coffee, guns, & sensitivity

Posted on August 12, 2013 by greg

“Starbucks? You get coffee at Starbucks?” I get asked that question periodically. Sometimes by people who dislike the cost or taste of Starbucks coffee, sometimes by folks who dislike the way Starbucks treats its employees, sometimes by people who dislike the music at Starbucks, or the customers who frequent Starbucks, or the name Starbucks. And lately I’ve been asked that question by folks who are appalled by the refusal of Starbucks to ban firearms from their coffee shops.

That’s right, Starbucks allows its overly-caffeinated customers to be armed. Not every Starbucks; only those Starbucks in states that have ‘open carry’ laws**. According to Zack Hutson, a spokesman for Starbucks,

“We comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve, abiding by laws that permit open carry. Where these laws don’t exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited.”

So if your state or city allows folks to openly tote a firearm, then Starbucks says you’re welcome to take that firearm into their coffee shops. They don’t advertise this, but there it is.

Gun safety advocates think this stance is massively stupid. Gun rights advocates are basically divided into three camps. There are those who think anybody who’d enter a Starbucks is a communist who’s only about five minutes away from gay-marrying a sheep. There are those who dislike Starbucks because they’re only ‘gun-neutral’ instead of ‘pro-gun.’ And there are those folks who think Starbucks deserves a round of applause for their bold hey-we-didn’t-write-the-law stance on firearms.

The latter group organized Starbucks Appreciation Day. Which was last Friday, in case you didn’t notice (and you probably didn’t). Starbucks Appreciation Day was sort of like Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, only that was for hating gay folks and this was for loving firearms. Given that there’s some serious overlap among the gun-loving and gay-hating subsets, it’s not surprising that Starbucks Appreciation Day received some blowback (hah, blowback…see what I did there?) from the triple-shot testosterone black coffee crowd.

The CEO OF fAGbucks told the rest of us that if we dont support ass munchers getting married, we should not buy fagbucks, so I now go to the Coffee Bean

I’m aware of [Starbucks] recent backing of homosexual “partnerships”. My point was that they have not changed their open-carry policy and that behavior deserves acknowledgement. As long as the homosexuals don’t “invade my space”, I’ll let them suffer the consequences of their lifestyle.

Yeah. Fagbucks. One argument for getting coffee at Starbucks is you’re not likely to meet the guy who refers to it as ‘Fagbucks.’

In any event, I was pleased by Starbucks Appreciation Day. Not because I support the notion of openly carrying firearms — I definitely do not. I like Starbucks Appreciation Day because 1) it brings attention to Starbucks’ policy (which, in my opinion, really needs to change), and 2) I’m a very firm believer in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” So it makes me perversely proud to see people with whom I actively disagree making a public stand and exercising their constitutional rights. I’m more willing to support people who openly stand up for causes I dislike than I am to support a corporation that quietly refuses to adopt a policy that’s in the best interest of its customers.

Here’s the thing about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly: if it’s to have any meaning at all, it can’t be limited for reasons of sensitivity. These rights cannot be restricted simply because they might upset somebody.

It would, for example, be incredibly insensitive and deliberately offensive for gun rights advocates to hold Starbucks Appreciation Day at a Starbucks in Newtown, where more than two dozen children and teachers were murdered eight months ago. Only a group of world class jackasses would schedule a pro-gun rally in Newtown.

And so, of course, that’s exactly what the Connecticut Citizens Defense League decided to do. Not surprisingly, gun safety advocates objected. Equally unsurprising, pro-gun folks mocked them.

Interesting comments by the “victim class” from Newtown.

They need to suck it up. We don’t all stop driving our cars when there is a big car crash. We don’t ban flights over a town where a plane crashed. to heck with all that. If we want to be sensitive of the kids fears then let them stay home from public school for a year. My rights are not negotiable on someone elses fears.

As if we should be ashamed at insisting on rights in such an insensitive way. Screw that! Sensitivity is why they band open carry and concealed carry in most states ages ago. It took us DECADES of tragedies before people started insisting on overturning those laws. We will NOT crawl back in our holes because someone whines and cries.

I guess civil rights stop after a killing.

