The things we do.

My wife and I shop for food. We shop for clothes. We prepare meals for ourselves and for the family. We help prepare lunches for the kids. We clean up after meals. We oversee our children's cleanup of the house. We direct our children in matters of hygiene. We tutor our kids in schoolwork. We take our kids to school. We do home maintenance. We go to our jobs for our paychecks. We pay our home bills. We obtain and distribute cell phones to the family. We buy and distribute gifts. We put together family get-togethers. We put together vacations. We visit the doctor. We take our kids to the dentist. We attend recitals and concerts and competitions and meets and matches and contests. We attend to sick kids. We fight (verbally). We laugh. We discuss. We watch shows together. We garden. We sleep together (in snoring repose). We tend to animals. We eat together. We deal with the everyday problems and surprises and expected drudgery of life, when living with another person.

I'm missing something.

Oh, yeah. We also occasionally have sex, as married people will do.

If the amount of time that we spent on this last thing were even one half of 1% of our time together, I think that we would be a very unusual married couple, after 15 years of marriage. I certainly could not characterize that as being an identifier of the state of wedlock.

If it's teh ghey seks that makes opponents afraid of gay marriage, then I submit that they have a seriously skewed view of what a marriage actually is.

I'm not much of a joiner. But maybe there are things worth standing shoulder to shoulder about, regardless of whether you're concerned about being regarded as just doing what the others are doing.

If you hadn't realized that I believe in equal rights for all, then you haven't been paying much attention to me.



Wink-wink. Nudge-nudge.

One rule that I was taught early as a peace officer writing probable cause affidavits is the Four Corners Doctrine. Simply put, if the information is not put within the four corners of the sheet[s] of paper that the affidavit is written upon, the judge may not consider it.  If I charge Mr. Smith with Assault Causes Bodily Injury With Prior Conviction, I had darned well better mention his prior conviction for Assault CBI in that PC affidavit. I know of a judge who fairly recently threw out a PC on this doctrine, when the officer charged the defendant with Dischage Firearm In Certain Municipalities, but forgot to mention that the city was over 100,000 people. (Everyone knew that town had over 100,000 people, but the officer didn't mention it.)
It makes sense, though-- if it hasn't been testified to, the judge may not consider it.

Looking at the Arizona law SB1070 (which empowered Arizona law enforcement to make on-view warrantless arrests of individuals where there illegally, for violation of the new state law against being in Arizona illegally), we see that, first shake out of the box, it forbade enforcement based on ethnicity or race in black letter law. Yet concerns about harassment of people based upon race and ethnicity were exactly what got its opponents upset. A cynical person might also say that some were concerned that, even without harrassment based on race or ethnicity, some opponents were simply concerned that the law might actually be effective, in detaining and eventually deporting people not legally in this country.
But when the feds challenged the state law and brought it to the Supreme Court of this nation, the racial/ethnic issue wasn't brought up.

Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case."

When the federal attorneys challenging a state enforcement law bring no allegation about race or ethnic oppression to court, that's because they haven't got any evidence supporting that issue.

But the law was struck down in all ways but one: state-appointed police are still permitted to enforce the federal immigration laws. The new provisions that it be illegal on a state level to seek work as an undocumented alien, and that that aliens must register with the state, and that Arizona law enforcement may make warrantless arrests of undocumented aliens for violation of the state law-- these were struck down.

The reasoning given by Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, was that the state must not usurp the federal authority. We already have laws about that. Huh. We have federal laws about drugs, and bank robbery, and a thousands of other things that are redundant on the state level. But this one, we must see overturned. But it's not about race or ethnicity.

The dissent given by Thomas and Scalia and Alito (all notably conservative or libertarian justices) is that there is state sovereingty to consider. The Arizona governor strangely claimed this as a victory for the 10th Amendment.

But it's not about race or ethnicity.

The passing of conservatives.

My conservative friends often think that I'm a damned liberal, and my liberal friends either think that I'm an uber-conservative fascist pig, or that I'm a bag of self-contradictions.
Let me make this clear: I don't take my stance to be contrary, or to "stand out and be different." I would LOVE to be able to side with a great big majority.

But right now, the two majorities are:
--people who think that it's more fair, and even intellectual, to distribute everything but rights.
--people who think that we should not distribute the wealth, but still should assert control over others' rights.

