1. It might be 8 days into the New Year, but the late Harry Browne’s libertarian New Year’s resolutions are an excellent read.  It would be super cool if more people would remember these.
2. On a related note, The Cato Institute put up a small blurb on the “libertarian surge“; I wasn’t feelin’ the blockquote, but did appreciate David Boaz’s notes.
3. Here’s a twofer on the Facebook bra color status meme.  I mean, the meme for Breast Cancer Awareness Month!  Yeah, that’s the ticket!
4. In pop cultural news, Lost beat out President Obama’s State of the Union for a Feb. 1st broadcast.  I’m guessing he and the First Lady are big fans; now, if they could just get Joe Biden to STFU when the show is on.
5. The Tax Foundation argues that high taxes and an inhospitable business climate have led to a loss in jobs for Ohioans.  That’s going to be Philly pretty soon.
6. If you live in the Southern US, you might want to check out Operation Defuse, a new Texas based organization that aims to “empower the public so they may better understand the police/surveillance state by educating them about fusion centers and the role they play in both militarizing and federalizing our police forces.”
7. I’m glad to see that the Green Party is doing something, well at least CA and NY Greens are.  If the party had done a little bit more aside from act like disorganized hippies, I might still be a member of it.
   
8. I’m breaking my own informal rule by linking to the same site twice in a dump, but Alan Reynolds from Cato at Liberty explains how Faux News is simply wrong about the true unemployment rates.
9. In “so cool” news: Kathleen Hanna has donated a whole buttload of papers from her Bikini Kill days to NYU for their newly announced Riot Grrrl collection.
   
10. Dennis Kucinich is not too thrilled about – what appears to be – shady, backdoor TARP dealings.  A+, Obama, A+
11. Ladies of Liberty Alliance still has some calendars leftover.  If you purchase a 2010 wall calendar for just $9, they will throw in a desktop calendar for free!  Come on, buy one, it goes toward a great cause!
12. NJ ditches mandatory minimum sentencing for selling drugs in a school zone.
13. In “Settling for the Lesser of Two Evils is the Greater Evil,” Liberal Arts Dude discusses why he wishes we could have a “none of the above” option when we vote in the US; he also debunks common two party objections to third party politics.
    

And this is how we get back into the swing of things!

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

As I have mentioned on my blog previously (see here), I was a victim of backstabbing by a college arm of the Democratic Party.  I don’t know the exact reasons, but judging from the little bit I do know, I have always felt that I was targeted for my refusal to blindly submit to the party.  For God’s sake, as far as Dems go, I’m Team Kucinich all the way.  (Btdubs, the only way I’d vote for Ron Paul is if it were a Kucinich-Paul [or, sigh, even Paul-Kucinich] ticket.)

I have never really meshed up with the Democrats on a lot of issues.  I could enumerate them at length here, but if you’ve been reading my blog, then you’re really well aware of my political beliefs.  (Although perhaps I should post an “in a nutshell” list.  Maybe another day.)  Given that I held a position that was a clusterfuck, did a great deal of work, cleaning up messes, and putting out fires for the president of the organization, and also doubled to tripled membership, I thought I was a shoe-in for the position of president.  As it turned out, there was a drawn out, concerted effort to oust me and destroy any of my credibility whatsoever within that group.  The position went to another woman (one whose political positions and opinions were not terribly well known before she was handed the position) and I essentially washed my hands of the organization.

For the past year and a half, I’ve just always dismissed that incident as something that one particularly scummy friend and several scummy acquaintances had cooked up together; I always chalked up to a one-time thing, and used it as a learning opportunity to realize that I wasn’t cut out for major party politics.  Politically, I began to map out my own path, really think about how I felt on various issues, read more, etc., before deciding to slap on some Docs and let loose with some feminist rage within the Libertarian Party.

