Monthly Archives: June 2015

It’s probably mean to keep picking on Ted Cruz

…but man, is he the gift that keeps on giving or what?

Cruz has decided that Supreme Court rulings only apply to the states who are party to the particular case being decided. No really. Here’s what he said:

“Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they’re resolved, when you’re facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.”

I don’t think I’m misreading that. This isn’t just “novel,” this is “pulled completely out of his ass.” I’m reasonably sure that Cruz himself doesn’t believe it. He seems smarter than that.

I’ll be the first to admit: I’m enjoying watching conservatives twist themselves into knots trying to find a way to oppose a pro-liberty ruling by the courts. It’s like watching Democrats trying to line up behind the President on the TPP.

Cruz is, I think, sunk as a serious candidate. He’s gone so far out on a limb trying to appease the Brotherhood of the Incredibly Credulous that he’s lost the ability to appear rational. If he gets any further out there, he’ll be claiming that the U.S. is now a theocracy because gays can marry. Surely no one would be that wacky

Leave a comment

Filed under dishonesty, Politics

Cruz and Huckabee completely miss the meaning of Obergefell v. Hodges

The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges effectively legalized same-sex marriage in the United States, but that’s not really what the decision was about. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government to discriminate with regards to the legal right to marry. It’s an important distinction. This wasn’t the Court saying “Yes, gay marriage is in the constitution,” despite what some pundits and presidential candidates would tell you. Instead, the Court say “You cannot extend the legal right to marry to some people but not others just because a majority of people in your state don’t want the minority to have that right.”

That’s an important distinction. It means that, rather than legislating from the bench, the Court was doing nothing that is outside of it’s normal scope of work. Or, more succinctly, the Court was simply doing its job.

So, when Mike Huckabee says:

“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”

He’s flat-out wrong. He says this is a religious liberty issue, and it is, but not the way he means. Huckabee is fighting for the right of the government to enforce his religious views on other people. This isn’t religious liberty he’s talking about; it’s about establishing a state religion.

When Ted Cruz says:

“This radical decision purporting to strike down the marriage laws of every state, it has no connection to the United States Constitution. They are simply making it up. It is lawless and in doing so they have undermined the fundamental legitimacy of the United States Supreme Court.”

He’s either a liar or a fool. Cruz fancies himself a constitutional scholar, so he’s got to know he’s the one who’s simply “making it up.” The 14th Amendment makes this sort of discrimination Cruz longs for illegal, and the 1st Amendment makes it very clear that the government has no business recognizing one faith’s practices as gospel.

I’ll close by noting a section of Justice Alito’s dissent:

“I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools.”

I happen to agree. I don’t see this tag being applied to people who marry someone of the opposite gender any more than it’s applied today. However, people who believe that marriage is a privilege reserved, by law, for people who their church believes should be allowed to marry will very likely be labelled “bigots.” As well they should.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself (about flag-removal)…

…so I’ll let Will B. Mackintosh say it:

But I think it’s important to remember: removing the Confederate flag and other Confederate symbols from public display is not nothing.  Sure, it’s symbolic, but as historians we should recognize how incredibly important and powerful symbols can be.

Just so. It’s a symbolic thing to remove the confederate flag from government buildings, but it’s not an unimportant symbolic thing. That message is:

…removing Confederate iconography sends and equally important symbolic message: overt defenses of white supremacy are now beyond the bounds of acceptable political sentiment.  This has not been the case, even recently.  So a national, bipartisan consensus that the iconography of the Confederacy is fundamentally white supremacist and has no place in mainstream politics represents very real progress.

Flying that flag on the statehouse and putting it on license plates provided the thinnest hint of legitimacy to people who used the flag to send it’s most obvious message: “You are not welcome here. We are still in control. Know your place.”

As per usual with Mackintosh, the entire article is well worth your time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sailing the stars with the Science Guy

I’ve been wallowing in the ugly side of human nature for so long, I decided it was time to post something positive. So, here ya go: Bill Nye’s LightSail Kickstarter has exceeded its original goal by almost a million dollars. Not only is this a pretty awesome project, but it’s an awesome project that has found an enthusiastic audience. In theory, this will encourage more projects of this ilk. Win/win/win.

I guess the only dark lining to this silver cloud is that it’s kind of disappointing that this kind of work is being done on Kickstarter and not the ESA or NSA or the ФКА or some such governmental body. I love entrepreneurial science, but I love public science even more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Driving Old Dixie Down

I have to admit: I’m shocked we’re having this discussion about the confederate flag in 2015. To my mind, this issue’s been settled beyond any reasonable measure for many, many decades. It’s the flag of people who took up arms against the United States in order to preserve their way of life which, as you may be aware, involved keeping human being as property. We hear all the time about enemies who “hate us for our freedom,” but this was literally the only time when that hyperbolic statement was true.

