Sex fear rights: A time-tested method for defeating civil rights

President Trump recently reversed an Obama executive order that said schools had to let transgender students use the restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities of the sex they identify with. This reversal marked a landmark achievement for the coalition of states’ rights and sex fear rights. However, while a major victory, it was far from their first. You see, when a historically discriminated minority pushes for civil rights, it’s tough to argue they shouldn’t have them. Civil rights are supposed to be for everybody, so how can you deny them to a specific group? Well, centuries of denying rights to various minorities have produced at least two effective arguments. The first is states’ rights: The right of a state to decide who to discriminate against and who not to. The second is what you could call, “sex fear rights”: If the minority is given equal rights, it will somehow result in the rape, molestation, or sexual assault of some other group or groups.

Perhaps the most well-documented example of the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition (SRSFRC) involves discrimination against blacks. For centuries, white people used the argument that if black people were freed/integrated/allowed into society, they would quickly use the opportunity to rape white women. Indeed, the longevity of the white-women-will-be-raped argument is amazing. The states’ rights argument lasted as long, but it had to adapt every time the federal government came in and changed something. States can’t decide to have slaves anymore and have to let blacks vote? No problem – we’ll just pass harsh laws that only apply to black people, and put up obstacles that make it impossible for them to vote. States have to provide services to white people AND black people? No problem – we’ll just separate them and give white stuff more funding.

But, what if you can’t convince people that civil rights will rape white women? What if you’re denying rights to, say, gay people? Have no fear – well, actually have lots of fear. For, what at first seems like a challenge turns out to be a boon. Are gay people trying to get into the military? Just say that they’ll sexually assault members of their own sex. Are they trying to get into positions of authority over children? Just say they’ll molest those children. And, since women can be gay, you can extend sex fears from WHITE women to ALL women. And, since homosexuality has to do with sexual attraction, you can make up whatever sex act you want and attach it to gay people. Want to stop gay marriage? Say allowing men to marry men and women to marry women will inevitably lead to polygamy, animalygamy, and toasterovenygamy. Don’t want gay people to be seen as human? Just make up some sexual acts with things no one ever dreamed of, and you’re good. The states’ rights argument is pretty straightforward – say that your state doesn’t want to allow gay rights because, well, just look at all that stuff the sex fear rights people are saying. Also, once you’ve got people good and propagandized, have them vote against it. Indeed, both these arguments have proven so successful, there are still many legal discriminations against gay people.

Unfortunately for the SRSFRC, fighting gay rights has increasingly been seen as a losing battle. So, they moved on to another group: transgender people. Although the transgender community has been included in some legislation protecting other LGBTQ groups, they still have a long way to go, and there are some issues unique to them. That’s why so much of the press in recent years has been about access to restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that match their gender of preference.

Here’s where sex fear rights proponents really showed their creativity: Instead of directly attacking transgender people, they targeted phantom child molesters. You see, transgender people want to use restrooms that identify with their gender of preference, because they identify with that gender. There’s a bunch of science behind why that is, but if there are two things that trump science, they’re sex fear rights and states’ rights. Proponents of sex fear rights decided, rather than target the imaginary perversity of transgender people themselves, they’d say that child molesters might PRETEND to be transgender, so they could go to the wrong restroom and molest children. There’s no evidence this ever happened, but there’s no evidence a gay person ever had sex with an electrical outlet, either. The states’ rights side didn’t have much trouble: Obama signed that executive order, and nothing gases up the states’ rights tank like the federal government telling states what to do. The original anti-transgender state bills that had passed (popularly known as “bathroom bills”) were based on the phantom child molester argument, but when Trump rescinded the federal order, he invoked states’ rights.

Transgender rights are proving to be a fertile ground for the states’ rights/sex fear rights coalition, and they’re still having some luck fighting gay rights. But, if history is any guide, these wells will eventually dry up. What minority group will they fight next? And, what people will they pretend are at risk of sexual assault if that group gets rights?