I've said all this before.
Lately, I've been thinking how great it would be to see an openly atheist or agnostic candidate run for President. I think all of the discussions about a candidate's fitness to lead, based upon his religion, are bollocks. Given that I want the President not to impose his religion upon the nation, I'd prefer him or she to keep their yap shut on the issue. The same goes with information about his marriage.

Let's do this, shall we? Let's get to reducing the interference that the government has in our lives, and reducing the expenditures. Let's just drop the social issues for a bit, shall we?

And while we're at it (and Republicans, I'm talking to you, because even though you're screwed beyond belief with your mix of social interference and laissez-faire party planks, you're still the only big party willing to attempt to be the Grownups in the room, so I lean faintly in your direction.), let's quit listening to idiots like Rush Limbaugh, who had me at "why should I pay?" (a legit question) but lost me at "lemme see you nekkid."

Oh, and finally, as a person who leans TEA Party and Libertarian, I propose that we mourn the untimely passing of Andrew Breitbart. He raised interesting points, and flew in the faces even of a lot of Conservatives. He challenged the status quo. His passing diminishes the exchange.

Remember: The News Media Are Smarter Than You, And You Suck.

LabRat knocks one out of the park, on the amusing situation in which a media feeding frenzy on Sarah Palin causes shark-brained journalists to feed on each other... and themselves.

Political Distribution.

There are shades of gray.


It would seem that people are so busy identifying the difference between black and white, that they forget that the vast majority of the world falls somewhere in between.


Most people tend to think of their political affiliations as falling along a single line, like this:

But it's not really that simple. It's at the very least two-dimensional, like this:

The above graphic is one that I sketched from memory, from a lecture by Dr. Robert Taylor in a graduate class on terrorism. This was early on in the class, and we were discussing what drives people that were allegedly on opposite ends of the political spectrum to take up very, very similar positions and tactics.

It's funny how worked up people get in their identity with regard to which side of the centerline that they fall.

I worry about the polarization that I see in our nation.

I worry about the civil Cold War that looms.

"I want you to LEAVE, now!"

I got told that again, this last shift. As a libertarian peace officer being told this by a person whom I know to be a resident of that location, my first consideration is whether I can accommodate this citizen's demand in good conscience. Does my duty entitle me to remain, when I have been told to leave? Does my duty actually require me to remain?

In this case, the report was of a family violence call, and I felt that my duty was to interview the family members individually, away from each other, before leaving. I separated them, to the irritation of the unctuous male. The female, alone and away from the male, lied to me said that everything was okay, and that they were just talking. I found no evidence of physical contact, and had no witness that was willing to give their name, and at this point withdrew. The male seemed surprised at my departure, because I had spoken rather firmly to him upon my arrival.

My backup officer told me later that the male (with whom I had conducted business before) had called me everything but Father Christmas, and had gone on about me being a dirty cop, who brought dishonor upon the badges of my peers.

[Sigh.] Another dissatisfied customer.

Cranky.

Due to relative physical inactivity over the last few months, my body has gotten to feeling a bit neglected. We all like to be left alone sometimes, but after awhile, we want someone to come throw us a ball and take us for a walk. And, like a terrier who's been left at home alone one too many times in a week and in return decides to pee in your bed, my back decided to knot up on me.

Starting Friday, it was so tight that I could barely stand upright. No pain while lying down or sitting, but the latissimus dorsi in my lumbar region simply did not want to see me standing erect, and gave me to understand that, while the tightness was just a warning shot across the bow, further attempts to get active would result in Pain.

I puttered about my weekend activities, having coffee with my brother, meeting my friend Paula the SculptureLady for dinner, and shooting a plate match with my dad. But always, always, the tightness and growing imminent threat of pain. Actually, I'll just have to admit that sore aching was indeed occurring, which I'll have to grant counts as pain. Technically.

But I was trying to put it off. I put it off because I get this about once a year, and after a few days, it usually goes away without intervention. But my wife got tired of watching me creak around making old man sounds, and told me to check on a chiropractor today.

_ _ _
I appreciate that a chiropractor can do great things for an ailing back. My late uncle was a doctor of chiropractic, who on one occasion provided me with a treatment. I was to leave for my vacation in 4 hours, and I was in a bad way. A disc had displaced enough that I was in serious pain, even while sitting. My uncle saw me on zero notice, manipulated my back for about 45 minutes, and sent me on my way, with my pain gone. At the very least, my vacation was saved. So I know that it can be done.

