Friday, June 28, 2013

Meet the Flintstones, Part Deaux


    “Jesus wept,” came the dramatic response from the right reverend Mike Huckabee: swiftly, decisively…almost as if it had been rehearsed. Or pre-written.  Or pre-ordained.
    Surely, something horrible had happened in the world.What was it?  Another slaughtering of innocent school children?  Genocide in Rwanda?  Could it have been that Huckabee finally realized that there are almost 50 million Americans living in poverty?  Kids going to bed hungry every night…people choosing between food and healthcare?  Did the prayers of half a million homeless people reach him in a dream? Did somebody slip him the information that there are 218,171 people in prison in the U.S., with 47.1% of those being for “drug offenses”?  Maybe it hit him that the divorce rate in America (because, let’s face it, Jesus, being the blue-eyed, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon we’ve all seen actual photographs of, cares only about what happens in the US of A) is at 50 percent.  That’s half of all the blessed unions between one man and one woman – right down the old porcelain throne.  Surely, some of those things might cause Jesus to be a little sad.  Maybe shed a tear or two…
    Seems not.  Here’s the Huckster’s entire quote: “My thought on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: ‘Jesus wept.’”
    So, according to Huck, the Prince of Peace; the Lamb of God; that blue-eyed, fair-haired prophet who said “Do unto others whatever you would like them to do to you,” is sobbing now because my nephew is one step closer to being able share the same rights under the law as I have.  What a travesty.  What a horrible thing to happen.
    What’s next? Black folk and women being allowed to vote?
    Can somebody ‘splain to me in simple terms (because I am a simple man) exactly why there are so many heterosexuals so remarkably outraged about this?  How does it affect those of us who have a more “traditional” marriage?  Because, truthfully, I don’t see how it has any bearing on me – not in the least.  Now, it would be easy to understand the outrage if I had been born more partial to boys; lived my whole life pretending I liked girls; married one, just to be accepted as “normal.”  I might then feel some jealousy for being cheated out of the life I wanted – the life that others of the same persuasion will soon get to have.  But, again, speaking for myself, I’ve always been completely comfortable with the boy/girl thing.  So…no outrage.
    Some might cite the tax and insurance implications as a problem.  But, “Jesus?” Really?  If He is going to weep, does anybody really think it’s going to be over some same-sex couples in the United States of America getting the same tax benefits and insurance coverage as the rest of us?  Do we really want to take the stroll down the very long list of things this country does with its money, just to see how many of those things might give him better reason to cry?  No. I didn’t think so.
    Now, for mocking Governor Huckabee for his frivolous tweet (Doesn’t that sound like an insult? “You frivolous tweet!”), I have been accused by some of mocking Jesus.  Anybody who knows me knows I’m not easily offended – but I find that accusation repulsive.  For that to be true, Huckabee would have to actually be speaking FOR Jesus.- and I don’t think that’s the case.  So…
    Thanks for the two words, Mike.  I’ve got two words for you, but, unfortunately, they would only let me print one of them here.   

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Meet the Flintstones

Can we get serious here for a minute?

I really didn’t want to get into this whole “gay marriage”
thing, because, frankly, it doesn’t have any direct effect on
me. But everybody else is expressing their viewpoint on
it, so, why not? My position on the subject isn’t going to
win me any friends here in the sunny south, but, when has
that shut me up? And I’ve learned over the years that if you
see an injustice occurring, whether or not it has any direct
impact on you, and you don’t speak out against it, then you’re as guilty as the people who are committing the injustice. In the 60s, during the Civil Rights Movement, I never said much, and I regret that. Of course, I was just a kid who didn’t have to sit in the balcony, or wait outside for one of my white friends to bring me a burger.

The most prolific argument against same-sex marriage is on principle, primarily from people who loudly proclaim that they are “Christians.”

Stop there.

Before you go hollering that I’m saying all Christians are against “gay marriage,” re-read it. I’m just saying that most of the people who are against it call themselves Christians, and insist that God is the one who defined marriage: One Man, One Woman. Cool. And it’s short and sweet and it fits well on a bumper sticker, or a Facebook post.

But it ain’t exactly true, is it? I mean, at least there’s a point of contention. Lots of those guys in the instruction book (aka The Bible) had more than one wife – even though each of them was only one man. Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob, Abijah.