Seriously, these guys were actually offended–offended–by the notion that they should be sensitive to the pain and suffering of parents whose six-year-old children were recently murdered. In fact, they seemed to see this as some sort of challenge. “You don’t want me to bring a gun to your Starbucks in Newtown? Fuck you in the neck, you whining babies. I’m going to drive an extra ninety minutes just so I can bring a gun to Newtown. In fact, fuck you so much I’m bringing TWO guns now. Sensitivity is for pussies. Suck my puny white dick.”

The whole Starbucks Appreciation Day idea put the corporation in an uncomfortable public relations situation (which, let’s face it, is exactly where they belong for having such a passive policy). They had to choose between 1) maintaining their policies and showing themselves to be heartless corporate fuckwads or 2) being decent members of the community. They tried to choose both.

Starbucks issued a statement on the decision of pro-gun advocates to hold Appreciation Day:

These events are not endorsed by Starbucks. That said, our stores are gathering places for the communities we serve and we respect the diverse views of our customers. We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding open carry weapon laws. Our long-standing approach to this topic remains unchanged.

Oh Starbucks, you had me at ‘that said.’ Except, of course, this is NOT an issue of ‘diverse views’ as the Starbucks statement suggests. It’s an issue of health and safety. While it’s true that occasionally somebody carrying a concealed weapon will prevent a crime from taking place, it’s a lot more likely somebody carrying a weapon will fire it in anger (and I don’t know about you, but every time I’m behind somebody who orders a “Venti iced skinny hazelnut macchiato, sugar-free syrup, extra shot, light ice, no whip” I want to kneecap them). It’s even more likely somebody will discharge their weapon accidentally (and if we’re lucky, they’ll only wound themselves).

In the end, Starbucks is a corporation and the only thing corporations really care about is maximizing profit. Starbucks isn’t about coffee; it’s about selling coffee. At least whoever owns the Newtown Starbucks franchise had the decency to close the coffee shop five hours early, so there was no Starbucks Loves Guns event there.

Oh, and if Starbucks is so wicked, why do I buy their coffee on occasion? Simple. There’s a Starbucks about seventy paces from the entrance to the main branch of the public library. I can stop there, buy a big white chocolate mocha, take it into the library with me, and sip on it for an hour or two while I work.

I’m apparently willing to periodically sacrifice my principles in the interest of convenience.

** There are only seven states and the District of Columbia (in red) that prohibit the open carrying of handguns (California permits citizens to openly carry rifles and shotguns in rural areas). Fourteen states (in green) require some form of permit to openly carry a handgun in public. Seventeen states (in gold) allow open carry of handguns, though there are general restrictions (for example, it may be prohibited to openly carry a handgun into a church or an establishment that serves alcohol). The remaining twelve states allow full open carry (though individual businesses and establishments can forbid weapons on the premises).

not from an angry place

Posted on August 7, 2013 by greg

The Gortz Haus is a lovely building, constructed in the 1930s. It was originally a Lutheran church. Now it’s a privately-owned business serving the public. According to its website, Gortz Haus is a ‘gracious space‘ with a ‘fabulous new bistro, art gallery, frame shoppe and floral shoppe.’ It’s advertised as a ‘perfect venue for your wedding ceremony, reception, rehearsal dinner, baby shower, anniversary or other special event.’

Gortz Haus: gracious, fabulous, perfect — unless you’re gay.

Gortz Haus

An Iowa couple toured the Gortz Haus looking for a venue for their wedding. Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars were happy with the facility until their host asked “Is this for a gay wedding?” When they responded that it was, the couple were told “I can’t take your money, and I don’t do things for free.”

This, of course, caused a problem — a problem which made the local news, thereby sparking a spirited but wildly uninformed debate.

Betty Gortz Odgaard

In an interview shown on local television, Betty Gortz Odgaard said the decision not to host a same-sex wedding was “…not from an angry place.” The decision, she said, was

“…based on our religious beliefs. We want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand that comes from our faith, our convictions. I think we should just stand by that no matter what.”

