Heretical Conservatism: How Do You Know Adam Wasn't a Monkey?

- Allowing for the teaching of theistic evolution in schools:

I could care less about whether God created man in his own image or if we’re descended from monkeys. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. Because of this, I have no stake in the Creationism v. Evolution v. Intelligent Design debate and know virtually nothing about any of them.

Conservatives, however, are perfectly willing to make assholes out of themselves on this.

Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and use this to support their position on creationism. There’s even a “Young Earth Creationism” movement which believes that the earth was created in six 24 hour days and is somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old..

What a MONUMENTALLY stupid belief. And I mean the “inerrant word of God” part.

Just for fun, let’s say that God did come down from Heaven and found a human to take dictation. If the reporter DID manage zero errors in his transcription, that may indeed qualify as inerrant. You would then have to believe that every translation to every different language was also without a single error. THEN you would have to believe that every single variation (King James, New International, Revised Standard, etc, etc.) contains not a single error or misinterpreted word. You would also have to have an unbreakable faith to believe that someone didn’t just change words around to fuck with people.

That’s not how it happened though. For starters, as evidenced in the most excellent movie “Dogma” the voice of God is so powerful that it would cause a man’s head to explode. Accordingly, I sincerely doubt that God dictated hundreds of pages of text to an ordinary man who made zero errors.

Kidding.

In order to believe that the word of God is inerrent, you not only have to believe the above, but you have to ignore the fact that the Bible is a conglomerate of 66 texts picked from hundreds of choices by a committee of men with an ulterior motive.

Constantine, who was trying his hardest to become a Christian after years of being a pagan, was genuinely confused because everybody was preaching a different doctrine. Some were preaching the “divine son of God, born of a virgin” doctrine while others just thought he was a pretty cool philosopher. Constantine was getting a little frustrated because he kept getting told different stories by different people.

So he convened a council of bishops in Nicaea and told them to come up with a uniform message. They did, in the form of the Nicene Creed (which emphaiszed the more extreme, supernatural position) and then went on to develop their supporting document, the Bible. Although there continued to be some further development in subsequent years, the meat and potatoes remained the same.

And despite the unearthing of the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls (all of which predate the codified Bible) there has YET to be an updated version.

So you have a book, commissioned by a Roman Emporer and developed by a committee whose ultimate goal was to make Constantine happy because they were tired of being persecuted and wanted to put themselves in positions of power. Any texts which may have conflicted with their uniform message were thrown out, burned, destroyed, whatever.

(There's also some anecdotal evidence that any bishops who conflicted with their uniform message were thrown out, burned, destroyed, whatever. Certainly plausible but I can't say for sure.)

In the 1600+ years since the book was developed, it’s been translated into hundreds of languages and hundreds of different versions by thousands of different people. Do you still believe that it is without error?

If so, keep in mind that Jesus was very cryptic in his messages and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. When God was telling the story of how he created the heavens and earth and everything therein in 6 days, a “day” could have represented millions of years. God’s concept of time may not be the same as ours.

Thomas Jefferson once said that he belonged to a sect of Christianity that had but one member and, through most of my adult life, I’ve related to that sentiment. My Christian ideals are a strong mix of Protestantism and Gnosticism with a little Deism and Philosophical Taoism thrown in for good measure.

This should explain both my belief that the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God as well as my verbosity when it comes to talking about fundies.

Again, I’m not going to argue the merits of evolution vs. creationism as I’m completely apathetic on the issue.. I AM going to say, however, that if you believe that the earth is only six thousand years old because the Bible says so, you are deluded. If this is how you want your children to believe, teach them yourselves. Or find some backwards, snake-handling church and they can teach your kids for you.

Like it or not, by requiring the teaching of creationism in the schools, you start heading up that slippery slope towards government promotion of religion which the First Amendment says is a great big no-no (I’ll talk more about the First Amendment later…it deserves it’s own post). Further up on that slippery slope is the line that demarcates theocracy which, again, is completely ANTI-conservatives.

PS. Isn’t it funny how many of the people on the “creation” side of the argument are the ones who are most up in arms about Islamic law in the Middle East?

PPS. They also tend to be the ones who scream the loudest that Barry O’Bama is SURELY a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein and “We can’t have no Muslim in the White House!”

PPPS. Far be it for me to defend ole Barry. I have HUGE concerns about the guy and, (as it’s probably fairly obvious) won’t be voting for him in November. Being black and having a funny, Muslim sounding name are not two of them, though.