Deuteronomy 21 gives instructions regarding how a man should disperse his inheritance in the event that he dies and has sons by both a beloved wife and a hated wife. Of course, that same chapter goes on to say that if one of those sons is rebellious, mom and daddy should take him into town and have him stoned to death by the elders, so…

Anyway, I’m no Bible scholar, but I think that shoots down the “one woman” part of the bumper sticker equation.

All that aside, The Bible is full of all kinds of stuff we’re not supposed to do, much of which is not included in legislation regarding how the country works. The country, for those who don’t understand, is something different from religion, and it really creates problems when those two things are confused. The Bible and The Constitution are two entirely separate documents; and a marriage contract is another thing altogether.

From Wikipedia: “Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between spouses…” Also, this: “A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it’s called a ‘premarital agreement’), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.”

So, what we’re dealing with here really has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, unless it is you that is contemplating gay marriage. As far as the government is concerned, it’s not that different from buying a house or a car or going to work for some corporation that requires a contract spelling out obligations between you and your employer. Sure, there are things in other contracts between people that you might consider unethical or immoral – but since those contracts don’t have your name on them, you generally don’t go ‘round protesting them, do you? That’s because the terms of that contract, unless it’s the “special” kind with some guy name Guido, taking out a “hit” on you, aren’t really any of your business. Why then, should a marriage contract between two consenting adults be any of your business?

Perhaps the misunderstanding exists that if same-sex marriage contracts are codified, or accepted as legal and binding by the government, dudes will have to divorce their wives and marry other dudes; and the same for women. Let me assure you, to the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. It simply allows people of the same sex to enter into marriage contracts, if they so desire. So rest easy. Joe and Marge are safe, unless one of them decides to take off with the pool boy or the maid – and that could happen anyway.

It seems that many folks are only concerned about the word, “marriage,” being used to identify unions between same-sex couples. But we don’t get to own words. You can call me a “queer-lover,” and I can call you a “bigot,” but that doesn’t stop everybody else from using those same words as they see fit. Let those two ladies call their union a marriage. You can call it what you want.

Newsflash: homosexuality exists, and there are no (enforceable) laws against being a homosexual. It has been around since way before any books were written, and unless some bright do-gooder invents a “cure” and slips it into the world’s water supply, gaydom will continue to exist. People are people, and people should be able to enter into contracts with each other. If a marriage contract between two homosexuals is not considered valid, then why should we consider an installment loan contract between those same two to be valid? Highlight that last sentence, will you? Because I think it’s profound.

© 2013, Rick Baber

Friday, January 18, 2013

Yonder Are the Hessians; Chapter 1 (unedited)

(Note: This blog entry doesn't incorporate the book's format.)

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s it – all the words and punctuation used in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of what is known as The Bill of Rights.

Now, I haven’t asked her, but I assume my editor would have some problems with the placement of those commas. There really are too many of them for that sentence to make any sense, as structured. If you use the standard rule to read and understand the sentence, removing the parts between the commas, you can make that mean all kinds of things.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” That makes sense. That would mean that nobody should infringe or prohibit the formation of a well regulated Militia.

“A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This is a little different. As read, it would mean a well regulated Militia is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” with the commas being there for emphasis.

But if we are to leave all the words in there, and arrive at the meaning that most people understand this thing to carry (apologies to Mr. Madison), it should probably go more like this:

A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just one comma. See? That means because a well-regulated militia is necessary to keep your country free, nobody should jack with the people’s right to keep and carry weapons. That’s what we think the amendment was trying to say. But now that we understand that, we have to consider the broader implications.

Forgive me. I know this is taking more time than you wanted it to, but it’s vitally important. So important, as a matter of fact, that there are people willing to kill and die over it. So the least you can do is read a little more in an effort to understand it - especially if you are one of those people. Let’s dissect the sentence, shall we? We’ll also do that without all the improper caps.

A well-regulated militia... Should we consider what “well regulated” means? It’s not spelled out anywhere in the Bill of Rights. We pretty much know what it means to regulate something; and we therefore pretty much know what it would mean to do that well. But in order for somebody to regulate something, there really has to be a regulator, doesn’t there? So, who, or what, is to be the regulator of the militia?