To understand why we have the Electoral College, just remember the Three C’s

​The Electoral College has officially selected Donald Trump to be president, which means it can go back to not existing for the next four years.  This year was pretty rough for the EC, largely because Trump won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote.  It’s not the first time that’s happened: John “Quincy ME” Adams, Rutherford “Bye Bye Reconstruction” Hayes, Benjamin “I’m Totally Going to Get Reelected You Guys” Harrison, and George W. “Unfinished Business” Bush also won the popular vote without winning the Electoral College.  But, I’m not bringing up the EC because I like to give forgotten presidents nicknames.  I’m bringing it up because this whole situation has gotten a lot of people asking, “Why do we have the Electoral College?”

That’s simple.  If you want to know why the Framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College, all you have to do is remember the Three C’s: Closing Time, Compromise, and Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?

Closing Time: As with most colleges, procrastination played a major role in the Electoral College.  Indeed, so many things were put off in the Constitutional Convention, they had their own committee: The Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters.  Strange as it sounds, the method for selecting the president didn’t get much attention until the very end.  Throughout the Convention, most members just assumed the president would either be elected by state legislatures or by Congress.  Which brings us to…

Compromise: If you’ve ever wondered why so much of the Constitution is vague, ambiguous, or unusually focused on fractions of slaves, this is why.  Convention attendees were obsessed with compromise.  This was partly because they weren’t actually SUPPOSED to be writing a new constitution – they were just supposed to be fixing problems with the existing one, the Articles of Confederation.  They also wanted something more stable than the Articles, so they needed to get everyone on board.  When they finally got around to how to elect the president, some members objected to having Congress pick the president (It would make the president too beholden to Congress) or to having state legislatures pick them (It would make them too beholden to state legislatures.).  At the same time, proponents of these methods objected to a popular vote, as they felt it could result in a demagogue being elected.   It was in this atmosphere that everyone asked the question…

Can’t Everybody Just Be George Washington?: Although Washington was at the Convention, he didn’t contribute much to the actual writing.  However, he was so highly respected that whenever it seemed he disapproved of something, members scrambled to change it more to his liking.  Also, everyone assumed Washington would be the first president, and everyone assumed he’d be a good one.  In addition to having a compromise between the popular vote and the not popular vote, the writers wanted to make sure that subsequent presidents would be as good as it was assumed Washington would be.  The Electoral College was created in this atmosphere.  Electors would be a line of defense between voters, whose passions frequently change, and the presidency.  As political parties didn’t yet exist and campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon, the EC could also be a way to help select the best candidates.

As with many things in the Constitution, current arguments for and against the Electoral College are way different now than they were at its writing.  Sure, the one about how someone can win the popular vote and lose the presidency is still there, but no one’s arguing Congress or state legislatures should choose the president instead.  But, as society changes (Political parties didn’t exist when the Constitution was written; campaigning for one’s self was looked down upon; only white landowning males could vote), so do justifications for and against the EC.  And, it’s not like the EC itself hasn’t changed: Its numbers are based on the number of senators and representatives, which was originally supposed to continue to grow with the country’s population.  Instead, various laws have resulted in that number being capped at 538, instead of continuing to grow (which would have resulted in several thousand more representatives and electors).  Finally, it should be noted that states are free to develop their own methods for choosing electors.  While most have gone with a winner-take-all system, a few go by congressional district instead, and in some states it’s illegal for electors to go against the state’s popular vote, while in others it’s not.  Due to these and other factors, arguments for and against the Electoral College – as well as who is on which side of the debate – have changed throughout its history.

Are we entering a new Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories?

Election Season is over, but that doesn’t mean conspiracy theories have to be. Why, just the other day I heard that protesters are being paid to protest election results. Journalists who’ve investigated these claims have found no evidence for them, but like I always say, “The absence of evidence is the evidence of evidence.” After all, people in America never protest, especially over election results. What other explanation is there? They MUST have been paid.