Greatest "Screw You" Ad EVER...

-We interrupt this series of posts to bring you an important message...

Why, oh WHY can't Southwest pick up a couple gates in ATL???? All I really need is ATL to Dallas-Love and ATL to Ft. Lauderdale.

If SWA could pull that off, I'd promise to never, ever, EVER fly the craptacular American Airlines and mega-craptacular Delta.

Heretical Conservatism: Invasion of the Brown People

- Opposed to illegal immigration

Sure I’m opposed to illegal immigration but conservatives have lost their damned minds over this.

I spent the majority of my life living in Fort Worth Texas and Miami Florida so being around brown people has never been an issue for me.

(Well, actually there was an issue one time when a girl I was hitting on failed to tell me that she had an extremely jealous Cuban boyfriend. Would have been good information to have at the time.)

Many of those that I count as my friends, whether they’re Cuban, Mexican, El Salvadorian, Jamaican or whatever, had to go through a lot and jump through hoops in order to obtain their legal residency or citizenship. If anyone should be (and, based on conversations I’ve had with friends, IS) pissed about illegal immigration, it’s them.

There are two problems with this illegal immigration problem , though:

1. Illegal immigration will never stop. The US has managed the greatest PR campaign in history…”Give us your poor..” “Live the American Dream”, etc., etc. We’ve sold ourselves so well that the poor, weary and oppressed will do anything to get here. If we catch them and send them back, they’ll sneak back over again tomorrow. Short of shooting everyone who tries to sneak in, there’s no way to stop the tide.

2. If there’s 20 million illegals here right now and we spend $100 billion catching and deporting illegals, guess how many illegals will be here next year? 20 million. Their will is stronger than our resources.

How much does illegal immigration cost the US every year? Studies I’ve seen have shown a range of $10 billion to $50 billion a year. These studies are one-sided, though, and do not take into consideration that certain costs (education, etc.) would not actually reduce if you took illegal immigrants out. In other words, lets say a school has 500 kids and annual expenditures of $2 million per year. If 10 of those students turn out to be illegals and get deported, will the expenditures be reduced? Not really. The school still has to have the same number of teachers, same number of administrators and the utility bills won’t change.

Also, most of these studies don’t take into account that many of the illegals are paying income taxes, Social Security and Medicare (with no deductions and no returns), and they ALL pay sales tax (most of it via 7-11 or QuikTrip) Property taxes are included in their rent payment.

Nor do these studies account for increased revenue (and increased taxes) that results from higher production. Ten Mexicans can build a better house in a month than twenty Americans can do in two months.

Worst of all, if there are no illegals to pick the pole beans, poor old Farmer Bob would have to run screaming to the government that he needs another $150 billion to cover the increased costs of hiring white guys to pick his beans. He MIGHT have to settle for cloth interior in his new truck instead of leather.

Conservatives like to attribute their position on illegal immigration to their FISCAL conservative sensibilities. But it’s not.

It pains me to no end to say this (because I TRULY hate people who throw out this term) but there’s an inherent racism (or, at the very least, xenophobia) in this issue. In my picket-fenced, middle/upper middle class North Georgia neighborhood, this is “the most important issue that we as American’s face”. If I were to talk to people from my old neighborhood in Ft. Worth, TX, however, illegal immigration probably woudn’t even rank in the top 10. And in Miami, the only ones who are pissed about illegal immigration are the legal immigrants who busted their ass to get here.

This is another one in which it’s inherently ANTI-conservative in that conservatives would deny these people the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, we should be concerned that our borders leak like a sieve.

Yes, we should make it that if you want to live here, you must go through the motions to live here legally.

Yes, we should boot out the ones who refuse to make the effort to get legal.

No, we should not grant amnesty to everyone who’s here illegally.

Yes, we should probably come up with some sort of guest worker program. Doing so would not only help our economy and theirs but it would also allow us to put better controls in place to stem the tide of border jumpers.

Most importantly, we should not come up with bullshit excuses and get all self-righteous because brown people are coming.

Heretical Conservatism: Old McDonald is a Welfare Queen...

- Protecting the continuation of the family farm.

91% of family farms are responsible for 27% of the US total agriculture output. Because corporate farms, which only makes up 2% of all farms) produce 14% of the output, only 9% of family farms are doing the job well enough to put out 59% of the product. From a cost/benefit perspective, 91% of the family farms aren’t really that good. Why save them?