Was slavery the primary, direct cause of the Civil War? No. Were all southerners slaveholders? No. Were many northerners racist bigots? Of course.

None of that matters. It would be incredibly obtuse (not to mention historically inaccurate) to suggest that the confederate flag had nothing to do with slavery. This is not a matter educated people debate. It is a fact beyond any question. The association exists. Insisting that it does not, that it represents “heritage;” does not change that fact, it just makes you look like an ass.

The only thing that surprises me is that it’s taken yet another racially-motivated killing to bring this issue to the forefront. This was decided a long time ago. Flying the confederate flag let’s people know you’re a racist. That was true long before Dylann Roof was born. Get rid of the damned thing, at the very least banish it from public buildings, and be done with it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Retraction regarding the Sad Puppy John C. Wright

I don’t do this sort of thing very often, but I’m retracting my last post. Let me explain why. In repose to charges of homophobia, Wright said the charges were a lie and responded in a fashion which could be described as equally “homophobic” and “bizarre.” I wrote a long-ish piece taking him to task for this. It’s a solid bit of work, but I’d like to disavow it as of now. Since posting this piece, I’ve read a good deal more of what Wright has written outside of his novels. I’ve come to the conclusion that Mr. Wright has enough going on his life that piling on like this is neither fair nor necessary. I stand by the content of what I wrote, but, given Mr. Wright’s situation, it was needlessly mean of me to write it.

NOTE: I’m leaving the retracted post visible for the time being because, aside from the intellectual honesty issue, it’s pointless to try to make things “disappear” on the internet.


Filed under Uncategorized

A Sad Puppy-Related Thought Experiment

NOTE: I have retracted this post. If you’re interested in the reasons, please click this link. I’m leaving the retracted post visible for the time being because, aside from the intellectual honesty issue, it’s pointless to try to make things “disappear” on the internet.

Let’s say I tell you that I am a Christian.

I tell you that I am  a Christian, but I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe in Jesus. I don’t believe a single word of the Bible. But, I nonetheless insist I am a Christian, and I will call you a liar if you say otherwise.

How would you react to that? Personally, I’d say I was full of shit. If I don’t believe anything that Christians believe, then how can I say I’m a Christian?

This is, however, exactly how Sad Puppy-favorite author and homophobe John C. Wright responds to claims that he is homophobic.

I am not unrepentantly homophobic. I am nothing of the kind. It is a lie.

I follow the Catholic teaching on same sex attraction and how one deals with it. In public, I have heaped scorn on those who use a children’s cartoon, one I loved, to insinuate their pro-perversion propaganda in a cowardly and craven way.

I have no hate, no fear, nothing but respect for homosexuals.

You and people like you who use the false cloak of compassion for homosexual to lure them into ruining their lives, you are the ones for whom I have no respect. You are the ones who hate them; you are the one who urge them down ever darker paths.

See? He’s not a homophobe! He just believes everything that homophobes believe including that people who aren’t homophobes have homosexuals. Just because he espouses homophobic beliefs doesn’t make him a homophobe.

This will probably shock you, but Wright’s bio on Wikipedia describes him as a “former lawyer.”

The Rabid Puppies are fairly easily dismissed because I don’t get the sense that there’s anything there beyond the trolling. They’re just another branch of GamerGate; a group of folks who get off on harassing people and “winning” arguments without any apparent attachment to or belief in the arguments they’re making.

The Sad Puppies are trickier, though. I get the sense that there is a strong sense that these folks truly believe in their positions. I personally don’t buy into the premise that there is a liberal cabal at the head of Sci-Fi today, forcing stories of political correctness down the throats of unwilling readers. I don’t buy it. I don’t see any evidence of it. I think the method of selecting a slate of writers for their political beliefs and getting the entire slate nominated is, at best, childish. But…even though I don’t buy all of it, I can at least respect the viewpoint.

Or, at least, I could, until this ridiculous boycott of Tor kicked off yesterday. If you’re not familiar with the story, I’ll give you a brief version. A Tor employee made some over-the-top comments about the Puppies on her Facebook. The head of the Rabid Puppies took a screen shot of it and made a huge deal of springing it on the world at a time which was determined would embarrass Tor*. The head of Tor threw the employee under the bus and made a big deal of it. This just emboldened the Puppies, who then used the opportunity to make a series of very-unrealistic demands on Tor with the threat of a boycott if those demands weren’t met.

Tor ignored the demands. The boycott began.