But wait – there’s more. Even President-Elect Trump has gotten in on the action. While the official vote count has Mr. Trump winning the electoral vote and losing the popular vote, he insists he actually won both, because millions of people voted illegally. What evidence does he have that millions of people voted illegally? You guessed it – none. Put another way, Mr. Trump has as much evidence for his claim of massive voter fraud as I have for my claim that he’s the King Midas of Truth.

So, are we entering a new, Golden Age of Conspiracy Theories? I certainly hope so. The real world is just so boring, random, and factual. Or is it? Maybe that’s just what they WANT me to think…

What happens if Donald Trump loses? Donfirmation bias, that’s what.

If Donald Trump loses tomorrow, will he concede? Will he contest? Will he say the whole process was rigged? It all depends on what he said he’d do. That may sound simple enough, but you have to remember that only Mr. Trump can tell you what he said – not his campaign, not the media, and certainly not recordings.

While most politicians have mastered the arts of plausible deniability, false equivalence, and basic damage control, newcomers to the political scene don’t always have that luxury. They must develop their own ways to deal with inconvenient news cycles, opponent attacks, and unforced errors. Such is the case with Mr. Trump, who has established his own method: Donfirmation Bias.

Donfirmation Bias means never having to say you’re wrong. When Mr. Trump says something, even if all evidence appears to the contrary, he has to either stick with what he said or deny having said it in the first place. He has to find sources that agree with him and ignore or attack those that don’t. Neutral or nuanced stories must be interpreted to agree. This is why scandals that sink other politicians don’t sink Mr. Trump: He either didn’t do them, they were misreported, or they were the right thing to do. But, don’t confuse Donfirmation Bias for hardheadedness. A lot of work goes into it. When a claim Mr. Trump has made appears to be false, he has to put in a lot of time and effort to find sources that agree with him. It also requires being a principled chameleon, so when he does change his mind, he does it so completely, he can later deny it.

The closer a presidential election gets to Voting Day, the more supporters of a candidate will close ranks and defend their candidate against anything negative. Voters are also more likely to focus on the negatives of the opposing candidate when challenged on the negatives of their own. Thus, Mr. Trump’s (and Ms. Clinton’s) own supporters feed into the notion that what they are doing must be right. In other words, voter confirmation bias reinforces Donfirmation Bias.

Donfirmation Bias may at first appear to be a bad way to run a campaign. But, what at first appears to be a fatal flaw – that Mr. Trump is always right – is in fact its greatest strength. You see, Mr. Trump has contended that the election is rigged, and he has said that the only way he can lose is if Ms. Clinton, the media, and/or the establishment has rigged it in her favor. Therefore, even if he loses, he wins. It’s as true now as it was when he said it in the primaries. Ms. Clinton may have an arsenal of non sequiturs and the best crisis management team money can buy, but she has conceded that, if Mr. Trump wins the election, he will have won the election.

But, what if Mr. Trump concedes? That’s an easy one – it’s what he will have said he’d do all along…

What I’ll miss most from the election

I don’t know how many crazy things from this election will continue after it’s over, but I’ve certainly enjoyed the ride. I’d hate to have to say goodbye to things like:

The Comey-22
The FBI finished its investigation of Clinton’s email practices in July and recommended not charging her with anything. But, a few weeks ago, some Clinton emails appeared in an entirely unrelated investigation. There wasn’t yet a warrant to search them, so no one knew if there was anything there. But, it was a new development. The FBI generally doesn’t like to do anything that might influence an election, especially a presidential one. But, if it was discovered after the election that they hadn’t been publicized, they might be accused of the same thing. FBI Director James Comey had a decision to make: Release the information and be accused of trying to affect the election, or don’t release it and be accused of trying to affect the election. Of course, what he did was say that it was happening but that they didn’t know anything about it yet. We still don’t know what’s in the emails, other than a potential pink slip for Comey if Clinton gets elected…