We do our damnedest to try, though. In addition to huge tax deductions, farmers are subsidized, given grants, loans that don’t have to be paid back if the harvest is worse than expected and price-fixing...uh, I mean…price SUPPORTS..

Growing up in a community where the economy was mostly Ag-based, the wealthiest people I knew were farmers. The fact that Farmer Bob is driving a new truck every year at the expense of my 6-year-old-car-driving, tax-paying ass just doesn’t elicit much sympathy from me.

While I’m spending more than ever on groceries, the Federal Government is passing a bill which provides Farmer Bob, and those like him, $300 billion in price supports and subsidies. Bob will qualify for these subsidies as long as his income is not over $750,000.

Lest you think that is a typo, let me repeat…Bob qualifies for subsidies as long as his income is not over three-quarters of a million dollars.

My dad is in the car business for a US automaker. With the economy down and foreign cars kicking the US ass, Dad’s job and finances are lacking some of the security he previously enjoyed. Where the hell are Willie Nelson and John Mellancamp when Dad needs them?

I have a buddy whose family has had a hardware store for 50 or 60 years. His grandfather made a good living with that store for many years and his uncle did very well with it for most of his career. My buddy grew up thinking he would take over. But since Home Depot, Lowes, Wal-Mart and Target have opened stores in town, any dreams of being the hardware go-to guy have been vanquished. Further, the uncle is just struggling to stay afloat until he can retire and sell the place (at a tremendous loss, no doubt). So far, the federal government hasn’t passed a multi-billion dollar “Family Hardware Store Act”. So why is the farmer’s kid held in higher esteem than the hardware store kid?

There’s a romanticized view of the noble family farmer It’s not just that the farmer keeps us fed but it is one of the last vestiges of the “traditionalist” family unit. I addressed this briefly in March 2006 when I was reviewing that horrible Rod Dreher book:

“Prior to, let’s say, the 40’s… a monastic family existence (especially in rural locales) was the norm out of necessity. In the absence of 401Ks, Social Security, Kroger and a Waffle House on every corner, having a large family was a selfish act of self- preservation (not to mention the result of inadequate contraception), It was not due to some altruistic pursuit of the “Permanent Things.”

You had kids to help you plant and harvest the crops. After they were grown, you gave them a plot of land across the creek so that they could continue helping you out with the farm and, once you’re old and debilitated, give them the farm and they, in turn, would keep you fed until you shuffled off the mortal coil. They would do the same with their kids. The circle of life goes on. (Cue Elton John)”

The family farm is no longer necessary to feed the country. Corporate farming and, evidently 9% of "family farms" has developed a very efficient method of keeping the grocery store shelves stocked. If you WANT to make your living from being a farmer but you don’t want to answer to a boss, by all means, be your own farmer. I hope you make a million bucks doing so. With the price of food today, you just might. Just don’t expect the government (and, by extension, ME) to bail you out if you can’t make a go of it.

Screw the family farm…I’m tired of protecting them. This is not 1935 and America is not the rural, agrarian country that it once was. With the advent of cars, interstates, airplanes, public schools, etc., there’s a world of options for farmer’s kids to make a living if farming doesn’t work out for them. THIS is one area that is in serious need of reform.

Heretical Conservatism: The Right-Wing Has It's Own Version of PETA

- Opposition to federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research

This is another one that I can’t get too worked up over and it’s amazing to me that conservatives still get into such a tizzy over this.

Pro-lifers say that this is the destruction of a human life. Apparently they believe that after two people come together in love and created a new human life, a group of diabolical scientists forcefully remove the child from the mother so that it can be torn apart with the hope that Christopher Reeve might walk again (actually, that would be a pretty impressive trick since he's been dead for over 3 years...but I digress).

Except it’s not...the diabolical scientist part, I mean.

In reality, a scientist takes a drop of baby batter, implants it into an egg, leaves it in a test tube for a few days and takes the product of this effort and does research on it. The embryo has no feelings, no soul, no consciousness. It’s a clump of 50 to 150 cells. And as long as it’s sitting in a petri-dish and NOT a womb, it’s not even a viable clump of 50 to 150 cells.

I won’t argue the merits of whether or not embryonic stem-cell research has any value whatsoever. I barely passed 10th grade biology…I’m certainly not qualified to argue its merits. What I WILL say, though, is that for a group who is so keen on the “culture of life”, it’s odd to me that they won’t even give it a chance.