However, this all changed within the past few days.  A friend of mine (whom I’ve referenced before) was running the LGBT group on campus.  He, for a lot of reasons, recently broke with the DNC.  His reasons for this break are irrelevant.  He remained a dedicated LGBT activist; as a gay man, it’s not shocking that he would still be active in the community and in its activism circles.  The problem is that he was beginning to criticize the God-King’s Administration.

I think we see where this is going.

The problem with the major party system is that there is such a huge fear that someone who has rejected it might actually make some headway.  No, scratch that.  Democrats in my state (Pennsylvania) worked to keep Carl Romanelli (Green) off the ballot during the 2006 Senatorial race.  (Mr. Romanelli was later fined $80,000 to reimburse Democrats who had challenged petitions. Or, if you’re third party, you know the real reason he was fined: because he had the fucking audacity to run for public office.  What an asshole!)  They claimed he would siphon votes from Bob Casey Jr. and would be a huge threat to the Democratic Party ticket.  Given that third party candidates rarely, if ever, get enough of the vote to actually make a difference in an election (and there has been speculation as to whether third party voters would even bother voting in elections that were limited to only Democratic and Republican candidates), it seems to me that there is one logical conclusion.

Really?  Do I need to spell it out for you?

Okay, fine: the obvious conclusion is that major parties simply want to throw anyone off the ballot as a means of asserting their own power and maintaining the status quo.

Now, I’m guessing you can probably see the connections here between state and national level politics, and the political bullshit that goes on in a student group at a third rate state university.  These various individuals who want to make their big splash in politics after they complete their worthless Political Science degrees look at college not only as a place where many of us learned to take wicked bong rips, or do kegstands, or the miracle of Plan B, but also as their first introduction to making alliances, building your following, and squashing dissidence the first time it rears its ugly head.

And you wonder why libertarians hate the system and hate the state so much.  Neither of the major parties care about your rights or your freedoms, and if you can’t see that, the you probably wonder why libertarians are such confrontational assholes.  If given the choice, I’d much rather be the confrontational asshole who tries to promote an alternate perspective over allowing former friends and “colleagues” the ability to use non-partisan organizations as thinly veiled shills for major party politics.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Degrading women is funny and edgy and it’s okay to do if you’re liberal, cause omg! you totally can’t be sexist!

In a similar vein to a piece on Feministing, how on Earth can someone compare having a non-consensual act of physical violence inflicted upon them to a consensual act of sexual expression?  I’m not going to sit here and graphically describe my sexual exploits.  For Chrissake, my family members have access to this blog.  Instead, I can tell you that when I engage in naughty time with my other half, none of it is degrading.  I am making the conscious, consensual decision to engage in whatever I want, and I’m going to guess that it’s likely Ms. Hilton does the same. I’m also going to go out on a limb and suggest that she’s like me and doesn’t want to be assaulted when out in public.

Regardless of your feelings about Paris Hilton, it is irresponsible for journalists to perpetuate the idea that a female’s worth is dictated primarily by her looks and sexual desirability. This is doubly true when it comes from a liberal commentator. You know what? I expect this shit from conservatives. I understand that most conservatives argue for freedom but don’t really trust me – a woman – to be able to make decisions about my own body, much less want me to break through the glass ceiling. I understand where the conservative’s perspective and focus is, and I can work with that or ignore it, because of one crucial difference: they often don’t feel the need to speak for me. It’s that much more patronizing and degrading what it comes from someone who supposedly supports feminism (or the LGBT community, or non-Christians, or the poor) to see shit that is completely counter-productive to that goal. I get it, no one wants to be known as “that famous asshole who hates woman” (though Olbermann’s arch nemesis doesn’t seem to be hurting for viewers, fame, or money). I get it, but I’m sick to death of seeing this “even though I’m a sexist pig, I can’t admit to being a sexist pig, so I’ll just stick to making my pot shots at stupid bitches no one likes” bullshit play out.