The Odgaards are Mennonites, and the official position of the Mennonite church is pretty clear. The 1995 Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective expressly states marriage is between one man and one woman. There are factions within the Mennonite faith that are welcoming to the LBGT community, but those factions aren’t recognized by the church authorities.

For a LOT of folks, this issue is framed entirely by religious belief. They see this as an issue of religious freedom. They interpret this as an act of religious expression.

— She has her religious convictions and we have religious freedom in this country! Since when does this couple’s rights TRUMP hers???

— Thank you, Dick & Betty, for standing strong on your convictions. Those of us who are like-minded will continue to support you. We appreciate that you refuse to be intimidated or bullied to the point of changing your policy. You are doing the right thing! Bless you!

— I am proud of you for standing up for your religious beliefs. Seems like everyone else has rights but the Christians in this sad society anymore. You have a right to stand firm on what you believe as well.

Betty Odgaard says their decision to refuse to allow a same-sex couple to marry in their establishment doesn’t come from an angry place, and I believe her. She says their decision is based on their Mennonite beliefs, and I’m sure she’s sincere in those beliefs. The problem, though, is this is a matter of civil law, not religious belief.

The official Mennonite position on same-sex marriage is clear, and so is Iowa law. Iowa Code section 216.7 (Unfair Practices – Accommodations or Services) states:

1. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any owner, lessee, sublessee, proprietor, manager, or superintendent of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof:
a. To refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges thereof, or otherwise to discriminate against any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, or disability in the furnishing of such accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges.

And there it is. The Gortz Haus is a public accommodation, and therefor it’s not allowed to refuse service or accommodations to Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars because they’re gay and want to marry.

Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars

Is the Stafford-Ellars marriage in violation of the religious beliefs of the Odgaards? Yes, it absolutely is. Is their marriage a violation of the Odgaards freedom of religion? No, it’s absolutely not. The Osgaards are free to practice their religion; they’re not free to discriminate against others because of it.

The same law that requires the Osgaards to provide services and/or accommodations to Stafford and Ellars also protects Betty Gortz Osgaard from being denied services and accommodations because she is white, or a woman, or heterosexual, or a Mennonite.

Betty Osgaard says she believes she and her husband should stand by their faith “no matter what.” I respect that, even if I don’t agree with their position. There’s something honorable about the willingness to make sacrifices for your beliefs. Sadly, there are lots of states that will allow the Osgaards to openly discriminate against same-sex couples. But Iowa isn’t one of them.

Stafford and Ellars, I’m told, are considering a lawsuit against Gortz Haus. I guess we’ll eventually find out whether the Osgaards are really willing to stand up for their religious beliefs “no matter what.”

a special kind of stupid

Posted on August 6, 2013 by greg

Seriously, just how fucking stupid are these people?

I’m talking about Congressional Republicans here. Last week (before taking off for a five-week recess) the House of Representatives approved a bill appropriating funds for the Department of Defense. Republican Members of Congress insisted on included this language in the bill:

None of the funds made available under this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.

They put similar language in a bill funding the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing & Urban Development. But that’s not what makes Republicans stupid. What makes them stupid is that they’ve done this more than a dozen times in the last year and a half.

Apparently ate paint chips when they were children

This is how stupid Republicans have become: according to a PPP poll, half of registered Republicans believe ACORN stole the 2012 election for President Obama. Half of them (well, 49%, which is close enough). But wait, it’s even more stupid than that. Here’s what really makes them stupid. ACORN disbanded in 2010.

That’s right, Republicans in Congress are voting — repeatedly voting — to prevent any government funding to go to a group that’s been out of existence for three years. That’s a special kind of stupid. It should be obvious, even to the stupidest of the stupid, that when the hamster is dead, the little wheel stops turning. This hamster’s been dead for three years. When are they going to realize it?

Of course, this is the same Republican Congress that’s voted forty times to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It’s as if they ask themselves “What’s the most pointless thing we can possibly do to avoid governing?” and then they do it. And then they do it again. And again.

I’m reminded of something George Carlin said: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

it starts when you’re always afraid

Posted on July 14, 2013 by greg

We tend to think dogs that snap and bite are aggressive dogs. Mean dogs. Junkyard dogs. Dominant dogs.