“All life is sacred to God….even little bitty clumps of cells which have the potential to become a baby.”

You know, I don’t think God thinks in absolutes like that. He’s God. He possesses wisdom and, no doubt a little common sense. And (in my humble opinion) he thinks that we’re being ridiculous for holding a 150 cell clump in higher esteem than millions of people who suffer debilitating and/or life threatening diseases because we have (misguided) moral concerns.

I’ve always found it to be charmingly ironic that the same people who are anti-abortion are most often pro-death penalty. I guess all life is sacred to God UNLESS you’ve committed a horrible crime.

(Lest anyone think I’ve gone totally overboard and turned into a liberal, I’m still pretty much in favor of the death penalty in certain instances, such as sexual predators, people who abuse or murder children and serial killers. And note that these are the crimes that I feel to be most worthy of death. God may see things differently. He didn’t assign a points system when he gave the Ten Commandments….he might find lying to the boss, stealing office supplies or lusting after that hot little auditor on the 4th floor more smite-worthy than shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die. Not likely, but who can say for sure?)

Again, I’m not arguing the merits…embryonic stem cell research may produce absolutely nothing. I’m only saying that the pro-life position on ESCR is as stupid as PETA’s position on animal research...and that’s REALLY damned stupid.

If you think about it, the similarities are striking.

PETA believes that the life of an animal is just as sacred and deserving of protection as a human life (and sometimes more so). Any animal testing, even if it has the potential to save millions of people from debilitating and/or fatal disease is wrong. Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA has said, “Even if animal experiments did result in a cure for AIDS, of which there is no chance, I’d be against it on moral grounds."

Ingrid Newkirk is batshit crazy and I defy you to find a single conservative who doesn’t believe the same about her.

But if you substitute “embryo” for “Rover”…

Heretical Conservatism: Fruitcakes Need Love Too...

- Promotion of heterosexual marriage, and disapproval of sexual immorality

Again, as I’ve previously referenced, I’m one of those who would prefer that marriage be the union between a man and a woman but, at the same time, have no opposition to allowing same-sex couples to be joined in some sort of civil union. If two guys want to spend the rest of their lives together, so be it. Why should I care?

I should care, say the conservatives, because it is another step towards the destruction of the American family and the bastardization of marriage.

Is it?

I’d say that Americans have already bastardized the institution of marriage by allowing 24 hour, drive-through wedding chapels. If a particular institution has a 50% failure rate, is it REALLY all that sacred? Is it truly the foundation upon which society is built??

There are plenty of reasons the American family is taking a beating…divorce, unwanted children, absentee parents, negligent parents…the list goes on. What ISN’T destroying the American family is a family in which two loving, devoted, involved and committed parents happen to share the same genitalia (in more ways than one…(ba-DUM-DUM!)).

It’s infinitely possible that one of my children may have a friend or acquaintance who comes from a two mommy or two daddy household. As a parent, it will be incumbent on me to stifle the gag reflex and have a sit-down with my kid to answer any questions he/she may have (or, perhaps, for them to answer any questions I have).

Frankly, I’d MUCH rather my child have a well-behaved, well-adjusted friend who has two daddies than a pain-in-the-ass, destined-for-prison friend with a white-trash mommy and daddy who somehow managed to stick it out.

Let's be honest, though. Conservatives aren't out to promote heterosexual marriage. They're completely intolerant of homosexual relationships. In fact, James Dobson, and many assholes like him, have argued that tolerance of same-sex unions would lead to an increase in same-sex couples.

Good. I hope so.

There is not a true heterosexual in the world who would suddenly decide to be gay when the state says that it’s OK. It would, however, allow gays who have spent their lives lying, either blatantly or by omission, to be free to live their lives the way they see fit.

I used to think, much like Dobson, that homosexuality was a choice. Then I got to know some gay people.

Not a choice. Certainly not a conscious one.

Look at how many gay people have tried to lead a hetero lifestyle. They wanted to fit into a social norm and, in so doing, left a wake of broken hearts and damaged families behind them when they realized they couldn’t continue living a way that is counterintuitive to them. Look at Jim McGreevey, the governor who came out of the closet and has lost the kingdom. His wife is pissed, his kids are now in a broken home and he was run out of office. Worked out well for him.

And for God’s sake, won’t anyone think about Lou Diamond Phillips. He got dumped by his wife for Melissa Ethridge and his career went to crap.