I hate to bag on Free Republic-favorite Wright*, but his post regarding the boycott is a masterpiece of both self-martyrdom and incredible hubris:

Since I am Tor author and hitherto have been very proud of my association with that fine and famous imprint, I am fascinated (if mildly aghast) that the Tor management has allowed the situation to degenerate to this point.

Of course, Wright is bright enough to know that “Tor management” isn’t the instigator here. He’s just playing silly buggers with this entire post and he’s announcing it in the first sentence.

Because of a financial conflict of interest on my part, it would be untoward of me to express fulsome support and applause for the boycott, and tell the boycotters their position is the principled and correct stand.

“Principled and correct stand.” Yes, thank you very much for telling people what to believe. Seriously, though, am I right about the lawyer thing? “I can’t tell you to boycott my employer *wink wink*…”

Nor will I point out, because it is obvious, that if you buy my books from Tor, then some part of your precious book-buying dollars goes into the wages of several people at Tor (but by no means all, or even most) who hate both you and me with a sick and soul-destroying hatred, a hatred like a disease that withers the heart and rots the brain.

Wow. “…a sick and soul-destroying hatred, a hatred like a disease that withers the heart and rots the brain.” Poetic, but of course, utter nonsense. Dude, no one even cares that much about you, or at least, we didn’t, until you started throwing your tantrum and gaming awards and supporting-while-not-supporting a boycott. Oh, and spilling your homophobic nonsense. That got you a lot of attention, if not a lot of sympathy. But “soul-destroying hatred?” Nope. Don’t care that much.

Nor will I point out, because it should also be obvious, that any Christian gentleman would be willing to forgo a worldly reward of your generous book-buying dollars if he may have your spiritual reward of your loyalty instead. If the gentle reader feels compassion for me in my hour of need, or fears the boycott will harm my finances, I have a tip jar on this page.

Even with the florid prose, it’s pretty transparent what Wright is after here. This could be shortened to: I love Jesus, give me your money.

So I cannot express support for this boycott.

“I am covering my ass.”

The people with whom I work, my editor and cover art director, have a perfect right to expect me not to undermine their position, untenable as it may be. If the management wants to set the company policy as one of indifference to our patrons and clients on whom our livelihood depends, or contempt, or enmity, or loathing, that business decision is in their bailiwick.

Understand, Wright’s complaint here is that Tor did not give in to demands from the Rabid Puppies, demands which were never going to be met, and he is re-casting this as contempt, enmity, and loathing.

John C. Wright is a very clever man. He can be incredibly dishonest while at the same time never technically “lying.”

He’s also a real turd. I was starting to have a little sympathy for some of the Puppies’ positions, but so long as they’re trying to push this piece of work down our throats at the Hugo Awards? No thanks. As long as guys like this one are the poster boys for the movement, I’ll do what I can to support Tor.

By the way, I’m really looking forward to finally reading Scalzi’s Redshirts. Bought it yesterday, in fact…

* This, I think, tends to support my belief that this isn’t about any principle other than “winning”…except, maybe, “trolling.”

**  That’s a lie. Wright’s a real jerk, and the fact that the Freepers like him doesn’t exactly mitigate in his favor.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

You seem like a nice guy (but your whole post is bullshit)

Steve Crowder genuinely seems like a decent fellow, and I’m asking you not to read any sarcasm into that. His tone is conciliatory and he asks for calm and what digs he takes are, for the most part, mild ones. However, from start to finish, his entire post is utter nonsense. It’s never a good sign when the headline tries to re-define the discussions in terms you’re more comfortable with. That’s great for eighth grade debate class, but it’s the sort of thing that sets of my B.S. meter every time. Crowder’s headline:

Charleston Shooting: The Common Thread Isn’t ‘Race’, It’s Godlessness*

No no no no no no no no no no! Just no. Maybe, just maybe, if you ignore the last couple of years in the U.S., what with the “black people being killed and the courts saying it’s totally ok,” then maybe you can put for this proposition without too much pushback. In the context of June, 2015, though? You don’t get to re-frame it. That’s like saying Baltimore was about the “lack of fathers” ** and not the police getting to murder people. It’s like saying that “the hoodie” killed Trayvon Martin.

By saying “It’s not really about what it’s about, it’s about what I want to talk about” is a bad start. Any guess where we go from there? It’s the “People who call this event for what it is are doing so for political gain and that is unseemly!” AKA the “Now is not the time!” card. Any time you’re telling people what they can’t talk about, you’re trying to control them. At best, it’s a crass attempt to prevent people from talking about a subject because you know it will go very, very badly from your perspective (for example, the way the NRA crows “Now is not the time to discuss gun control” after every shooting). At worst, it’s insulting and patronizing. You’re telling people what they are and are not allowed to discuss.