The Lord’s Way
Comey may have had a difficult decision to make, but Jeffrey Lord never has that problem. Lord is a CNN contributor and Donald Trump supporter extraordinaire, and whenever Mr. Trump says, does, or doubles down on anything ridiculous, he’s there to clean it up. How does he do it? Simple: When Lord is asked a question about a negative thing Trump has said or done, he either a) compares him to Ronald Reagan without answering the question, or b) accuses Democrats of being racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted without answering the question. It doesn’t matter if the question has nothing to do with any of those things, because the Lord’s Work must be done. Say, for example, someone asks Lord if Donald Trump can win in the general election, since he’s said so many things that turn so many people off. Of course he can win, Lord will say, because Ronald Reagan said things that turned people off, and he won in a landslide. If pressed for specifics, Lord will specifically say that Reagan was great and that Trump is great, and if pushed for even more specifics, he will even more specifically say that Reagan was great and that Trump is great. But, sometimes Reagan just isn’t enough, so Lord has to go to Plan B: Operation History. You or I may have learned in history class that, up until about the 1930’s, the Democratic Party ardently defended slavery, was heavily involved in the KKK, and Jim Crowed about everything. And, until about the 1960’s or ’70s, Southern Democrats were pretty much still doing that. However, while we might have also learned that the Democratic Party started appealing to blacks in the ’30s, passed various civil rights laws in the ’40s, passed the Civil Rights Act in the ’60s, and has actively tried to appeal to blacks since, the Lord’s Professor wants you to know that’s all wrong. As it turns out, the Democratic Party is still the Party of Racism for the simple reason that it was in the past. Lord also makes plenty of other “historical” appeals to portray Democrats as the party of sexism and pretty much everything else that Trump gets accused of throughout the campaign.

The Clinton Calculator
Quick: What’s the biggest non-biological difference between Bill and Hillary Clinton? That’s right – charisma. Bill Clinton used polls and focus groups all the time to figure out what to talk about and how to talk about it, but he was so good at communicating, no one really cared. Outside of a debate stage, Hillary seems overly-scripted, overly-calculating, and overly-rehearsed. I’m not sure how she does so much better in front of debate audiences than in front of other audiences, but I’m sure a focus group could tell us. Indeed, if the T-800 was Hillary Clinton, it would probably pay more attention to polls to find out why John Conner cries than to life experience and terrible ’90s slang.

Law & Order: DJT
If you want to see a political phrase used to maximum potential, take a look at how Richard Nixon talked about “law and order” in the 1968 campaign. If you want to see the opposite of that, take a look at how Donald Trump talks about “law and order” in the 2016 campaign. Sometimes, he uses it as a vague rallying cry. Sometimes, he just says it as a quick answer to a very specific question on law enforcement or the legal system. And, sometimes, he’ll just say it when something law- or law-enforcement related happened, with no real explanation as to what it means. Put another way: In the 2016 Election, the Donald is represented by two separate yet equally important words: law, which comes before order, and order, which comes after law…

Election 2016 – Episode IV: A New Slippery Slope

Election 2016

It is a period of GOP civil war.  Khizr Khan, striking from the Democratic National Convention, has won his first victory against the heroic Donald J. Trump.

During the battle, Future President Trump managed to crudely copy Khan’s ultimate weapon, MAKING SACRIFICES FOR AMERICA, a tweetable phrase with enough power for Trump to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Pursued by the Mainstream Media’s sinister agents, Future President Trump races home aboard his private plane, custodian of the secret tweets that can save his reputation and restore freedom to America…

The Messiah Candidate

The Messiah, Bernie Sanders, will soon ascend to Heaven. But fear not, friends: Just as Jesus did, He will return within our lifetimes (Perhaps as soon as the Year of Our Lord 2020). For did not St. Paul return four years after he rallied His believers to vote for him? Did not Father Bryan return more than once to assuage our fears?

He may go by a different name. He may appear in a thunderclap of McGovern and return to the Heavens just as suddenly. Perhaps He will be a reformed sinner, in the tradition of Roosevelt of Bullmoose. Or, perhaps He will make his presence known by turning Goldwater into wine.