Again, I go back to my kids. My dream is that they lead traditional heterosexual lives, get married, have kids, keep the circle of life going and live happily ever after. IF, however, they come to the realization that they aren’t wired that way, the LAST thing I would want for them to face is the idiotic rantings of the James Dobson’s of the world.

Besides, there’s a fringe benefit to tolerance. Fewer things irritate me more than flamboyant gays who wear their sexuality on their sleeve. They’re annoying. If their lifestyle is no longer looked down on, maybe they’ll lose interest and start acting like ordinary, multi-faceted people who have more to offer than “I’m here, I’m queer, get used to it.”

As far as sexual immorality, sexual immorality is ultimately defined as something that you find ookie. What you find ookie may be pretty outstanding to me. To paraphrase Dennis Miller, “Nothing in the world interests me as much as my orgasm. Nothing in the world interests me less than yours.” (My wife excluded, of course)

Whose sexual morality should we follow? How about the Hasidim who don’t allow a man and woman to so much as touch each other for 12 out of every 28 days because she’s unclean? Certain Evangelicals who never stray from missionary? No thank you.

Government has no place in the bedroom and what two (or more) consenting adults opt to do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it doesn’t result in physical or psychological harm, should be fair game. What people do behind closed doors is not something that Conservatives should lose sleep over.

But they do.

And if they can’t find anything legitimate, they make stuff up. It was fundamentalist Christians who found the dick on the Little Mermaid box, discovered that, if you play a Britney Spears song backward, it says “Sleep with me, I’m not too young.” and started a campaign against Teletubbies because it “promotes a homosexual agenda” to 2 year-olds.

Personally, I think if you’re searching for perversion where none exists, it’s more a reflection of your own depravity than anyone else’s. I’m just sayin’

Conservatism is supposed to be all about freedom and liberty. The fundamentalist, mainstream conservative view of homosexuality, then, is ANTI-conservative by definition.

Heretical Conservatism: Pro-Life is a Loser...

- Pro-Life views on abortion...

Many people define themselves as conservative or liberal based solely on whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. This is the first place in which I break with “mainstream conservatism.”

Personally, I believe (and have stated such elsewhere in this little corner) that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the states allowed to make laws regarding the regulation of abortion.

Were this to happen, the states could make laws, consistent with its standards and values to regulate the procedure. Although some states may have more onerous regulations than others, there’s likely not a state out there that would pass a law that completely wipes out the procedure.

Of course, I may be putting a little too much faith into the states. I live in a state whose boneheaded Governor, despite overwhelming public support and passage by the Senate, vetoed a bill which would allow Sunday beer sales. However, that’s not the point.

I am pro-life but only to a certain point. As a husband and father, my position is influenced by what choices I hope my wife or daughter would make. In case of rape or threat to the mother’s life, I am pro-abortion. If my daughter were to make a dumb teenage mistake or my wife’s birth control were to fail, my position is pretty staunchly pro-life.

Granted, I’d probably cry a lot and drink a lot more, but I would not want to see one of the women I love make any other choice.

I’m fully aware of the fact that a lot of women don’t have husbands or fathers who would be nearly as supportive and, in my opinion, the only thing worse than a dead baby is an unwanted, neglected and unloved child. This makes me pretty squishy on the issue overall.

What I’m embarrassed by is not the pro-life position but the fact that so many "conservatives" allow this single issue to dictate how they will vote. Many conservative would vote against their best interests on every other matter if the candidate is pro-life enough. I dare say that if Obama were to come out as pro-life and McCain were to suddenly get all squishy on the issue, much of the Republican base would cast their vote for a Democrat.

“It doesn’t really matter what Obama thinks about everything else…he’s one of us!” they would exclaim.

What the “lifers” seem to be hanging their hats on is that a pro-life president would be the beginning of the end of legal abortion but nothing could be further from the truth. Hell, W is about as pro-life as they come AND he appointed two “conservative” Supremes two years ago. So far, nothing which threatens Roe is even on the horizon.

Even IF Roe got overturned tomorrow, the legality of abortion would not suddenly disappear, it could simply be called into question at the state level and the state would then have the option of passing a law barring the practice. EVEN if some sort of law were passed, it would likely be challenged and, the law could not be enforced until the challenge was heard.

Some states even have “trigger laws” in place that, in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned, state law would keep abortion legal.

I understand that many people feel very passionate on this subject but it’s a loser and shouldn’t be used as a litmus test by conservatives OR liberals.