Let me quote Gershwin: it ain’t necessarily so. In the dog world there’s a social behavior known as ‘fear-biting.’ It happens when a shy, timid, fearful dog is placed in an unfamiliar or anxiety-producing situation — a situation it doesn’t know how to handle. The dog responds (often even to friendly behavior) by baring its teeth, by lashing out, by biting. Not out of aggression, but out of fear. It’s a panic reaction.

George Zimmerman is a fear-biter. I don’t think he followed Trayvon Martin and killed him simply because Martin was black. I think he followed Martin and killed him because Martin was black and Zimmerman was afraid. I think Zimmerman carried a firearm because he was afraid. I think his fear caused him to respond irrationally to a threat that didn’t exist. And I think there are a lot of George Zimmermans out there.

The United States has become a nation ruled by fear-biters. A lot of our social policies are grounded in fear, and much of that fear is totally unfounded. We’re afraid of terrorists, so we find ways to weasel around the law in order to round up the people we’re afraid of and lock them away forever where we can’t see them. ‘Indefinite detention’ and ‘enhanced interrogation’ are other forms of fear-biting.

We’re afraid of criminals, so we weaken the laws that protect the innocent in the hope we’ll find some security against the guilty. Mandatory minimum sentences and ‘three strikes’ laws and the undermining of Miranda warnings — all forms of fear-biting.

We’re afraid we’re going to be attacked by strangers, so we make it easier to buy guns and to carry guns and to use guns in self-defense without punishment. Concealed Carry laws and Stand Your Ground laws — it’s all fear-biting.

We’re afraid somebody is going to take our stuff, so we live in gated communities and install alarm systems and hire private security firms to patrol our neighborhoods and organize armed volunteers to wander around at night just in case a stranger in a hoodie happens to pass through — nothing but fear-biting.

Conservative politicians are afraid they’ll lose their power when white folks become a numerical minority in the U.S., so they pass laws that make it more difficult for minorities to vote and they create twisted, nightmare-shaped Congressional districts that effectively ghetto-ize minority voters. Voter ID laws and re-districting — just political fear-biting.

Men are afraid of independent women, so they pass arbitrary laws to regulate and limit a woman’s access to health-care and create an entertainment industry that relegates women to sexualized toys and support a culture that tells women to avoid being raped instead of telling men not to rape. Mandatory transvaginal ultrasound laws, ‘slut-shaming’ and hatred of feminists are forms of male fear-biting.

English as the official language — fear-biting. Marriage only between a man and a woman — fear-biting. Anger because somebody says ‘Happy holidays’ instead of ‘Merry Christmas — fear-biting. Aggression against street photographers — fear-biting.

Not all fear is irrational, but irrational fear is the parent of cruelty. And the fact is the citizens of the United States aren’t very much at risk of a terrorist attack. The vast majority of us are in no danger of being victims of violent crimes at the hands of strangers. Having ethnic, racial, or religious minorities in Congress isn’t going to result in a backlash against white Christians. And women who have control over their own reproductive nature aren’t a threat to men.

We don’t have to be afraid of people who aren’t like us. We have nothing to fear from Muslims or gay folks or people who speak another language or black folks or people taking photos in public.

What we need to be afraid of is a society of fear-biters.

abe lincoln was wrong

Posted on July 9, 2013 by greg

Two or three times a week I get asked what I think about the George Zimmerman trial. I get asked because I used to be a private detective specializing in criminal defense work, and because I’ve seen a lot of criminal trials, and because I used to teach criminology, and because I write about crime and criminal stuff. So a lot of folks think I’m going to be interested in this trial.

But I’m not.

Oh, it’s a meaty trial, to be sure. There’s lots of drama in it, and if it wasn’t real it would make great theater. We have a young kid, innocently walking from a convenience store back to the condo where his father was staying. We have an over-eager wanna-be cop acting as a community watch volunteer acting on unfounded suspicion. And once they meet up, massive strata of mistrust and class resentment and racism and social angst kick in. The kid ends up dead. Shot once in the chest at extremely close range.

