from the 1950s and a gay couple from today side by side with a statement “both illegal marriages.” When Arizona tried to pass its “religious freedom bill” that would allow the religious to refuse service in some situations to homosexuals, the response was clear: ‘this is the new Jim Crowe’. As a result, Jan Brewer vetoed the bill (probably fearing looking like the new George Wallace).

But the comparison is a bad one. The two causes should not be compared. They are nothing alike. To compare them is not only confusing but insulting to anyone who hates racial discrimination.  

The comparison is wrong for one reason: Behavior is not skin color.

People often point to the idea that homosexual desire is innate. If it is innate, they argue, it is like skin color (something we cannot change) and therefore worthy of the same sort of civil protections. But is this true? A moment’s reflection shows the error of this thought. We are all born with a wide variety of innate impulses and desires (sexual and otherwise). Some of our innate desires and impulses are good and some are not. We all judge our desires and make decisions on when, how, and whether to act on them. These innate impulses are not behaviors. The fact that we have an innate desire/impulse in no way means that acting on that desire (behavior) must be accepted, licensed by the state, or endorsed by the public.

This concept is manifestly true based on the fact that we all regularly do not act on a whole host of our innate desires. We don’t because doing so would often be often be socially unacceptable (and sometimes illegal depending on which desire in which context). Only some behaviors are socially acceptable (depending on the culture, legal code, and situation). We all filter our innate desires and choose which behaviors are good and which are bad.

We cannot automatically assume that because a desire is innate the corresponding behavior must be accepted by all…..that is almost never true. Desire is not behavior. Behavior is not innate.

Very few behaviors are established as civil rights in our country and I have a hard time seeing why this one sexual behavior should be classified alongside skin color. 

The current debates (i.e. gay marriage, sodomy laws, and conscience laws and etc) are all about behavior. No one is discussing thought control. The innate desires are not being restricted – no, there are questions about behaviors. And such discussions are appropriate and good. There is nothing hateful when we determine to reject certain behaviors as bad (we all do that every day).  In fact, behaviors must be evaluated, judged as ethical or not, and rejected (or embraced) as part of living in a civil society.

There is fundamental difference between skin color and behavior. It seems obvious but our society continues to confuse the two. It is time this confusion ended. 


Rules for Radicals

March 6, 2012

Here is a summary of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.Count how many of these are used by the left every day.

The book includes a little dedication at the beginning to Satan (seriously). Here is the dedication: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer”

Now here are the rules:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”
8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”
11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…     “…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)

Take special note of rules 5 and 13 and think tea party, Palin, and Beck. Think rule 8 and George W Bush (remember when they attacked him for a bridge collapsing in Minnesota and for a Hurricane in New Orleans, and for the housing crisis etc etc).

And here is the really scary part. Obama is an expert on Alinisky. He was taught Alinsky’s tactics in Chicago by the people who actually knew Alinsky. Then Obama turned around and taught these tactics himself. He was even an expert panelist on a forum on Alinisky (this is a point made in Breitbart’s last column).

The reason that I am posting this is to help us all recognize the tactics when we see them. For example, when a conservative is being mocked, think twice before stepping away embarrassed (doing so would be playing into rule 5 and 13).

I am not a Bill O’Reilly but I appreciated his addressing the ‘Christian Terrorist” lie.

The innitial news was that the Norway shooter was a conservative Christian fundamentalist. I knew immediately that this report was going to be proven wrong.

The truth is that the shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, was not a Christian. Nor was he conservative in the American sense of the word. He lists himself on profiles as ‘Conservative’ and ‘Christian’ but definitions matter.

Let’s start with politics. He was part of a neo-Nazi forum. Nazi’s may be right wing in Europe that is very socialist but in America Nazi’s are left wing. National Socialism is left of center in American politics. In America, the right wing opposes all forms of socialism.

Regarding the ‘Christianity’ part, there are two definitions of Christian. One is the nominal term. It is those inside the visible church. Those who somewhere along the line were baptized. But true Christianity also has a heart and Lordship conversion. When someone is truly a Christian, they lay their will down at the feet of Christ. Christ was against killing innocents. Christ laid his own life down for others. Christ would have died to save the victims of that murderer. If he was a Christian, he was a very very verrrrrry bad one who violated all of the basic tenants of Christianity by his action. He scoffed at God and did great harm to the cause of Christ.

Don’t be fooled by words that mean nothing. Understand definitions.

Update: He was a Freemason (incompatible with Christianity). And he was a fan of John Stuart Mills (a secularist). More evidence that this was not a “fundamentalist Christian” by any true sense of the word.

And here is more detail on the definition of “right wing”.

How capitalism works

July 9, 2011

Russia is now requiring health warnings for any abortion advertisement.

Russian lawmakers, worried about a falling birth rate, passed a law on Friday that abortion advertisements must carry a health warning.

Russia has one of the world’s highest abortion rates and cutting this could help it stem a demographic disaster that is looming as its population shrinks.


The Wall Street Journal has this interview with Cars 2 director John Lasseter. He states that the sequal to the hugely successful Cars will have ‘Big Oil’ as the bad guy. He states as he developed the plot, he kept thinking:

What would be a really good kind of über bad guy? Who is an über bad guy?” I kept going to big oil. This is before what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.

Really? Big Oil is the ‘uber bad guy’? Are they forcing people to buy gas? Capitalism is nice because no one is forced to do anything. If you don’t like oil stop using it. Or at least cut back. This is like me saying that ‘Big Chocolate’ is evil because I eat too many candy bars. No. Hershy’s is not the problem; I am.  Let’s stop blaming people for selling stuff.

Disney is a good example of not having to buy stuff you don’t like. When Disney was selling movies like ‘Snow White’ everyone loved them. Then they started selling preachy movies that made over 50% of their audience uncomfortable (like Pocahontas and Brother Bear) and suddenly they couldn’t get people to show up to their movies anymore. Then along came Pixar and had good (non preachy) movies that people loved. Then Disney bought Pixar and we are back to preachy. Hmmm. Big Hollywood is at it again. But I won’t call them uber bad guys. I will just probably will wait until this one comes out on Netflix.

I hear the non-Disney Kung Fu Panda 2 is pretty good.