Heretical Conservatism: Eeewww...Squishy

Now we come to the squishy part.

These are the issues in which I can, at the very least, agree with the premise (somewhat), but I just can’t completely get on board.

Where do I “squishily” agree with conservatives?

Greater financing for education:

I’m biased on this. As previously stated, my wife is a teacher so I get to see, on a daily basis, some of the problems in our schools. While I’m extremely distressed by the state of our education system today. I’m not 100% sure that throwing more money at the problem is going to fix it.

The BIGGEST problem with education goes back to the “family values” issue: Poor parenting. Mind you, poor parenting is not limited to the parents who don’t care. In many cases, poor parenting can manifest itself in people who shelter their children, do not allow them to make their own mistakes and believe that their children are incapable of doing wrong. I like to call these wastes of space “Helicopter parents”. More on them another day.

Whether you are a parent who is apathetic or you are a parent who can not take a step back and allow your child to take his licks and learn on his own, you are a negligent parent and, hence, the biggest problem facing our education system.

The SECOND biggest problem with education is that, due to the passage of “No Child Left Behind”, teachers are limited to teaching the test. This is a pretty narrow focus and, as a result, our kids are NOT getting the quality education they should be. Kids are being taught that the answer to “X” is “Y” but are given no explanation as to why; no background.

Teacher: “The American Civil War began in 1861 and ended in 1865.”

Student: “What was the cause of the Civil War.”

Teacher: “Doesn’t matter. It's not on the test. Just remember that it went from 1861 to 1865.”

The second problem leads to the third: many of the GOOD teachers are so frustrated by their inability to do their job in the manner in which they were trained that they decide to get out. What’s the point of being a glorified babysitter who sits in front of the class with flash cards? If they’re going to do a job which doesn’t utilize their skill sets, they may as well get one that pays better.

It’s easy to use a perceived lack of funding as an excuse for having such a crappy education system but, in reality, billions more in education funding does nothing to address the problem.

Although it would be very nice if they were to throw some of that extra education cash our way. My wife needs a raise.

Protection of key American industries like defense, certain raw materials, and agriculture from foreign competition:

I’m squishy on this because I’m not terribly educated on this. I always thought that competition was a good thing, free trade kinda guy I am. Unfortunately, many foreign countries have proven that they can do the same job better, faster and cheaper in other industries so would competition destroy these other industries? Don’t know. This doesn't really seem like a "conservative value" as much as an "isolationist value".

It seems to make sense, though, that our defense systems SHOULD be designed and built by Americans. By outsourcing this function to other countries, aren’t we making espionage just a little easier?

Should we protect certain raw materials? Sure. Oil comes to mind. Seems pretty well protected already, though, since we sit on huge pockets of it and refuse to do anything with it for fear that we might disrupt the mating habits of caribou.

Agriculture, on the other hand, SHOULD be subject to competition. The federal government has made it completely ANTI-competitive. How many jobs do you know of where you can get paid by the government NOT to produce? How many billions in subsidies and tax breaks have we paid farmers in order to keep prices in check? Looked at your grocery bill lately? We constantly see stories about starvation around the world…about how expensive food is becoming, yet we pay farmers to NOT produce?

Let’em compete. I’m tired of Kroger being the second largest recipient of my take-home pay (after my mortgage company).

Prison reform that focuses on rehabilitation through education and labor:

This one is squishy because history has proven that there are just some HORRIBLE people in the world. History has also proven that some people are in jail for reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of education but bad timing or dumb mistakes.

In a perfect world, we would look at the crime and determine the best course of action. If you got caught shoplifting to feed your family because you had no job, perhaps you can be rehabbed through education. If you’re a serial rapist or child abuser, you should be marched right through the prison library, taken to the recreation yard and shot.

As far as those who fall in the middle (between “horrible waste of skin” and “unfortunate victim of circumstance”), a common sense approach to the problem would be in order. If there’s a good chance the person can be rehabilitated and become a productive member of society, I’m all for giving it a shot. If, however, the person is beyond redemption, don’t waste the time or money.

So, there's my squishy three.

The six in which I think the right wing is full of shit will each get their own post. Some of them will be short but some will likely be pretty long.

Heretical Conservatism - Where Do I Agree With Mainstream Conservatives?