It’s a compelling story. But it’s just not an interesting trial. It’s not interesting for a couple of reasons. First, we basically know all the pertinent facts that are knowable. Second, none of those facts pertain to the only legal question that matters: the question of whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. And even that’s not very interesting since Florida law is pretty clear on the issue.

766.13 (3) – A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That’s the entire case, right there. Every important legal question in the case, right there. We knew the answers to those questions even before Zimmerman was arrested. Was Zimmerman engaged in unlawful activity before the shooting? No, he wasn’t (nor was Trayvon Martin; but Martin isn’t on trial). Did Zimmerman have a legal right to be where he was? Yes, he did (and so did Martin — but, again, Martin isn’t on trial). Was Zimmerman attacked? He certainly claims he was. He obviously got punched in the nose at some point, but that’s not really probative. There are no living direct witnesses to the initial act of aggression, so Zimmerman’s claim can’t be proved or disproved. Did Zimmerman have a reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent his death or great bodily harm? Again, he claims he believed his life was in danger. How can we possibly know what Zimmerman believed at the moment he fired the weapon?

Does it matter that Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher who told him not to follow the young man? No, not according to the law. Does it matter that Martin was doing nothing wrong? No, not according to the law. Does it matter that Zimmerman, by following and confronting Martin, almost certainly provoked the fatal incident? No, sadly, it doesn’t, not according to Florida law.

What does matter according to Florida law is whether Zimmerman ‘reasonably’ believed he was in danger when he pulled the trigger.

Here’s something that rarely gets mentioned very often. If Trayvon Martin had somehow managed to kill George Zimmerman during that event, he could be presenting the exact same defense Zimmerman’s lawyers are presenting now. The inherent flaw in Florida’s approach to self defense is that it necessarily favors the survivor. If the survivor claims he was, at the moment the fatal act was committed, in fear for his safety — and there’s nothing that blatantly contradicts that claim — then Florida law is on his side. In effect, Florida law rewards the person who acts first and with the most lethality. It’s that simple.

It’s a terrible law. It’s incredibly stupid and irresponsible law. But it is the law in Florida. That means George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed teen who was minding his own business, and it was probably legal for him to do it.

Abraham Lincoln, who was a pretty fair country lawyer in his day, once said “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” That’s great if the bad law in question is, say, a traffic law. If you’re the victim of a bad traffic law, you can contest the issue. If the bad law is a self-defense law, the only person to address the issue is the one who fired first.

self-evident truths

Posted on July 4, 2013 by greg

It’s July 4th, Independence Day in the United States. This morning, as reported in the Washington Post, ‘President Barack Obama is urging Americans on the Fourth of July to live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence by securing liberty and opportunity for their own children as well as for future generations.’

It’s a fine patriotic sentiment, so (since I was just sitting around drinking my morning coffee) I thought I’d take a peek at what the great American patriots at FreeRepublic.com thought of the president’s remarks. They were, as usual, supportive and thoughtful and loyal to the Commander in Chief.

We ought to be celebrating Egyptian-style.

nobama is such a destructive fool. his resigning today would do the day justice.

he is back in the White Hut as of yesterday or the night before. Most likely the latter. He got his photo op in the situation room discussing what they were going to do about the events in Egypt.

The ‘White Hut.’ And yet I’m pretty sure this guy would be offended if you suggested he might be a tad racist.

As if you know American History or even understand it… even if you were ever exposed to it in Indonesia… you little African marxist fagot.

No comment. 5.56mm

If you’re not familiar with firearms, you may not be aware that 5.56mm refers to the size of the cartridges originally developed for the M16 assault rifle. But no, that wouldn’t be considered any sort of threat, would it. Unless you’re a ‘fagot’ maybe.

Zero has been challenging us since day one. WHY have we NOT insurrected ?

This wouldn’t be the same Declaration that little Mohammed was taught to despise,as a child,by his whore mother and his filthy (white) Communist grandfather,would it?

Yesterday picked up a bunch of $2 bills. My favorite ones. If you don’t already know, it is the one with Jefferson on the front and a depiction of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the back. His excellency should have a bill with his likeness on the front made…the $3 bill. On the back they can have a depiction of a fag wedding.