And yeah, I already know this is a three year old blurb; however, I’d like to point something out: I have never received an email from the Democratic Party decrying the enlightened, educated, and wise Keith Olbermann for his sexist shit. This is the exact reason why I can’t take my most recent email from Democrats.com seriously. The email, entitled “Boycott Fox News Advertisers,” is a melodramatic mess of shit wherein the Democratic Party proves that they can be just as big on the “you’re with us or against us” mentality of Bush & co. In it, they make a bunch of wild claims that are tantamount to “Republicans rape puppies and hate ‘Merika, while Democrats are awesome and are nice and would never be mean to anything ever and we swear this has nothing to do with the fact that we’re in power!” Here is a brief snippet of the email:

FOX News has always been the prop aganda [sic] arm of the Republican Party, willing to twist facts and even lie to promote the Republican agenda.

But the election of President Obama in 2008 pushed FOX News into outright hate-mongering and incitement of violence, which is intolerable in a democracy.

[...]

Here are some examples of intolerable hate speech and incitement to violence:

6/30/09 Glenn Beck agreed with guest who urged bin Laden to attack U.S. with nuclear weapons.

There were four or five more examples, but I honestly ignored them because this was the only one I’ve watched. I’m already angry that I had to sit through Glenn Beck once. I’m even angrier that I have to not only defend the jackass, but also had to sit through the clip a few more times just to make sure I got a quote correct. When I initially saw a longer version of this video pop up on Digg, I had to wonder if Democrats, Republicans, and Third Party/Independent voters each got different links to click, because I clearly saw a different video than the Republocrats did. This is the slightly shorter version of what I viewed:

Obviously, the version Republocrats viewed featured Glenn Beck, Osama bin Laden, and Michael Scheuer re-enacting lemon party while torching a Whole Foods.  They finished by alternately crapping on American flags and doing their best Yosemite Sam impressions.

I mean, come on, I’m not a Glenn Beck fangirl by any means, but even in that incredibly shortened clip, there is no proclamation that bin Laden should attack the US. Hell, he and Michael Scheuer even end the clip (right at the 1:00 minute mark) with Beck saying “which is why I was thinking, this weekend, if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.”

I wonder why I view both parties as slight variations of the same damn thing. Let’s see, they’ll both happily use sexism when it’s convenient; using sexism against Palin is worse than coveting thy parent’s murder, but it’s cool to refer to Clinton as a dyke because she’s not super feminine. See, with the GOP you get a two-fer of sexism and homophobia! Score! For the most part, neither side wants to decry the bullshit thrown around by their own party members; a notable exception to this rule is Meghan McCain. “[T]wist[ing] facts and even [lying] to promote the Republican agenda” is something straight out of the Republican handbook, but what the hell did Democrats.com do in this email?

I realize it looks as if I’m making some conservative shift as of late, when the reality is that I don’t have much of a desire to nuke the impotent dead horse that is the Republican party. This is one of their off cycles, and I’m sure they’ll sweep Congress again in 2010 (unless third parties pull their heads out of their asses, which I doubt), making the second half of Obama’s first term about as effective as a T-Rex’s tiny little arms. Then while rabbling about how each side is terrible, they’ll work together behind the scenes to pass or reauthorize horrific legislation and screw us even more.

Don’t worry, when that occurs, I’m sure the Republicans will once again give me plenty of material to blog about. Maybe I’ll be able to back off of the Democratic Party again and shed a tear for Barry O. I think it’s more likely that I will be shedding tears over “President” Palin, but who knows. Maybe the world will collapse and all of those damn paranoid conspiracy theorists at Lew Rockwell will be right, and I’ll have years of militia soup and canned baked beans to look forward to.

At least Libertarian Boyfriend and I aren’t anti-gun.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Anyway, here’s a links dump that will give you a bit more info than my original post “Fuck Sonia Sotomayor”:

• Sotomayor sees racism everywhere except for the one place it has been overly documented….law enforcement. Don’t worry coppers, she’s got your backs! Go ahead and Vic Mackey some bitches!