Because the document is designed to enumerate some rights of United States citizens and limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings (That’s what most people understand the purpose to be.); and because of the previous language in the Constitution to which it is an addendum, stating in Article. I. Section. 1. (more unnecessary punctuation and improper caps, but get used to it): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” we have to assume the Congress is the regulator. No?

So, it is Congress that regulates the militia. It isn’t the members or the officers or the Board of Directors of the militia that regulate it. It is Congress. And we all know what Congress is. No, I mean we all know what Congress was, as referenced in the Constitution.

Given that, the next thing to do is to define “militia,” because as simple as it seems, there is a great deal of contention on this point.

Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition:

1. a: a part of the organized armed forces of
a country liable to call only in an emergency.

b: a body of citizens organized for military service.

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Isn’t it quite interesting that, even in 2013, that definition is specific to males? But, so be it.

We have to recognize, however, that when James Madison wrote this in 1789 there wasn’t a Merriam – Webster online dictionary. Even if there would have been one, nobody could have found it, because Al Gore had not yet invented the internet. So, we have to take a look back to see if we can determine what might have been the definition of “militia” in those days.

During Virginia’s ratification convention in 1788, George Mason, who we consider to be one of the founders of this country and along with Madison, “the father of the Bill of Rights,” said this:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people except for a few public officials. To
disarm the people is the best and most
effectual way to enslave them.”

Given his credentials, I’d say that definition would be pretty accurate for the day. But, just to be clear, here’s another one – from the “Initiator of the Declaration of Independence,” Richard Henry Lee:

“A militia when properly formed are
in fact the people themselves…
and include all men capable of bearing
arms…To preserve liberty it is essential
that the whole body of people always
possess arms and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them…”

Even Madison, who penned the amendment, had more to say about it:

“…A well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the best
and most natural defense of a free country…”

That’s enough. Pull the plug. A militia, as defined
by the guys who should know, is pretty much all able bodied citizens, armed and ready to defend their country. But from what?

The first hint, although even harder to read than some of my own scribblings, is this (my favorite) from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers:

“There is something so far-fetched and so
extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty
from the militia that one is at a loss whether
to treat it with gravity or with raillery;
whether to consider it as a mere trial of
skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians;
as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices
at any price; or as the serious offspring of
political fanaticism. Where in the name of
common sense are our fears to end if we may
not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors,
our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger
can there be from men who are daily mingling
with the rest of their countrymen and who
participate with them in the same feelings,
sentiments, habits, and interests?”

Gawd, I wish I could write like that. I mean, it’s beautiful, isn’t it? Even if you don’t know what the hell it means, it’s just beautiful. But, in case you don’t (know what it means), it means there’s no reason for any of us to be afraid of the militia, because the militia is us – our sons, brothers, and neighbors. Of course that was written quite a while before our Civil War, which literally pitted brother against brother, but it’s a sweet thought, just the same. Still, who is the militia protecting us from?

Well, here it comes, from Noah Webster in An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people
must be disarmed; as they are in almost every
kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed,
and constitute a force superior to any bands
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense,
raised in the United States.”

We might recognize Webster as the guy whose name appears on the dictionary referenced earlier in this chapter. He obviously knew a lot about words and their meanings, and we would have to consider that he was pretty well-versed in the concepts of the day as well. And what he is saying here is that this militia everybody thought was so important – made up of the people – should not only be armed, but better armed than the army! This, just in case the leaders of the country tried to impose their will on the people when the people didn’t want that.

Now, this gets a little trickier. If the leaders of the country are the elected representatives (Congress), and Congress is charged with regulating the militia (made up of the people), and the militia feels the need to use their arms against the leaders (Congress), then would it be…prudent…for Congress to regulate the militia so extremely that it would not be possible for them to prevail? Just asking. Surely, those guys don’t want to lose their jobs. Or their heads.

Thus far, it is pretty easy to understand the mindset of the gun-toting pseudo Rambos who swear that the government can take their weapons when they pry them from their cold dead hands. No matter why your average run-of-the-mill citizen thinks the 2nd Amendment was penned, a brief study of history makes it pretty clear that it wasn’t for hunting, or even protecting family, home or property from bad guys. It was so that the citizenry would be more powerful than the government and capable of fighting and defeating them if the need to do so ever came up. It was, just as the “gun nuts” say: to defend us from tyrants.