The Irish rebellions were always led by poets and philosophers (which, it must be admitted, is one reason their rebellions failed so often). The new American patriot rebellion would be led by people who believe ‘insurrect’ is a word.

doesn’t he realize that he’s making the case that we should appeal to our G.O.D.s [Government Overhaul Device; i.e. guns]?

Only Obama could make the Declaration of Independence sound like a pact with the Devil.

Does Obambi realize that his government is doing exactly the same types of things that England was doing to us back when the Declaration was written?

That’s right, Obama is doing exactly the same things. The British Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies to pay for a disastrous war, and Obama cut taxes for 97% of the American public and ended one disastrous war. No difference!!! There was absolutely no political representation of American colonists in Parliament, and Obama has to deal with a Republican Congress whose only goal is to obstruct any legislation the president wants passed. It’s exactly the same!!!

Such disgust i have for this Muslim Brotherhood piece of pig slop.

“free to think and worship and live as they please” Uh, no, just ask the Catholics about your birth control mandate.

This would be the mandate that requires private insurance plans to cover women’s preventive health care services, like breast exams and pap smears, maternity care, HPV testing, gestational diabetes screening, breastfeeding support, FDA-approved contraception and contraceptive counseling. Because that totally deprives Catholics of the right to think and worship and live as they please.

“Don’t axe me to read dis Constitushun thang ’cause I can’t read cursive, SIR!”

I really think he WANTS a violent confrontation so bad that he may pull a falseflag before the end. Ask yourself what he would have ever done different if this wasn’t his goal?

Well, of course, it’s perfectly obvious. President Obama is deliberately trying to provoke a violent confrontation with the American public by…by…being the president. And once he instigates this violent confrontation, he’ll…he’ll…have all the white gun-owning Christians put into re-education camps and then ACORN will elect him President of the United States. Again.

scalia got one thing right

Posted on June 28, 2013 by greg

I’ve written about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before, and labeled him a judicial hypocrite. That hypocrisy was apparent in his opinions on two recent Supreme Court cases.

On Monday, Justice Scalia signed on to the Court’s majority decision to strike down some provisions of the Voting Rights Act. By ‘signed on’ I mean he didn’t write an individual opinion, he simply signed the ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts. Justices always have the right to write a concurring opinion (if they agree with the majority ruling, but for somewhat different legal reasons) or a dissenting opinion. Signing the majority opinion indicates agreement with the ruling and the legal reasoning underlying it.

Why is that important? Because in overturning sections of the Voting Rights Act, the Court was overruling an act of Congress passed in 1965 and re-authorized in 2006. Justice Scalia apparently had no problem with overturning legislation that’s been in effect for nearly half a century.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in. The very next day Scalia issued an excoriating dissent in the case that overturned elements of the Defense of Marriage Act. In his dissent, Scalia wrote:

“We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation […] That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive.”

Got that? On Monday he essentially agreed the Court could assert judicial supremacy over Congress by kicking the Voting Rights Act to the curb. On Tuesday he argued the Court can’t assert that supremacy in regard to DOMA. And he apparently sees no inconsistency in those two positions. That would be shocking in any other Supreme Court Justice, but Scalia has always shown a willingness to ignore his previous judicial positions in order to attain the ideological outcome he believes is ‘correct.’

I dislike Antonin Scalia as a judge and as a person — but there’s no denying he’s a brilliant rhetorician. In his bombastic and vitriolic dissent of the DOMA case, he made one prescient observation. He wrote:

“By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition…. No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”

And he’s right. He’s an asshole about it, of course. He apparently fails to see any irony when he suggests the people who consider gay folks to be ‘enemies of human decency’ could be labeled the enemies of human decency. But he’s absolutely right. Proponents of marriage equality will challenge the law in every state that denies same-sex couples the ability to marry.

Scalia was equally right a decade ago in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down the sodomy law of Texas. That effectively invalidated sodomy laws in thirteen other states, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal throughout the United States. In his dissent in Lawrence, Scalia wrote:

“If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'”

There you have Justice Antonin Scalia in a nutshell. He believes ‘moral disapprobation’ should be a determining factor in what behaviors are considered legal or illegal. He’s not burdened by consistency in his judicial opinions. He mocks the people who disagree with him. He’s exceedingly intelligent.