As Jonah Goldberg once noted, “…I think interest in conservatism has waned in recent years thanks to the more pressing issues of Islam and terrorism and the fact that — for good and for ill — conservatism has largely been defined for much of the last five years as "whatever George W. Bush does." To say this state of affairs has been vexing to some of us is an understatement on par with "haggis is an acquired taste.""

Just for fun, I pulled up “Present Social Conservative Values in the United States” from Wikipedia just so that I could see what percentage of these values I agree with. I limited myself to the social aspects of conservatism. Republicans have already abandoned fiscal conservatism so there's no real point in bringing it up.

Of the 13 values listed, I am strongly “conservative” on 4 and squishy on 3 others. This means I agree with conservatives less than 31% of the time (or 53.8% if my squishy views count). This, in schoolspeak would be an F and I can, in good conscience, turn in my Conservative Card.

Where do I agree with today’s conservatives?

Focus on stronger families and not big government for teaching values:

I am a firm believer in this, if nothing more than because I’m a parent who believes that I know better than the government what is best for my children. Besides, what values does the government have which would serve them later in life? Fiscal responsibility is out. So is Personal Responsibility. And when government is run by two parties whose values are often in opposition, does big government’s value curriculum change whenever the parties switch places?

Unfortunately, it seems that big government is already responsible for teaching values. I’m married to a school teacher. I know these things.

For example, I know that a large number of parents are as useless as tits on a bull. I know that it becomes incumbent on my wife to teach some of her students the difference between right and wrong because their useless parents have failed to do so. I also know that when she TRIES to instill some values (or, at the very least, SOCIAL SKILLS) with these children, her efforts are either met with apathy from the parents OR she’s accused of having it out for their kid. Rarely does she hear the words “Thank you for taking such an interest in my child’s well-being.”

My wife is a saint and I SO admire her for her ability to handle crappy kids and crappy parents with such grace. I am completely incapable of that…which explains why I’m in corporate America. I can (and do, on a daily basis) tell someone, in no uncertain terms, how badly they’re screwing up without fear of any REAL reprisal. It’s very liberating.

Got off on a tangent there.

Yes, a focus on stronger families is, indeed, a conservative value and I whole-heartedly agree with it. And before a liberal takes offense over this statement, I’m not saying that liberals don’t care about their families and I’m certainly not saying this is true of any liberal friends. I’m just saying that it wasn’t a conservative who wrote a book called “It Takes A Village.”

Protection of 2nd Amendment rights:

I like guns. I have a gun. I’d like to have more guns. If you can be responsible with a gun, you should be able to have one. If you’ve proven that you CAN’T be responsible with a gun, you should have it taken away when you’re put away in a jail cell. When you get out, you don’t get it back. So sorry.

I’m a firm believer in the Castle Doctrine. I am also a firm believer in gun safety and, as such, have made certain that my wife knows how to load, unload and shoot. As my kids get older, they will be taught to respect guns. My daughter has already been out with me when I went shooting and I was very blunt with her about what happens if you don’t handle guns with care. It was my duty to start her early…my father-in-law (the bird hunter) has made it clear that he intends to buy her her first shotgun. When he does, I don’t want to be giving her crash courses.

With that said, I am not completely opposed to CERTAIN limitations. For example, I’ve shot a Tec-9 and can say, with no qualms, that there is not a single GOOD reason for anyone to have one. If you’re into drive-bys, it’s a choice weapon. For legitimate use, however, there’s nothing redeeming about it whatsoever.

Reducing and/or reforming welfare for the poor and needy:

My dad always told me “If you find yourself in trouble, I will NOT bail you out. I will, however, do anything I can to help you bail YOURSELF out.”

To preserve the welfare of society as a whole, it is incumbent on us to help the poor and needy help themselves. This is why I donate to charities, give offerings to my church and have even been known to participate in a community service project. I even believe that the government has a LIMITED responsibility to help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps on those rare occasions where everything has fallen apart..

It is not, however, the government’s responsibility to support people, families (or, for that matter, third world countries) ad infinitum. If you’re unhappy with your station in life, fix it. If you’re not willing to fix it, fine…just don’t look to us to take care of you. I have no intentions of financially supporting my OWN children their entire lives, I’m certainly not going to support YOUR lazy ass for the rest of yours.

Lower taxes with spending focused on education, defense, and infrastructure:

This is a no-brainer and I really don’t have anything to add. My money should be mine. I have no problems paying my fair share for my security or for those things I use on a daily basis.

So there you go. Four “conservative values” that I can stand behind. Regrettably, it goes downhill from here.