• Sotomayor does not support the 4th amendment, which protects us against illegal search and seizure, making all conservatives who think that having evidence thrown out because the cops stormed your house based on a gut feeling is terrrrrible collectively cream their panties.

• Why Sotomayor’s rulings on guns and affirmative action are important and not for the reasons you might think. (Please ignore the idiotic “reverse discrimination” phrase. The author was a jackass for using that phrasing.)

• Mother Jones calls out Sotomayor’s horrendous, 2nd year law student writing style. This is somehow misinterpreted by too many commenters as “Mother Jones hates spics,” despite the fact that she did her undergrad at Princeton and law school at Yale. I find it hard to believe that these universities did not challenge her more than her public high school in the Bronx….

• …unless this damning article is correct, and Sotomayor would not have made it into either university if it were not for affirmative action.

• Sotomayor supported the Mexico City gag rule. Unless you are against taxation and/or foreign aid, I don’t see how on Earth you can argue that this opinion does not show an anti-choice bias.

Still think she’s this super awesome judge who will love your civil rights because she’s a minority and minorities = liberals?

7. SOTOMAYOR ON ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE: Sotomayor’s record on two key hot button cultural issues is thin. But, quite notably, her sole opinion regarding abortion was in line with the anti-abortion movement’s position. Some details from the anti-abortion site LifeNews.com:

“Despite 17 years on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion was constitutional,” the pro-life group Americans United for Life noted in a recent analysis of potential Supreme Court candidates.

Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but AUL says the significance of the decision “may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy.”

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

BUT OMG IT’S OKAY, CAUSE LOOK AT #9:

9. SOTOMAYOR “SAVED BASEBALL”: “During a brief period in 1995,” the New York Times reported, “Judge Sonia Sotomayor became revered, at least in those cities with major league baseball teams. She ended a long baseball strike that year, briskly ruling against the owners in favor of the players.” A bit more:

The owners were trying to subvert the labor system, she said, and the strike had “placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial.”

After play resumed, The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that by saving the season, Judge Sotomayor joined forever the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams. The Chicago Sun-Times said she “delivered a wicked fastball” to baseball owners and emerged as one of the most inspiring figures in the history of the sport.

Because, certainly, as a sexually active woman who is her child-bearing years and sexually active with a member of the opposite sex, fucking BASEBALL should be a more pressing issue to me than my constitutionally protected right to a fucking abortion. The last challenges to Roe were decided by ONE VOTE MAJORITIES (pro-Roe, obvs). This isn’t a chance I am willing to fucking take.

But it’s cool though, because you see what Obama did? He totally ushered in an era of HOPE and CHANGE!

(Update: More Reasons Why I’m Not a Fan of Sotomayor – published 7.16.09)

Sourcewatch profile for Mackubin Thomas Owens
FPRI profile for Mackubin Thomas Owens – humorously, the easiest one to find
Sourcewatch profile for Project for the New American Century
Main site for Project for the New American Century
Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces from the Project for the New American Century, which Mr. Owens (along with a bunch of nobodies, including some dude by the name of Bill Kristol) co-authored.

To recap: Oh lol.

Conservatives, for the love of God, could y’all please become better historians? Preferably ones who actually read history and formulate an analysis that is maybe, kinda sorta based in fact? I mean, dawgs, I get it. You have your own biases which might not be popular – as do I – but for the love of all that is unholy, at least *I* can use facts to draw my conclusions and support my biases. I really don’t understand why the hell it’s so difficult to write something that isn’t a solely opinion based piece, and on top of it, to reward these people with prominent positions within society and the ability to effect change on a large scale.

For fuck’s sake. If you could pass an English Comp class, it shouldn’t be difficult to do so.

Then again, maybe my standards are just a little too fucking high.