And he’s right — about this, at least. What justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? None, Justice Scalia. There’s no justification at all.

VICE, fashion, and what’s truly offensive

Posted on June 19, 2013 by greg

First, let me be clear about this: I’ve always liked VICE. I’m talking about the magazine here, not about…well, let’s not get into that. The magazine, originally from Canada, where it was The Voice of Montreal. That was in 1994. A couple years later they changed their name to VICE, and three years after that, they moved to New York City

VICE has published some serious journalism. VICE has also published remarkably trashy journalism. They’ve published amazing photographs and interesting works of serious fiction; and they’ve published photos just because they’re trendy, not to mention some really shitty fiction. But I like that. I like that they’re unpredictable, even when I don’t like what they publish.

I like VICE, but I don’t always like what they do. And I like that I don’t always like what they do. I like it when conventions are challenged. But over the last couple of years VICE seems to be pulling shit just for shock value. Shock value is almost always heavy on shock and light on value. An example? It was VICE that sent Dennis Rodman to North Korea. There’s nothing clever in that. Sending Dennis Rodman to North Korea is as clever as a twelve year old boy’s fart joke. It’s more about being able to say ‘fart’ out loud than anything else.

But that’s not why I’m pissed off at VICE.

The current issue of VICE is the fiction issue. But nobody is talking about the fiction in the fiction issue. Why? Because VICE also published a fashion spread. Of models depicting famous women writers. Who killed themselves. In the moment they killed themselves.

The caption of each photograph includes the name of the writer depicted, the date she was born, where she was born, the date she killed herself, where she killed herself, and how she killed herself. It also includes the fashion credits for what the model is wearing, in case you want to order the tights the model depicting novelist Sanmao is hanging herself with.

A lot of people are understandably upset and angry with VICE for this fashion spread. I’m one of them. A lot of people claim VICE is glorifying suicide. I don’t think they are, but I see their point. A lot of people are pissed off because the photographs all depict women writers, when far more male writers have killed themselves. They have a valid argument. Some people are irate because suicide isn’t a fashion statement. I agree.

But those aren’t the reasons I’m pissed at VICE.

VICE has since pulled the fashion spread from their online magazine. They’ve issued the standard corporate non-apology apology:

  The fashion spreads in VICE magazine are always unconventional and approached with an art-editorial point-of-view rather than a typical fashion photo-editorial one. Our main goal is to create artful images, with the fashion message following, rather than leading.

“Last Words” was created in this tradition and focused on the demise of a set of writers whose lives we very much wish weren’t cut tragically short, especially at their own hands. We will no longer display “Last Words” on our website and apologize to anyone who was hurt or offended.

That’s bullshit, of course. I expect VICE to be transgressive. I expect the magazine to occasionally be deliberately offensive and tasteless. I expect VICE to do stupid shit just to shock people. I expect to be offended by some of what they publish. But I never expected to be offended by the policies of VICE.

What I don’t expect — and what pisses me off most — is for VICE to be offensive, tasteless, and shocking for commercial reasons. The fashion spread is called Last Words, but it doesn’t include the last words of these writers. It doesn’t mention anything they wrote. Because it’s not really about last words, or about what these women wrote. It’s not even about these women at all, or that they killed themselves.It’s about selling shit. It’s about advertising income. It’s about monetizing the VICE brand.

That’s why I’m pissed at VICE. They’ve shown themselves to be the same sort of corporate swine they like to mock. If VICE wants to include a photograph of a model pretending to be Sylvia Plath about to stick her head in the oven, yeah I’ll certainly be offended — but I’d defend it as trangressive art. If they want to show a model acting like Iris Chang about to eat a handgun, damn right I’ll be offended and angry (I met Iris Chang and liked her) — but I’d still defend VICE for making art. But if they want to pull that shit just to sell a scarf and some silk tights? If they do that just to make a buck and sell more advertising? Then fuck VICE. Fuck them in the neck.

gregfallis.com

it's this or get a real job

Category Archives: current events