The Book of I Nader teaches us, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no establishment candidate.” II Buchanan tells us to “Trust in the purist with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding.”

And, do not worry about how to recognize the One True Candidate. For, to quote Goldwater 4:13, once you see Him, “In your heart you know He’s right.”

Mississippi HB 1523: Discrimination Protection for Those Who Discriminate

Mississippi HB 1523 – a bill that would severely limit the rights of LGBT people by letting people who have a religious problem with them refuse service – is on the verge of being passed. If the history of Mississippi is any guide, Governor Phil Bryant will sign it into law. But, if the history of other recent “I’ll gladly pay you next century for a giant mistake today” states is any guide, it’s surprisingly less predictable. Some state governors (most recently Georgia’s) have faced so much blow-back from similar bills, they’ve actually vetoed them. Other state governors (most recently North Carolina’s) have faced so much blow-back from similar bills, they’ve signed them anyway. But, assuming Governor Phil Bryant does what Governor Phil Bryant does best, what can Mississippi’s LGBT population look forward to not doing?

From when the law takes effect to when the Supreme Court strikes it down, HB 1523 will be a veritable cornucopia of services deniable to LGBT people. No longer will gay couples have to deal with the pressures of adopting or fostering children, since same-sex couples won’t be legally guaranteed those rights. No longer will they have to worry about everything that comes with planning a wedding, because people who disagree with their lifestyles won’t have to serve them. No longer will people who want gender reassignment surgery have to wonder if their doctors want to do the surgery, because they can deny them based on religious beliefs. And, places won’t have to worry about pesky trans-friendly restrooms, dressing rooms, or locker rooms, since Jesus definitely would not do those. Clerks also don’t have to authorize gay marriages if they don’t want to (Although they’re supposed to find someone who will authorize them if they don’t, the bill doesn’t say what happens if they can’t find anyone.).

Some people claim these and other discriminatory things in the bill constitute discrimination. The problem with this assumption is that the bill is called, “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” so it can’t possibly be discriminatory. It’s actually an anti-discrimination bill, because it’s meant to protect people from being discriminated against by LGBT people who want to use their services. It’s like how the Civil Rights Act protects people from being discriminated against based on things like race, religion, or sex. It’s just adding, “people who think they’re being discriminated against, because they’re discriminating against people” to that list. It’s really the Civil Rights Act’s fault, since it wasn’t forward-looking enough to see that “people who think they’re being discriminated against, because they’re discriminating against people” would eventually be a group of people facing discrimination.

If you still can’t figure out how LGBT people are the ones doing the discriminating, rather than the ones being discriminating against, just open up your Bible. There are, like, five whole verses in there about how LGBT people are immoral. HB 1523 supporters know that, while a lot of things in the Bible have no place in the modern world, you can always rely on LGBT immorality. Obviously, women shouldn’t be subservient to men; slavery shouldn’t be justified; people shouldn’t be stoned for not being kosher; divorce shouldn’t only be allowed in cases of adultery; and racism shouldn’t be weirdly justified by either one dude killing his brother, or Noah’s son laughing at his father for passing out drunk and naked. These are all ridiculous, outdated things, and they’re completely different from viewing LGBT behavior as abominable. The Bible obviously wants us to deny goods and services to the LGBT population, because how else are we supposed to interact with people whose genetics and biology make them different from us?

But, if you still can’t see how denying people goods and services based on things beyond their control makes sense, just wait and see how great life gets under HB 1523. Pay close attention, though, because someone’s going to have to explain to the next generation why a bill that looks terrible was actually a great idea…

Existent North Carolina Takes on Nonexistent Child Molesters

Thank Gender-Secure God for North Carolina. Just as God made man in his own image, man made public restrooms in his own image, and North Carolina has ensured they’ll stay that way. Charlotte, North Carolina, recently passed a law saying transgender people could use the restroom of the sex they identify with, and Governor Pat McCrory knew he had to do something. After all, the overwhelming antonym of evidence shows that every time one of these laws passes, it’s only a matter of time until child molesters take advantage of it. McCrory called a special session of the state legislature, confident they’d be swayed by the wealth of research he’d collected from the Journal of Hasnteverhappenedemiology. Together, they passed a bill saying only the state legislature could make such laws. No longer would cities, counties, or municipalities be able to make anti-discrimination laws pertaining to where transgender people could use the restroom. Finally, North Carolina’s children would be safe from a threat that never existed.