I mean, I guess I could rant about how Obama needs to accept that he received the country is such crap condition that he could very well be a one term president, so he should act accordingly (hai “PBA” ban!); I could also complain about how Ron Paul is anti-big federal government except when it comes to abortion (cause that’s just ooky); I could go into a long, extended rant about no matter how much Libertarian Boyfriend and I see eye to eye, our class backgrounds will prevent us from agreeing on economic issues; I could rant about how I just sat in (what feels like) spray adhesive; I could rant about how much class matters and how entitled white brats make me want to slam their heads into something over. and over. and over again; I could weigh in on the whole Meghan McCain/Laura Ingraham debate (for the record: never thought I’d love a republican as much as I’m lovin’ Meghan McCain); I could post about any of the wonderful things I love about Libertarian Boyfriend; I could freak out about the economy; I could talk about silly things like ethics; I could make a list of 100 facts about me; I could go into an extended rant about what exactly “shooting oneself in the foot” means; I could talk at length about how I shop like a dude and how I don’t want to hear small talk, I just want to get in and out with my purchases and be about my merry way; I could bitch about how my being blunt is perceived to be harsh and mean; I could complain about how I miss a few certain individuals who I haven’t seen in awhile, but our schedules make it a bit prohibitive to hang out regularly; I could post a thinly veiled, passive-aggressive little rant directed at those whose stupidity makes me want to put my hands around their throats and squeeze until their eyes bulge out (and if you think that’s serious, you’ve obviously never seen my weak little grip use a garlic press); I could talk about Libertarian Boyfriend and my theories on child rearing; I could talk about what a surreal experience it is to realize you’re going to be 30 in less than a month; I could bitch and complain and throw an e-tantrum about how everyone is a hypocrite and how much that realization blows donkey balls; or I could put up a string of videos to keep you all ever so entertained.

But honestly? I’m so fucking emotionally and physically drained right now that none of that shit is happening. (Well, with the exception of a possible list of 100 facts. That might entertain me enough to write it up. Oh, and the “I think I sat in spray adhesive” thing. Cause seriously? My ass is now gummy. WTF?) I think I should possibly make an attempt to write about some of these subjects, especially given that I’ve had a few of them bouncing around my head for awhile – namely anything involving class disconnect.

So, instead, have some Mickey Avalon. Because that’s happy times.

As promised, here is the continuation of the Neo-con bourgoise hell.

So, we came to the check-in table for the event and signed in. We made it through the creepiest parts of the event – or so we thought. Upon entering the room, we noticed that it was a sea of white faces. Well, with the exceptions of the two Asian and three Black kids. All of which were from a Prep school. I scoured the room and realized Libertarian Boyfriend was the only Jew. While scouring the room, I also had another wonderful observation: virtually all of the women were sitting, speaking only to other women about – presumably – womanly things; the men, on the other hand, were standing, loudly speaking to other men – presumably about important men business like investing and how difficult it is to be Mr. Money Bags. The only thing I could get out at the time was “Jesus fuck, this is so gendered.”

Cue skin crawling here.

As you could expect, from what you know about me and the way I’ve described Libertarian Boyfriend, this was also our cue for the litany of snide comments from both of us. At one point, I mentioned my fear that if we got too unruly, they’d turn around, scream “KIKE” and it would be the Holocaust times a million. He responded that it was okay, because despite my white trashiness, my name is uber-WASPy and despite my Italian ethnicity, I look the part. I followed up with a comment that they might decide I’m a race traitor and therefore lump me in with him. After all, by having sex with him, I am a complicit part of the Jewish World Domination Scheme (which in my mind, is kind of like Amway, except better and certainly more profitable).

After a half hour of running editorial commentary from the two of us, the Foreign Policy Research Institute finally set the metaphorical cookie in the center of the room. But wait! Just beforehand, we were warned that the acoustics in the room were excellent, and even rabble rousers in the last row could be heard up front. Apparently, we personally received the stink eye from our Abe Lincoln lovin’ emcee. I guess my comments about how we were sitting right behind a fresh crop of soon to be rich kid gang rapists didn’t go over well with the crowd.