But, who is to decide who is a tyrant? The people. And who are the elected representatives of the people? Congress. And who, again, regulates the militia? Congress. And who also regulates the enforcement agency of the United States of America, aka the military? Congress. So, who would the militia be fighting should they take up arms against the government? The military. And who makes up the military? The people. And who are the people? The sons and brothers and neighbors and fellow citizens of the other people, the militia. So, who’s on third base? What’s that spell? What’s that spell? What’s that spell? Civil War!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Shot at Redemption

The consensus among 2nd Amendment screamers seems to be, in their rampaging defense of so-called “assault rifles,” that the framers didn’t put that amendment in there so good ol’ boy Americans could protect their homes and property from the occasional bad guy, breaking in to steal a TV or some Sudafed. It’s there so they can protect their homes and property from Uncle Sam – should he decide to become tyrannical and oppressive. I mean, even more than usual. After all, it did happen once before, and lots of folk in the south are still pretty ticked off about their “property” just being set free like that. The gub’ment had ‘em some nerve back then.

Things were a little different back in 1787, when those long-haired founders penned the Constitution, and then a couple of years later when they added The Bill of Rights – which includes the “right to bear arms,” only after what they must have considered the most important amendment, the first one, which says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Then came what I suppose was the next most important thing on their minds: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note, that doesn’t say anything about what kind of arms the people should have the right to keep. Muskets were a pretty big deal back then. And since then, there has been some difference in opinion regarding the meaning of this document between Joe Bumpersticker and Uncle Sam. The language of the amendment seems to indicate that such a right is there so the people can band together into a “militia,” if necessary, to hold off foreign invaders. But Joe Sixpack seems to think it’s there in case our own government gets a little too big for its britches and needs to be booted out. Like, for example, when their guy isn’t elected president. Enter the long clip semi-automatic rifle.

They’re not really necessary for scaring some meth head away from your door – or even shooting one if he doesn’t take the hint. Any pistol is good enough for that job. No, these beauties are just in case “Red Dawn” comes from our own military and we’ve got to mount up on our trusty nags and four-wheelers and head for the hills where we can hide out and make nightly raids on the United States Military (an organization that everybody seems to be pretty fond of, for now) and take our country back! Because the movie, you see, makes us believe that is possible. But since they’ve already made it very difficult for us to own truly automatic weapons, and tanks and stuff like that, this is the next best thing. It’ll just have to do.

Of course, these things also make it remarkably convenient for nutbags to stroll into a theater or a school and gun down a bunch of people if they take such a notion. But that real threat sure shouldn’t influence anybody on how we choose to deal with our fantasy threat. These things look cool. They make our gun cabinets and our jeans look fuller. And, by God, we want to keep them.

So, we’ve got us a gun culture, and there ought to be a way for folks other than the weapons manufacturers and the NRA to profit from it. I’m envisioning a day, very soon, when there will be a big 2nd Amendment Rally, like Woodstock…only, not… probably in the middle of Texas. Maybe they’ll call it “Gunstock.” All the bullet-belted, trigger-happy Rambos will load up in their pickup trucks and head out there, proudly displaying their armament and their rebel flags. There’ll be some whiskey drinkin’ and performances from a handful of real cowboy recording artists who support the cause; and campfire dancing by many wobbly-legged and heavily tattooed women. They’ll break up into smaller groups and have philosophical discussions about the Bible supporting their cause and what kind of weapon Jesus would carry, assuming he’s not actually in attendance. Maybe they’ll burn some effigies of Barack Obama and Piers Morgan and discuss the resurrection of the Confederacy, and fiery speakers will get them all worked up into a frothy mixture of patriotism and inebriation. A swell time will be had by all.

Then, on the last night of the festival, somebody’s big ol’ mudder pickup will backfire when they start into town to get some more ice and set off the biggest massacre in American history. Some bright entrepreneur will make a fortune gathering up and selling all those spent cartridges – and I plan to be that guy.

Meantime, I’m gonna jaunt off to the local armory and pick me up a couple of these little beauties, just in case the Decepticons decide to take over Northwest Arkansas. You think I’m joking? This ain’t no cartoon. It could happen! I don’t want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard.

© 2013, Rick Baber