Then, too, are the guys that are in it for the long haul. The return visit and the recurring appointment is all they're interested in. My wife, after a significant car crash, decided just to have herself checked out. I encouraged her to do so, not wanting her to miss a subtle injury if she had been hurt. Insurance would cover the cost. After her third frustrating visit of leaving the "injury clinic" and telling them repeatedly "I'm not actually feeling any pain, thank you. The treatments are nice, but I just want to be released with the assurance that I'm not injured," I accompanied her to the office, and we put our foot down-- there would be no more treatments without a diagnosis. (Ending treatment before medically recommended would of course have meant that we would have to pay, instead of the insurance, we were told.) The medical doctor gave the nod, and finally my wife was free-- and she'd never even been injured to begin with. The cost went to over $1000.
_ _ _

So this morning I walked into a conveniently local chiropractic clinic to see about the possibility of a quick back manipulation. Oh, heavens, no. That would take an appointment for one-- no, two-- weeks distant. Well, I thought as I leaned over the counter-- I'm glad I'm not in any real pain (ache). I asked about the cost. Did I have insurance? Oh, sure. Blue Cross. The lady behind the counter worked it up and cheerfully informed me that my first visit would be $176 with insurance, but $182 without. Future visits could be discounted without insurance, at only $46 per visit.

As my eyes glazed over, I noticed that this woman was wearing scrubs.
The woman behind her, pasting labels onto manila folders and doing some kind of billing tasks on a computer, was wearing scrubs.
Why do simple office clerks wear scrubs in doctors' offices, hospitals, veterinary clinics, dentist's offices, and, I now see, chiropractic offices? Seriously...? What's the point? Why can't they just dress professionally, and leave the attire of medical professionals to the medical people? Why do I have to read the little tag (that's always flipped over backwards anyway) to read the 4 point type under their name to learn that they are either a D.O. or a D.C. (Heh. Don't make the mistake of calling the former the latter, mm'kay?) or an LVN or an RN or a PA or a professional toilet backup maintenance specialist? Look, I understand that the days of the cap and pin with white uniforms and white hosiery is gone for nurses, and that the white lab coat is on its way out for doctors, but can't we just agree that the person making my appointments and swiping my credit card is an office clerk, and not a Medical Professional? There is nothing wrong with being "just a clerk." Nothing at all. This world would stop running without them. But let's not put on airs and call them medical staff; they're not.

I came out of my fog to hear the chirpy clerk-in-scrubs ask if a Thursday afternoon would be sufficient, two weeks from now. Fine. As she filled out an appointment card, she told me that I would be assessed a penalty charge for failing to notify them that I was cancelling the appointment with less than 24 hours' notice. Well, at least she got that part right-- my plan was to cancel in a couple of days, as soon as my back pain tightness subsided.

"Sir, while you're here, do you mind if I photocopy your driver's license and insurance card?" the chipper clerk asked me as I turned away to hobble toward the door.

I stopped and turned around just enough to make eye contact with her. "Yes. I do," I said evenly, and went out the door.

Eh. I think my tightness is beginning to subside, anyway.

Bah.

Spoilin' to spoil

My good friend Bill and I were talking this morning about being political spoilers.

Of the current POTUS election, I know little that I can hang my hat on, beyond this:

1. I don't want any of the viable candates from either party elected.
2. I don't have much choice in the matter-- one of them will be elected.
3. The Republican party choice is basically decided.
4. The Democratic party choice is completely up in the air.
5. I have personal distaste for Hillary Clinton that goes deeper than my distaste for Barack Obama.
6. I'm unimpressed with McCain's credentials as a conservative.

Really, it's probably all the same to me-- call them vanilla or chocolate or strawberry-- I don't want a taste. But I know that I don't want a turd sandwich, and that means that I don't want Hillary Clinton to be an end candidate.

I think that Obama needs to be the Democratic candidate.

I think that I need to vote in the Democratic primary.

On March 4th, 2008, I am going to hold my nose, march right into my local poll, and vote for Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President Of The United States.

This means that I need to register as a Democrat.

So be it.

There ain't much difference, these days, anyway. (Sigh.)

Word.

I've gone back and re-read Tamara's rant about the state of our upcoming national elections, and it seems that I need to link it:

"And before you even think about puffing up and sputtering something about "Are you just going to give Hillary the White House?" just put a sock in it, because it wasn't me, brother. It was all you idiots who put candidates out there that got tied up in pointless jackassery like rearranging the 'gay marriage' and 'flag burning' and 'stem cell' deck chairs after the USS Conservative had already hit the iceberg. Your typical Republican these days is worried more about what's printed on the money than where it comes from or what it gets spent on."

Ma'am, I'm so sorry for your loss...

...perhaps a court-ordered tubal ligation will help?

Notice how I'm constantly mentioning all the damned rain we're getting?

Well, lots of rain means lots of saturated ground. Saturated ground means runoff. Runoff means swollen creeks and rivers.

Which attract kids like this Garland, TX woman's 13 year old boy. It seems that she's furious at the rescue crews who worked for 3 hours to try to rescue her son, William Griffin. William, it seemed, could not swim. He was playing in the water, and got swept away. He managed to cling to a bridge collumn, and the firefighters sensibly threw him a rope to initiate some kind of rescue procedure. He couldn't hold on, and was swept away in waters running up to 50 mph. Crews stationed at two other bridges downstream couldn't recover him.

Tragic. We all feel bad. It's sad when a kid dies.

But Tonya Williams, the boy's mother, says that her kid died because of the rescue crew. "They could have walked through that water, and gotten my son and taken him to safety, but they didn't do that. They threw him a rope, and that was it."

Garland rescuers tried to get to the boy, and began to lose their footing. They searched and found him a half mile downstream, and attempted CPR, but he didn't make it.

_ _ _ _ _

Folks, I'll be honest-- I want a state law disallowing rescue crews to be sent into harm's way to rescue any adults (over 18) who put themselves into flood waters. Drive past a barrier and get your car swept away in the high water? Oh well. If your gene line is worth saving, you'll figure out how to swim to safety.

With a kid under 18, it's hard. I think that the firefighters and rescue team did what they could. I'm sure that if the scene had been more stable, they'd have put a Zodiak in and gotten the kid.

But my old Boy Scout Lifeguard training was that, in saving a drowning person, you Reach, Throw, Row, Go. That means, poke out your arm or a pole, throw them a rope or a floatation device, or take a boat... in that order, before you ever consider physically going in after them. When you physically go in after a drowning person, you put yourself at huge risk, because drowning persons will kill you. They don't mean to-- they just want to climb out of the water, and will step on your head to do it. A large portion of rescue swimming is learning how to capture a drowning person by the neck from behind.

This lady woman, though, expected people to walk through high water running up to 50 mph to pick up and carry her 13 year old boy back to the bank. I've no idea how much her 13 year-old weighed, but I weighed about 170 lbs at that age. (I was 6'3") Given her fine level of physique, it's a fair bet that he was above the average weight for a 13 year old.

They threw him a rope. They put men in the water. They put people downstream. But but it's their fault that he got in the raging water when he couldn't swim.



Friends, I'll tell you a little secret: None of us gets out of this life alive. And Malthus would NOT be happy with the way we're creating a society that believes that we are OWED a rescue from ourselves.

Running late. (Goosed)

I was running late to leave for work. (As usual.)

I pressed my uniform and attached collar brass, name tag, and badge. Filled my pockets with the crap that I carry. Put on the UnderArmor, vest, BUG, uniform, and boots, and put on the 20 lb duty belt. I started to go, and realized-- aw crud-- I hadn't shaved yet. I had already run hot water in the basin in the bathroom, and had a can of shaving cream floating in it to get it hot. I hustled into the bathroom for a quick scrape of the old whiskers.

The Wife was in there.

When I was younger, I didn't expect that I would be so cavalier about going into the bathroom when my spouse was peeing. After all-- this is the sole person that I am intimate with. I'm not supposed to know what goes on it there. But we've been married nine years, and things change. I had to get to work, and I was 90 seconds away from a smooth face. And she knew I'd be shaving in there-- that's why the door was open. I passed her, and lathered up, and began shaving. I leaned into the mirror to check out the progress on my face as I shaved. My wife, no longer involved in her previous diversions, saw An Opportunity; she goosed me.

But this was not a minor, slight pinch type goose-- oh, no. It was much, much more personal. It, um, involved more of, um, a poking motion. And, um, was sort of targeted. Think Mr. Smith Goes To Prostate Exam, but for the interference of some midnight blue gabardine and the best cotton put out by Fruit Of The Loom. Even in the best of times, I certainly would have felt-- you know-- violated.