Of course, you can’t make an imaginary omelet without breaking ALL the eggs, so it also made it illegal for cities, counties, and municipalities to make ANY law protecting the rights of transgender men and women. And, just for good measure, it went ahead and made it illegal for them to pass laws protecting the rights of gay men and women, too. Fortunately, cities, counties, and municipalities can still make their own laws protecting religious freedom. It’s a win-win-win, since LGBT members can now be discriminated against by people who claim they’re being discriminated against by discriminating against them.

Oh, and the bill also says that cities, counties, and municipalities can’t make their own minimum wage laws. Because, if there’s one thing child molesters love more than tolerance, it’s wages that adjust to the standard of living…

Tenth Republican Debate: Everyone’s a Superhero

Between the shouting, fighting, and overall chaos, it’s pretty clear Thursday night’s Republican Debate was originally the script for a comic book movie. So, what superheroes were you guys trying to be?

Marco Rubio: The Flash

No one can speak as fast as me, and by the time I’d listed the 400 scandals Trump’s been involved in, he couldn’t even remember enough of them to answer. Of course, the best thing about talking fast is that I cangetenoughtalkingpointsinforyoutoforgetthatI’mcontradictingmyvieswwitheachnewdebate. And, that’s the kind of greatness I’ll bring to this New American Century. I’ll also bring a new respect for thesauruses, because since I started using them, I can repeat my talking points with different words. President Obama still knows exactly what he’s doing as he destroys America, but I know exactly what I’m doing to fix it, and I’ll continue to show that Flash Rubio is superior to Robo Rubio.

Donald Trump: Iron Man

I am a YUGE fan of comic books, and I’m really successful, like Iron Man. I’m going to build a wall, which I’m sure he did, because he’s a winner, and I’m going to beat Sweaty Rubio, like he did. Think about it – you got Choker Rubio, Liar Cruz, and I’m Iron Trump. And, when I’m president, we are going to do so much winning, and we are going to make this country great again.

Ted Cruz: Green Lantern

I have a ring of conservatism that can fix any problem. My ring is unwavering. It can make the shape of a door to welcome others into Reagan’s America. It can make the shape of an Emancipation Proclamation to abolish the IRS. It can make the shape of a filibuster to prevent my 99 colleagues from instituting liberal policies that will bring America to its knees. My ring of conservatism can solve any problem, and when I’m president, it will undo every one of President Obama’s illegal executive actions and institute the ring’s conservative principles. Obama’s America will fall, and in its place will be the Conservative America the Founders intended.

John Kasich: Superman

Well, jeez, I don’t like to compare myself to anyone, but since Superman could fly, he’d probably fly above the fray, like I’m doing. And, I guess I’ve been successful at getting things done, like Superman, who works well with others. What’s my kryptonite? Look, I don’t like to talk about that kind of thing, but I guess everyone else is too busy throwing kryptonite at each other to figure out mine is being 20th Century Electable, when I should be 21st Century Electable. But, let’s not squabble over superheroes, because Superman never really sounded all that exciting when he talked.

Ben Carson: The Phantom

Moderators are unfairly treating me like a phantom on stage. Still, though they may try to stop me, my message will carry on, and my jokes about not being called on will only get funnier. Like the Phantom, I will make people think my message is immortal, even though it changes from time to time. And, as the Phantom relied on his wits to fight crime, I will rely on my wits to fight the accusation that I’m unelectable. Super Tuesday may come and go, but Super Carson will carry on, until people realize how much he’s learned about foreign policy…