The Snarky Files - Euripides' Views on the Week (June 12)

Cher and her unfortunately named daughter son Chastity Bono.

The Snarky Files. Snarky means several things. I prefer the definition of "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Leaving Comments
I've noticed that a lot of commentators on my posts, as well as across the internet on conservative sites, have the mistaken idea that comments they make require, nay demand my attention and response. Let me state my position. I do not have the time or inclination to get into deep and useless debates on every issue under the sun. I post what I do for information, for humor, and to poke fun at a liberalized and insane segment of the population. People are welcome to post comments and I have the obligation to treat you with every bit of respect that you show me. Comments are a privilege, not a right.

Sonny, Sonny and Cher
Sonny and Cher's daughter has decided to become a male. I could care less except for the fact that the news media is taking this opportunity to tell us all how wonderful and natural and significant this is. It is none of these.

Gay leaders hailed Bono's decision as courageous and "an important step forward."

"Coming out as a transgender is an extremely personal decision and one that is never made lightly," said Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

"We look forward to hearing Chaz's story in his own words in the future." (NY Daily News)

No Neil. No we don't. It's a personal decision and should remain, well, personal. I am glad, however, that Chastity Bono changed her-soon-to-be-his name to Chaz. Chastity doesn't quite seem appropriate somehow.

NH Polygamy on Its Way
One of the dangers of the rash of same sex marriage legislation is the slippery slope legal problems it opens to further neuter the institution of marriage. Here's a recent example:

NH’s "Same Sex Marriage" Law "Discriminates" Against Polygamy

Contrary to its supporters' claims, New Hampshire's new same sex marriage law does not provide "equal access to marriage for all." While even surprisingly codifying marriage for monogamous heterosexual minors, the new law intentionally "discriminates" against polygamous consenting adults.

The polygamous activists have it absolutely right. The New Hampshire law is discriminatory. Of course the gay activists could care less what the polygamous activists want, since gay activism has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with special treatment under the law. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia put it this way:

"Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these states... – unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals." (WND.com)

Gay activists and same sex marriage advocates are incredibly short-sighted in their drive to neuter marriage. When a group gets singled out for special treatment under the law, we risk exposing the Constitution to fatal abuses. The question remains, is it already too late?

Collateral Damage
You've all heard the news about the wiggedy-whack who killed the partial birth abortion doctor? Of course the mainstream media was all over George Tiller's murder as proof positive that conservatives, Republicans, pro-lifers, Limbaugh, Hannity, and George Bush rank right up there next to Hitler. (Come to think of it, I need to be included in this list since I was accused of being one of Hitler's offspring.)

Scott Roeder, the accused, isn't helping the perception. As he stated:

"I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal," Roeder said. He would not elaborate. (AP News)

We, as conservatives, all need to be absolutely certain that we understand Roeder as a disturbed lunatic. Conservatism cannot take the collateral damage from such evil men.

Bruno
I have no interest in and will never see the movie Bruno. I find the humor in such movies to be debasing, mindless, and insulting to intelligence. I absolutely do not have to see Bruno, or the trailers, to know exactly what kind of movie it is and what kind of humor it attempts to portray.

That said, I find it interesting that gay activists are wary of the movie as well.

"Some people in our community may like this movie, but many are not going to be OK with it," Rashad Robinson, senior director for the GAY AND LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION, tells the NEW YORK TIMES in a planned Sunday expose.

"Sacha Baron Cohen's well-meaning attempt at satire is problematic in many places and outright offensive in others." (Drudge)

How about that? When gays flaunt their "lifestyle" in the streets at gay pride parades, it's a statement. When it's flaunted by Sacha Baron Cohen on the movie screen, it's problematic or offensive. Welcome to the wild and crazy world of identity politics and special privileges.

I find both displays of "lifestyle" problematic in many places and outright offensive in others.

Obama, Statist-in-Chief
Statism has two elements. One is economic, the idea that government has the role in the economy of control or ownership of businesses. For example, during the 20th Century, fascists thought that government was its own moral agent and should nationalize businesses in order to make them run more efficiently. The other element is the idea that sovereignty is not vested with the governed, but with the government. For example, Stalin thought that government should be run solely through one party (the Soviet) as a vanguard. He also thought that he alone should "guide" the party into the direction he desired. Hence, he formed a dictatorship based on absolute control of all citizens' lives, including using them for slave labor and killing those he deemed dangerous. (All told, about 20 million "dangerous" people died in the Soviet Union under Stalin.)

The two elements walk hand in hand. Fascism and Communism were two sides of the same statist coin.

The trend in the US government, since the advent of the welfare state, has been toward increased government control of the economy and over individuals' lives. As an example of economic control, last year, George Bush encouraged the passage of a spending bill of an unprecedented amount. This year, Barack Obama followed suit and signed an even larger pork bill in the name of stimulus. These were designed to stimulate the economy but rather merely succeeded in increasing government spending and debt.

Businesses continue to flounder in today's economy and the government continues to flounder under a massive debt.

However, today's economic statism doesn't stop with government bailout money and its many strings attached regulations. Now, Barack Obama wants direct control of businesses. General Motors was the first to succumb to the new statism. Obama ousted the GM CEO and, recently, spent deficit dollars to basically buy it up in order to make it "more efficient." We used to call this nationalization. Now it's called...what?

What statist ideals will prevail next?

The Obama administration’s sweeping new proposal to restrict executive pay is likely to be a humbling exercise for seven of the nation’s largest companies, which have received billions of dollars in federal assistance to survive the economic crisis. (NY Times)

The mainstream media treats this as all very nice, quite right, yes, we need to control those greedy CEOs, thank you very much. In effect, Obama is saying, we've "bought" your company with bailout money. Now we get to restructure it however we like - make it more "efficient."

I want to point out how disturbing this is:

The president of the United States thinks he has the power to step in and take over private businesses and regulate salaries.

Here's an example closer to home. Put yourself in this situation. Let's say you work flipping burgers at the local McDonald's. You enjoy the use of your money and the things you can do with it. The president of the US comes into your work one day and says you make too much money, so he reduces your pay to what he thinks is best for you and for the McDonalds where you work.

You, of course, disagree. You liked the money you made. You worked for it. You shouldn't have government come in to set the rules of making money for you. The Statist-in-Chief and his newly appointed Compensation Czar think differently, however. He has the will to control your salary and he has usurped the power to control your salary.

You may think, "Well, this doesn't really apply because I'm poor and all those CEOs are rich and greedy." That is how many American think. But the rich and greedy argument doesn't hold up across the board. There are a lot of rich and greedy people who are off limits to the Statist-in-Chief. Did he go in and put a salary cap on Sean Penn? What about Kobe Bryant? He's rich. Doesn't he deserve to have that salary controlled by Obama? What about a rich and greedy union boss? Should we cap his salary as well? Would the unions allow Obama to do that?

This is the insidious slippery slope of statism. And this is precisely why we must fight against further government intrusion into the private sector. Obama's control of salaries is merely punitive and offends the 14th Amendment. Government must respect the legal rights of all its citizens. Rich and greedy doesn't enter into it.

Carrie Prejean
Carrie Prejean has a new website: StandWithCarrie.com. Visit the site and sign the petition. From her website:

Carrie Prejean could have had it all, at the price of sacrificing her values. She chose to speak the truth. She chose to Stand Up for Marriage. Now she is paying the price. It's time for us to Stand with Carrie. Sign up now to let Carrie know you stand with her. And check back soon for more details on how you can help Carrie stand for truth.