Since we’re resourceful, we then had to rely on simply writing shitty notes to one another at the top of our notebooks. The whole basic gist of the “presentation” was that Abe Lincoln loved Black people, the Emancipation Proclamation was not political rhetoric, and slavery was the only reason for the Civil War. Despite the facts the my new BFF Mackubin Owens neglected to mention Lincoln’s intentions for all freed slaves to return to Africa, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free one slave (and Lincoln wasn’t even terribly hep on the idea that Blacks and whites were actually equal), and that Owens even cited restoration of the Union, as well as Northern economic interests being two of the main factors that caused the Civil War. As to be expected, there was little to no mention of any sort of historical context and the basic point seemed to boil down to “if u dont <3 abe lincoln, u r a member of stormfront! ILU BLACK PPL!" Oh, and the other major point I gleaned was that Lincoln : Dubya :: Slavery : Terrorism. Yay Iraq War! (Or, if you're thinking individuals like us, "So, by your own admission, that means the Civil War was unnecessary, resulted in unnecessary deaths of US citizens, was a huge waste of tax dollars, and was responsible for glaring violations of basic human rights?")

We finally bailed during the Q&A portion, which was maddening, partially because the questions were ones which would have been better deposited on the metaphorical cookie in the center of the room, and partially because I had to practically sit on Libertarian Boyfriend's lap due to the rich fuck next to me who had his legs spread so far open that he was causing me severe lower back pain. Seriously, I had to contort myself just to cross and uncross my legs in my chair. The only thing running through my mind was the myriad of feminist theory pieces relating to women and taking up space.

But if you think that was the end of our fun at the Union League, then you haven't experienced the Hall O' Presidents! And by "Hall O' Presidents," I mean "Hall O' Republican Presidents!”

No shit. It was a room with about 20 or so portraits. We know that they were all Republicans because we felt the need to walk back into the room simply to confirm. The best ones are a toss-up between the George W. shrine, in which he still looked like a smirking frat boy, and the George H. W. portrait, in which he wistfully stared off into the distance with what can only be described as “bedroom eyes.” Oh Babs, you are one lucky dame! Libertarian Boyfriend got a photo of the Dubya shrine, before I ran over to it (no small feat for my uncoordinated ass to accomplish in 3″ pumps) and gave a thumbs up. Before you ask, of course we documented this on his phone.

The only good that came of it was finding out that my TA described part of my paper as “hilarious” and that I now have two totally awesome blog posts detailing that hellish experience.

Since we have concerns that this course might require an Academic Freedom complaint, we’ve decided that we will take our professor up on every single extra-credit assignment offered. The first was a speech entitled “Abraham Lincoln: Commander-in-Chief.” At the Union League.

For those of you who don’t know me, I have a weird relationship with class. It’s funny, because I was raised working class, yet had private bassoon lessons in high school. When I’m in an environment that is upper-middle class or higher, it brings out all of my white trash. A lot of it is because I can’t wrap my brain around a lot of wealth. A lot more of it is because I can’t deal with that many bourgeois fucks crammed into one room. Well, and also, although feminism is strongly rooted in academic circle jerking from rich white women who graduated from elite, private colleges, creepy sexist undertones and lots and lots of money seem to go hand in hand. So for a mouthy, working class broad who grew up in an under $150K home, it’s a bit intimidating, to say the least. Let’s face it, I walk into situations like this and want to drop the f bomb every fifteen seconds, rip a loud fart, light a cigarette, and start a boisterous conversation with my neighbor about how fuuuuucccckkkkeeeddddd up I was the previous weekend.

Before heading over to the venue, we noticed that there was a “business” dress code. I decide that a knee-length pencil skirt, sweater, stockings and suede pumps will be sufficient. Libertarian Boyfriend decided to roll with Emergency Khakis (as he has dubbed them, which is typically punctuated by my moronic giggling), button down shirt and a sweater. Now, I either glazed over when reading the event information and didn’t see that “Abraham Lincoln: As Our Lord and Savior” would be held at the Good Ol’ Boys Club or the emails from my TA didn’t include this information. I’m not quite certain; I only knew that it was on the 100 block of South Broad Street.

Regardless, after we got off the subway, I asked him where we were going. He replied with “ummm, the Union League.” I let out a loud “OH FUCK, I THINK THAT’S IT, RIGHT THERE!” Now, I knew from a former friend that (at one point in time) they did not admit women. My stomach immediately tightened. I asked for a time check. 3:50 pm. Good, just enough time to replace my sneakers with heels and smoke a cigarette while making cracks at the overwhelmingly WASPy crowd entering the building.

After I finished sucking down my smoke, we made our way inside. This is when the fun began.

We walk in, Libertarian Boyfriend gives the security desk his name and we learn that he needs to get a loaner sport jacket. The security guards let him know that he has to sign in. I open my mouth and promptly close it when I noticed the security guards looking past me and at the guy behind me. Apparently, only the menfolk have to sign in, leading Libertarian Boyfriend to remark that we were probably entered into the Union League’s records as “Libertarian Boyfriend + 1.”

I guess they still don’t get too many dumb broads in the joint, further evidenced by the security guards’ obvious discomfort when I asked them where the coat room was. I was getting unnerved by standing there unaccompanied for thirty seconds.

I walked back into the coatroom, where Libertarian Boyfriend and I almost have a full-fledged giggling fit. First, the room is – literally – 82 degrees. Second, the man staffing the room was this sweet, very elderly Black man. While we made our way up the stairs to “Abraham Lincoln: As Our Lord and Savior,” he remarked that he thought it was so nice that they were including a historical context for us. I cocked my eyebrow, to which he responded that, so far, it’s just like 1863 all over again! I try my damnedest to suppress my loud cackling while we walked through the multiple halls of presidential worship. At one point, Libertarian Boyfriend leaned into me and said “baby, I’m uncomfortable here. And I’ve been around some money. I’M JEWISH.” I let him know that I felt my white trashness bubbling on up the longer we stayed in this abominable building.

Finally, we made it back to the check-in table for the event. And on that note? I think I should answer some emails and pay attention to my current history class.

Continuation coming soon.

This might surprise you, but I’m not anti-gun.

Check it out: I was raised by Vietnam vet and a very straight-laced, uptight mother. (Sorry Mommy, but you know it’s true.) There were guns in my house when growing up. My parents beat it into my head that guns are not toys and they put really big holes in you. They are to be used in rare circumstances – i.e., a break-in or the Zombie Revolution – and should be treated with respect. I get more scared being around a gun with someone who is petrified of them than around someone who has a permit. The way I see it, I’m probably much more likely to get shot by the dipshit who freaks out about being around a gun than the person who actually knows how to shoot one.

I’ve shot a gun before. I’m a shitty, shitty shot and my dad would often make comments about wanting to take me to the old gun range. Because, in his view, it’s like stick shift. The chances that you will need to know how to drive stick shift in an emergency are pretty slim, but it’s better that you learn a new skill for no reason than have an emergency pop up and be clueless. Daddy didn’t want me to have the same doomed ending that many horror movie vixens suffer. And, well, let’s face it, I’m not a virgin, so my chances of meeting my death in a horror movie situation are pretty high.

I know people with carry permits. I’m generally not afraid or unnerved when around them. As long as you aren’t acting like a douchebag with a gun, I don’t give a fuck. I really, honestly, couldn’t give less of a fuck. I don’t care if the gun is laying out on the floor. I don’t have kids and I only know one person who has a child, so it’s kind of a non-issue for me.

With that being said, it’s a subject where I think both the right and the left have their heads up their asses. I’ve gotten into it with too many republicans who seem to think that requiring licensing and training comparable to the same licensing and training I would need to drive a car is OMG INFRINGING UPON MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIIIIIIIIIIGHTS! I’m sorry, but to get my fucking driver’s license, I had to take a written test as well as a skills based test, to make sure I know how to drive and won’t mow down Dodge Caravans full of families 15 minutes after hopping in the car. Why shouldn’t gun owners be required to have some sort of training and a licensing procedure, especially when the primary purpose of a car is not to kill/maim/injure another creature?

In a similar vein, I’ve gotten into it with too many democrats who seem to think that guns are the reason for situations like Columbine and Virginia Tech, so we should put more restrictions on gun ownership or even ban them completely. Taking aside issues of constitutionality, this is just plain old retarded. Seriously? Guns are not the reason that Klebold and Harris tried to take out half the school. Granted, yes, it made things much easier for them to do so; however, if you can’t see that the biggest components of their crime were a mental health “system”, as a well as a public school system that failed these kids, along with oblivious parents, I don’t think I can ever have this conversation with you. These were two kids who were mercilessly tortured by a shit ton of asshole jocks. AND YOU WONDER WHY THEY SNAPPED? It never dawned on their parents that they were both having severe problems with the other kids at school, had mental health issues resulting from it, and were stockpiling weapons to – in their minds – take care of the problem. Furthermore, and most importantly, this was not an issue of LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP. These dudes had a friend legally purchase a gun and ILLEGALLY hand it over to them. Saying that the gun law that – theoretically – prevented these young men from getting a gun is a bad law is just idiotic.

A bad law is one in which – when followed perfectly – still results in..well, bad shit. It would be a radically different situation if you were able to go to a gun show and stock up on anything you wanted, in as many quantities as you wanted, with no background check and no required ID. If that were the case, then yes, I would agree that the laws pertaining to gun shows had played a role in the Columbine shooting. Note, played a ROLE, not “the sole and only reason that Klebold and Harris shot up their school.” Even if the gun laws were bad ones, ones that – even if followed perfectly – gave these kids the means to better murder their classmates, it still doesn’t change the fact that the mental health & public school systems, as well as their parents, FAILED THEM.

It might the history major in me coming out, but for the love of all that is unholy, nothing exists in a vacuum and you need to examine the ENTIRE circumstances of a situation before giving some half-assed analysis. Continuing with the example of Columbine, remember that the kids also put together pipe bombs. Can’t blame that on gun laws! Does this mean the intertubez should also be regulated to protect the children? (Answer: NO.) Does this mean Home Depot should card for any purchases that could be used to potentially harm another individual? (Answer: NO.) These were very troubled teenagers who saw no other way out. Period. Had they not been able to acquire guns, they showed that they were resourceful enough to find other ways to kill their classmates.

I know I’m coming down harder on democrats than republicans for their views on guns. It’s because I find it more maddening and frustrating on the democratic side, especially in light of the fact that during the Bush administration, so many dems would screech about how “unconstitutional” the Patriot Act was. (The same Patriot Act that Saint Obama voted to reauthorize in 2006. Every time I want to buy a box of fucking Bronkaid, I think of Barry O and I seethe.) Yet the second amendment doesn’t count? Is it not sexy enough for you? Or is it that most dems, like most pro-lifers, won’t just admit that they find guns ooky?

I guess that what it comes down to is that I don’t want to hear about the unconstitutionality of any law from the democratic party when the reality is that democrats, like republicans, pick and choose which pieces of the constitution should be respected. It’s funny, because it’s kind of like their views on Christianity. Democrats will screech “love thy neighbor” or “Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve” while republicans will screech Levitican code, all the while not realizing that they’re both technically right. It doesn’t occur to anyone on either side that maybe, just maybe, it’s a great example of why the Bible should hold such little relevance in political discourse.

But hey, what the fuck do I know, right?