Thank Gawd the children were at their grandmother's. I hate to think of them hearing their father scream like a woman. (Which, of course, is exactly why my spouse does such things.)

"HeHe... I'd get tired of doing that to you if you didn't make that noise when I did it," she snickered.

"Well, you've never gotten me like that before, thank you very much, and do you not see that I'm shaving?!?"

"With a safety razor." I could see her smirk in the mirror.

"Well, thank goodness! If I'd been using a straight razor, do you realize that this uniform might well have made you guilty of attempted Capital Murder?!?"

"But you weren't." Smiling sweetly.

"Still, you shouldn't do such things while I'm in uniform. It demeans the badge."

Rolling her eyes. "Oh. So it'd be okay when..."

"Wait. No. Just... don't do that! Please!!"

"You are so tightly wound. Hehehe!"

I escaped out the front door before the obvious direction of her ridicule could be followed.

Meet my mama.

Mom writes a pretty good post about effects on drugs on the children of the users.

I'm pretty libertarian in my views, and for the most part feel that we're making a serious mistake in the manner we are using to deal with drugs in this country. More jail time, and serious prison time, for mere possession is a stupid way to handle things. It costs between $30,000 and $40,000 a year to house a prisoner. Given the prolific numbers of people on drugs that that are consider a felony simply to possess, that means that proper implementation of the laws that we have on the books will bankrupt us.

There's the notable inconsistency of drug laws. While I've had to deal with many an irate, fighting drunk, I've yet to find a pothead who wants to settle things with fistifuffs. Chips and dip, perhaps. Nachos and guacamole, maybe. But not by fighting. But even a single marijuana cigarette in your own living room is cause for an on view arrest for a jail stay of up to 180 days. The same adult can drive into a bar and drink until they close at 2:00, and then drive home if he's able. (5 hours after the liquor stores are required to close. I never understood that part. You can buy a hard drink at a bar or club, but you can't buy a bottle to take home an drink responsibly.) As Tamara refers to it, our war on drugs is really "The War On (Some) Drugs."

But then there's my good friend LawDog's point of view. LawDog is a close personal friend, and I have much respect for him. But we have a slight disagreement on the drug issue, in some areas. LD wants, last time we discussed the issue, our drug laws enforced STRONGLY. He, as I, have seen many problems directly attributable to people's addiction to and abuse of drugs of all kind. LawDog is a thinker who is blessed not to have an addictive personality. He doesn't smoke, and drinks but very lightly, if at all. He is weight proportionate.

I don't know if I have an "addictive" personality. I think I probably have a "habit-forming" personality. I never did use drugs. I never smoked. They never made sense to me. I do eat too much, and I suspect that I could develop an unfortunate habit to drink too much for the same reason-- I love the taste. For those reasons, I monitor my intake of foods and strong drink, keeping my weight below 300 and beers below a case a month. Not huge accomplishments, and I don't bother to put them on my resume', to be sure.

My point (I had one around here) is that there's lots of views on this drug thing, and sometimes they're polar opposites, even though they're from intelligent people that I like and respect. Or, in the case of my Mama, love dearly.

All I ask, here, is that we all take into account the validity of the arguments of those whom we've granted rights to have a say in things. Tamara is desperately trying to prevent and draw attention to the erosion of our civil liberties, for questionable reasons and with often tragic results. LawDog is often trying, with humor, to point out the regular trainwrecks that results from those who abuse substances that often literally have no recognizably good use. And Mom points out that there are many ("they are legion") who are abusing drugs to the extreme detriment of those who never had the chance to make a choice in the matter.

When making decisions about how you feel on the drug issue, remember that addicts don't get better by going to prison. Remember that addicts that are free and untreated commit crimes. Remember that when you violate an addict's right you are violating the rights of yourself and your loved ones. And remember that the children of addicts always suffer.

"Nigger Lover."

(This is going to go a little long, and I apologize for that, but I have to get this off my chest.)


When I was a kid in elementary school in north Texas in the mid-to-late 1970's, a pretty good insult to hurl at the kids on the school yard was to call another kid (in my little village we were all white) a "Nigger Lover." My parents were educated. Both had degrees. Dad was a an investigator and Mom was a writer for a big paper. Neither had been infected with racism. Thus, my parents' child, I was not reared a racist. I don’t believe that I've ever used the insult. But I’ll admit that I didn't want to be called the name. Names hurt, no matter what they are. No matter how old you get to be.

Back then, when I said something that one of the more bigoted of my redneck peers would infer as being sympathetic to (i.e.: not condemning of) black folk, the immediate challenge would be issued: “You some kind of nigger lover?!?” Now, I went to daycare in “town” during the summer break with some black kids, and counted one or two of them among my friends. I knew the truth: race does not make a person better or worse than another. But still, you can mark me for a coward. Being a kid faced with what felt like an immediate challenge to my integrity and worth, I immediately denied it ("it" being that I did not routinely condemn black folk simply for their status of being black). I’m not much of a Bible scholar, but that story about Peter denying Jesus has a certain ring of truth in it for me; the first thing I did, when confronted with the demand of whether I was a "nigger lover" was to align myself with the crowd, snort and say, “No!” Not one of those. No, sir.

Now I’ve got a daughter of that same age. She goes to school with every race under the sun, and gets along famously with kids based on their personalities rather than their race or ethnicity. I don’t know that she even gets such challenges in the school yard by the thought-bullies. She probably does, but I don’t know what they consist of.

But I’m still subject to the same kind of challenge, and I still find myself denying what may well be a stance that is actually pretty close to my nature, because the identity holds a dirty word. I cringe from the word, just like a lot of y'all cringed at the title of this blog (sorry!). I avoid being labeled with it at almost any cost. The dirty word is “LIBERAL."



Well at least I’m a “Conservative.”

-I’m a fierce supportor of the Second Amendment.

-I’m for the use of the death penalty.

-I believe that we should support our industries to the extent that we MUST maintain a healthy free market.

-I believe in peace through superior firepower, and believe that we must maintain a powerful military.

-I am against affirmative action.

-I believe that we should have mandatory sterilization imposed upon any woman who gives birth to a baby while on abused drugs.

-I believe that we should strengthen our borders, and cannot comprehend how such a policy could be seen as racist or xenophobic.

-I believe that we need to reduce the benefits given out by the Nanny Government.

-I believe that we should establish the national language as English (the language that all of our nation’s most significant documents are written in), and cannot see how this would infringe upon any person’s rights.

-I hunt, and fight for hunters’ rights.

-I think that, if you feel like you’re in a marginalized segment of society, the last thing that you should be doing is to create bigger barriers to insulate yourself from our society. Try to assimilate just a tad, okay?

-I believe that, while it’s possible to rear children without the use of corporal punishment, parents should have the right to spank (or pinch) their children. I find that it is extremely effective, direct, and morally acceptable.

-I don’t have any problem with the use of genetically modified crops, and find it insane that U.S.-supplied relief food supplies containing GM crops are being discarded as unacceptable to give to starving peoples.

-I believe that we need to do something about the spiraling costs of healthcare.

-I believe that when you put a person in prison for “Life,” we should MEAN it.



But then again…
-I believe in equal rights for everybody. Women. Minorities. Gay folk. Everybody. Give ‘em all the same rights that I start off with as a straight white guy, if they’re not committing crimes and are paying their own way. Marry how and who you want. I don’t give a flip.

-I believe strongly in the First Amendment. That’s possibly the biggest one. Free Speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. The right of peaceable assembly. The right to petition for redress of grievances against the government. These are huge rights. I find that many who are against “liberals” are often so based on these very issues. Yeah, those crazy radicals, reinventing the system with their bizarre new ideas.

-I believe that we ought to play by the rules. The Constitution guarantees us rights to counsel and a speedy trial and to freedom from cruel or unusual punishment, and I believe that we ought to follow through on that guarantee. We have Equal Protection and Due Process promised in that document, too. Them’s the rules. So let’s follow them.

-I believe that our current national, state, and local drug policies are completely out of touch with reality. Over half of our prison population (the largest ever) is incarcerated for drug offenses. We are not by any stretch of the imagination winning the “War On Drugs.” We are making mere possession of any usable amount of many drugs a felony, and are putting away people who are addicts without even treating their problem. This is costing you and me a pretty penny, and just guarantees that the guy incarcerated is going to have new problems upon exiting the system. (He’s 70% of the time going to return to that same system within 3 years.) Enforce strong laws about making drugs available to children. Enforce the extant laws regarding public intoxication, DWI, burglary, etc. Let the druggies have their drugs.

-At least decriminalize pot. I’ve never used the stuff (seriously! Not even once!), but I just don’t see that it’s a major problem. Lord knows the potheads fight a lot less than the drunks.

-I think that it’s okay to criticize our government—even in wartime.

-I think that we should not have a draft—if we can’t drum up enough support for a war, perhaps we shouldn’t have the war in the first place.

-I believe that we should make greater efforts to protect our environment.

-I believe that we should make public transportation more useful and accessible.

-I believe that all roads should be built with a bicycle/walking lane, both to encourage alternative forms of transportation and to get them out of the way of vehicles.

-I believe that we need to disallow the standardized use of antibiotics and/or hormones in the feed of market animals, except on an individual basis when they are found to be sick. I strongly believe that our children or their children are going to have to pay for this activity.

-I believe that we’re making too many things felonies. Claire Wolfe and I are of a mind on this issue.

-I think that pretending that young teens aren’t going to have sex is pretty foolish. If we want to address social problems resulting from this behavior (teen pregnancy, STDs), we’re going to have to admit that it occurs, and act accordingly.

-I believe that the most important way that we can improve our nation’s future is to --across the board-- DOUBLE the salaries of teachers. Make teaching a profession worth striving for. (In my area, that would get starting elementary school teachers up to about $70k/year.) Then, raise the bar for standards. If the teachers can’t make the grade, fire their happy butts, or make ‘em “teachers’ aides.” Let’s see the best and brightest in our society start to teach. In the long run, I believe that we’ll realize significant savings from the increased productivity of our nation.

-I think we worry too much about how other people deal with sex. If they’re not hurting anyone, leave ‘em alone and tend to your own knittin’. If they’re making fools of themselves publicly, it’s best to ignore them, as you would a mentally disabled person raising a minor fuss in a public place.

-I believe that we should teach science in schools—not some pseudo science that is simpatico with somebody’s religion.

-I believe that we need to do something about the spiraling costs of healthcare.

-I don’t think that we should dump our citizens’ rights, just because of this “War On Terrorism.”

-I don’t think that “Nuke ‘em ‘til they glow” is a very effective international policy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So what the heck? Am I a Liberal? Am I a Conservative?

Why do I have to be polarized? What’s with the label?

As a cop and a pro-gun person, I find myself with the Conservative crowd a lot. I identify with them on so many issues. But as a grad student and a person who thinks that recycling the same thoughts is pointless, I listen to the words of self-described Liberals a fair amount. Here in N. Texas, I find that the Liberals fall primarily into two categories—quiet liberals who recognize that they are pretty much in Enemy Territory, or Flaming Liberals. Everybody hates the flaming liberals.

And here in Conservative Land, all liberals are judged on the basis of the Flaming Liberals. But then, in the liberal-friendly areas, all Conservatives are judged on the popularly-perceived personas surrounding Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and what is perceived to be George W. Bush. People do like to cubbyhole.

Frankly, I reject both extremes. They both sicken me, to some degree. I’m not a peg—please don’t try to drive me into the strangely shaped hole of your choosing.

So it’s beginning to dawn on me: why am I afraid to be called a “Liberal?” Is it because I, like others, am associating that term with the idiots like Diane Feinstein, George Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Sarah Brady, and Cindy Sheehan? Probably so, just as many Liberals tar all “Conservatives” with the brush of David Duke, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Strom Thurmond, etc. I’m afraid of being called “liberal” for some of the same immature reasons that I denied being a “nigger lover” as a kid.

-First, it’s technically inaccurate.

-Second, I don’t want to have to explain myself, and have people judge me on the spot.

-Third, I’m a little bit less than courageous. I want my conservative friends. I don’t want them to dismiss me.


And I wonder: how many of you will now dismiss me, because I’m saying this?

Regardless of what radical liberals like Patrick Henry, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, George Washington, Robert Yates, and John Hancock may have been, modern-day strict Constitutionalists seem to have found another amendment to the Bill of Rights: "The right to cast stones at anything and anyone construed to have any liberal tendencies shall not be infringed."

"Nigger Lover? Yeah. Fine. Whatever.

But please, toss in "Redneck Liberal" while you're at it, and I'll feel a bit better.