EDIT: Hey, wouldn’t ya know: Someone DID try to use these events for political gain: The NRA!

And, of course, they blame the pastor for the shootings. Go figure…

SECOND EDIT: Oooh, another one. The guy at Redstate saying that accepting trans people as existing prevents the U.S. from dealing with evil. No, really. He said that. With a straight face.

“Straight face”…aren’t I sly?


After trying to redefine the discussion and then telling people who disagree with them that they’re not allowed to talk, you’d think Crowder would be done. Instead, he saved the best for last. Here’s an early contender for the “No True Scotsman” Award for 2015:

“Listen, I don’t think anyone would deny that mass-murderers are Godless people.”

I don’t think I’m reading anything in to this that isn’t there. I think the formulation is: “Mass-murderers are Godless because people who aren’t Godless don’t mass-murder.” That’s a very neat summation of the classic “no true Scotsman” fallacy: Define your terms in such as way as to exclude all counter-examples.

For the record, I’ll go out on a limb and say that Crowder’s proposition is flat-out wrong: People of faith, people who are “Godly,” commit all manner of crimes; no more and no less than those of us who don’t identify as “Godly.” Being “Godly,” then doing something terrible, does not make you retroactively “un-Godly.” The implication, of course, is that only un-Godly folks commit atrocities. I find that implication offensive, but I don’t expect anyone to care whether or not I’m offended. The fact that it’s patently false, however, shouldn’t be so easily shrugged aside.

The rest of the final paragraph is telling, too:

I also think that many people will find just as much discomfort in acknowledging a definitively Godless reaction from the culture at large. When something this horrendous happens, and we can’t all as a country, join together for even one day to pray and support each other… That’s Godlessness too. America, we can do better. We need to do better.

Again, no, I don’t agree with premise. I don’t care about a “Godless” reaction or even understand what he means by it other than, say “talking about the actual problem.” I’m fine with prayer. Pray all you want. But what I would genuinely like to see is, say, people addressing the problems of institutional racism and easy access to weapons and the media’s tolerance of white criminals as opposed to their smearing of black victims. Which is all to say, pretty much the polar opposite of what Steve Crowder is asking for.

* Bonus points for putting ‘race’ in quotes but not ‘Godlessness’!

** Rand Paul is, of course, is making shit up again. The idea that black fathers aren’t involved in raising their children is a myth.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Nothing at all about the Sad and Rabid Puppies

I have spent a very, very long time among American political conservatives. I would wager that I have spent more time in their midst than the vast majority of people reading this post. I have both friends and family who are near the right-most limits of the political spectrum. I’m not of them, but I do feel as though I know them reasonably well.

One of their most-common characteristics is a love of the American founding fathers that approaches reverence. Almost all of the strong conservatives I’ve met believe that the founders were divinely-inspired in their penning of the U.S Constitution. They believe that these men were of greater character than today’s political class and that their work should be considered so close to perfect as to warrant painstakingly literal interpretation. Did I say “approaches reverence?” I was obviously under-selling it.

Here’s the bit that I find so baffling: The American founding fathers were the radical liberals of their day.* They were about as anti-establishment as you could get. By the standards of their day, they made bold strides in distributing political power out of the hands of the legacy establishment and into that of the (again, this is relative) the “common man.” There’s a reason why democracies based on this model are referred to as “liberal democracies.”

That being the case, I imagine these founders would be appalled at the reverence they’ve been afforded. It seems to go against everything in the character of these 18th century progressives.  I’m not historian, let alone a time-traveling mind reader, but I suspect the founders would have wanted those who followed them to embrace their spirit of trying to improve on their groundwork Instead, those who claim to love the founders so much set their words in amber and place them on an altar.

That’s it in a nutshell. The conservatives love the people who broke the mold so much that they turned the founders into a new mold. If you see any parallel between the political conservatives and, say, the movements within science fiction devoted to ensuring that works which embrace the values of the revolutionaries of the genre, that’s on you.

* Just out of curiosity, who are the heroes of American liberalism? The conservatives seem to have co-opted many of the obvious candidates. The founders, who broke away from monarchy and laid the groundwork for representative democracy? Lincoln, who, among other things, ended slavery? Theodore Roosevelt, the trust-buster? There are good answers to this question, but you do have to dig a little deeper, don’t you?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Sorry about that last post. I love to go an unreasonably long way for a very small joke. If you worked out that last one, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I’m sure anyone paying unreasonably close attention to any encrypted information which winds up on the WWW found it worth a chuckle or two. At least, I hope they did.

With that out of the way, time to see what those whacky Duggars are up to…bbl!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized