You are here: Home > Liberty & Freedom

Archive | Liberty & Freedom RSS feed for this section

I’m a Martian American

By on June 25, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Everything Else, Introvert vs Extrovert, Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations

 

Last week, I changed my Facebook timeline picture to this:

Mars_HighResolution_NASA

And added the following comment:

“This is Mars. Sometimes I feel like I was born there. Or that some people would like me to move there.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about that photograph since then… While I obviously don’t think I actually came from Mars, I have been aware for much of my life that I think a little differently than most people I know. I’m not suggesting this means I’m anything special. I don’t think I’m particularly smart. I have mediocre creativity. Am not an expert or close to it at anything.  But I do tend to think about things, at least it would seem, differently than most people I know.

Mostly, this has been somewhat of a curse.

One way in which this has become more apparent to me is during my relatively recent discovery that I’m a Classical Liberal (aka a Libertarian).  I’ve never identified fully with Democrats or Republicans, or if I think back to my days as a Christian, I never completely identified as a Lutheran, or whatever.  There were elements of those ideologies I agreed with and elements I disagreed with, but none of them completely represented my worldview in a way that felt “me.” I just tried to determine what ideas made the most sense to me, and rolled with it.  This spilled over into adulthood as I have tried to navigate the world of workplace norms and cultures (P.S. its a lot like high school), where I found myself not conforming as much as I probably should have to make life smoother sailing.  Combine a weird way of thinking with a strong sense of personal integrity and life can be a bit explosive and heart-wrenching.

A friend back home.

I remember a college class I took within my major field which was Sociology/Criminology. The professor talked about his views on drug legalization. He seemed to be saying he thought taking drugs was unwise, but that people should be free to do it, and that if they hurt others, they should pay the consequences heavily for it, but otherwise, should be left alone. I’ve come to understand this as a variation of a Libertarian viewpoint. Before he explained this theory, I would not have agreed with it, but after he gave a coherent and convincing argument, I began to see it his way, and have largely come to adopt his position as my own on that particular topic, especially as personal liberty has become one of my highest priorities in my world view. But at the time, I assumed his position must be a liberal position, since, you know… most academics are liberals, and of course he was advocating for drug use in some round about way.  No conservative would be on board with that!  But I would come to learn that this way of thinking (pro-drug legalization for complex reasons) was strongly ridiculed by both ends of the political spectrum, which surprised me. To me, after pondering the reasoning, rooted in a pro-choice-esque ownership of one’s body, and learning more about the horrific consequences of drug prohibition, it just made sense. It would be years before I heard the term “libertarian.”

[easyazon-image align=”right” asin=”B001B5VPXY” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41EyXD%2B7%2BfL._SL160_.jpg” width=”113″]I’ve always managed (unwittingly) to adopt viewpoints from one of the least popular angles. I assure you, I don’t go out of my way to do so.  Ok, that’s partially true if I think about it more.  I do go out of my way to consider the unconventional position, but I don’t go out of my way to actually buy into it.  I think it is partially that obtuseness to labels that brings me to those ideas in the first place. Even now, as I’ve embraced the idea of being a “libertarian,” (though I think Classical Liberal sounds cooler, smarter, and less stocking up for the Zombie Apocalypse evoking) and freely call myself one, I am hesitant to adopt the label completely. I worry it will fence in my thinking, and subconsciously lead me to believe things because I think I should in order to fit in. Libertarianism is the easiest way to explain many of my general political positions, but it in no way fully encompasses who I am or what I believe in. And who knows, in the future, the word may not explain anything about me, much in the way that Christianity no longer does, except to explain my past, and the path to who I am now.

Anyway, this blog post is not meant to be about any specific ideas I do or do not believe in.  Its about being a Martian living on the Earth.  The paradox for me is while I tend to think about things in an uncommon way (at least uncommon in my real life circles), I don’t necessarily like being such a misfit, yet I cannot force myself (nor would I want to either) to believe what I don’t believe.  Learning that I no longer believe in god has been painful. It would have been much simpler had I remained a believer the rest of my life. True, there are apostates and non-believers who have it much worse than I do. Much, much, much worse (like I rarely worry about being stoned to death for my apostasy, and usually never worry about going to jail for it since I don’t live in Kentucky or in Indonesia), but as someone who longs to fit in, but who never has, this has not been an easy row. It amuses me when occasionally someone will speak of my “chosen belief system” or say to me “you lost faith” or thinks I am willfully trying not to believe in god. What led me to unbelief was starting out as a Christian, and wanting to learn more about my faith so that I could be a good apologist and advocate for the faith. I dreamed of being the biblical archaeologist who finally proved everything in the bible was true. That fervent faith and dream is what led me to agnostic atheism, which in turn adds to the way in which I see the world differently from my peers, which adds to the way in which I am a Martian.

BTW, isn’t this little rover just the cutest thing you’ve ever seen?  If you’re not already, you should follow its Twitter feed @MarsCuriosity.

File:PIA16239 High-Resolution Self-Portrait by Curiosity Rover Arm Camera.jpg

As an introvert, who loves discussion and debate the way a pothead loves snack food, I can only say, thank goodness for the internet and the power of numbers! While not perfect, the internet – this blog, social media, other forums – has allowed me to connect with other freaks in the world and share battle cries.  I would love if more readers found and interacted on this blog, and maybe one day that will happen.  If you remember back to my blog on introversion, you’ll remember introverts aren’t antisocial, just differently social.  Contrary to popular belief, introverts aren’t all, or mostly, socially inept.  And many of us even like people.

The ridiculously sexy Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation, after he read the phone book to me and I died of happiness.

Though, I’ll admit to being more on the socially shy side of introversion than many others, I hate chit-chat, small-talk, fluff, so those early stages of making new friends can be challenging for me.  Yet, I would LOVE to find more people in “real life” who share my love of deep discussion, and willingness to ponder and explore topics from unpopular vantage points.   As much as I love writing, and think I’m best when I can sort out my thoughts on a page, there is nothing like sitting at a place with amazing atmosphere, with great food, with a great friend, talking for hours about anything and everything, from who is the best Star Trek Captain (Picard, duh!)  to why we exist in the cosmos. I cherish those moments with friends, and would love to have even more of them, as I feel like they are few and far between these days as life becomes more complicated.

I only hope I don’t have to move to Mars to have more of them.

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }

How Gay Rights Influenced my Deconversion

By on May 20, 2013 in Atheism & Skepticism, Liberty & Freedom

Last week Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize gay marriage. The law will go into effect on August 1, 2013. As you probably have surmised from my post last November on the vote to ban gay marriage and immortalize it in the Minnesota Constitution (which obviously did not pass), this decision makes me very happy. This momentous event has caused me to reflect on how important the issue of gay rights has been in my deconversion from Christianity, and ultimately from all religion.

To summarize, it has been very important.

I should start by setting the stage and let you know that I am not gay. Perhaps that shouldn’t be relevant, but I feel that it helps you to understand my perspective a little more fully. I do however have many gay family members and friends. I will not specify any further out of respect for their privacy except to say that many of these people have meant a lot to me throughout my entire life. I mention this not because I want you to let me off the hook for what I’m about to admit, but because it’s a pivotal fact in this story.

Hate the Sin; Love the Sinner and other Crap I Believed

It was during middle school that I began my journey into a very strong Christian faith. At some point along the way, I adopted a fairly common evangelical Christian mentality towards homosexuality which is to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” At first, this seemed perfectly reasonable, loving, and in line with my understanding of what I believed the bible taught on the subject. I believed that god made man and woman, and that they (one man, one woman) should be together for the primary purpose of having children, and to create a perfect holy union within the trinity. I believed that within those boundaries were the only acceptable ways of expressing sexuality.

Prior to my path to devout Christian, my religious training was more general. I have discussed in other posts that my parents are believers, but not overtly dogmatic towards any denomination of Christianity. We attended a Lutheran Church, but frequently missed services, and I was a hit and miss Sunday school student. I cannot think of any discussions on the morality of homosexuality prior to my middle school years. And although I cannot remember the specific timeline, at some point I went from not having any memorable opinion about homosexuality, to believing it was a sinful lifestyle condemned by god.

In short, and to be clear, I now believe my religious understanding entirely shaped any opinion I later adopted regarding homosexuals and the immorality of homosexual behavior during the years of my faith.

I Think I Love Ya

At the same time, I still truly loved (in my mind) those in my life who were gay. But god’s message had put me into conflict with how I felt about my gay friends and family members. So to justify this belief, I likened homosexuality to alcoholism. I told myself it was the behavior — the physical acts of love — that offended god, not merely being gay. For, a recovering alcoholic can lead a healthy and moral life. It is only when they fall off the wagon that the downward spiral begins. And although at the time, I did not know any of the science surrounding the topic, I believed that a homosexual lifestyle was a choice, at least to some degree. Even if an inclination towards homosexuality is innate and inherited, it didn’t mean indulging in that behavior was ok. This too, I likened to alcoholism, and separated it from the idea of racial identity, and civil rights, where a person is born a certain way. We all had been given free will, I reasoned, and were empowered by god to push aside our base instincts and urges. We all have burdens to bear, and some were given the burden of being gay. This tactic worked for me for a long time. I had never felt hatred or anger towards gays. The emotion was closer to pity. I felt terrible that they had been afflicted by this demonic tendency and hunger for someone of the same gender. I prayed for them. I truly wanted them to find salvation in the house of god, and be able to live free from sinful behavior. I believed I was righteous, and I believed this was what god expected me to believe.

I look back on this way of thinking with extreme shame and humility. I now see clearly that I was wrong.

Over time, the thorny contradiction between god’s will and how I wanted to treat the people I loved poked at me. Some of the gay people I loved came out of the closet (none of those revelations were truly surprising frankly), and I began to feel conflicted between what I believed god wanted from me and what I felt was moral behavior towards a fellow human being who I loved and who loved others in return. I learned a little bit about the science of homosexuality as well, and came to the (true) conclusion that there is a strong biological component, and that even if the trait is not born in a person (which I believe it is), then it develops from an early enough age that it might as well be from birth. I began to question how a loving and just god could afflict his children (a fairly large total number of them at around 3% to 8%) in nearly every culture, yet condemn them for acting on their natural impulses. It would have been one thing if those impulses hurt others, but how is it hurting anyone if one person physically loves another person who consents to that love?

Why Does a Loving God Condemn Those Who Love and Are Loved in Return?

This single idea — that absent the word of god saying homosexuality is a sin, there is nothing else that makes it so – was a significant factor in my ultimate deconversion. After realizing the cruelty in god’s condemnation of such a victimless “sin”, in fact, of a behavior that actually promotes love towards other humans, I began to see other similar disconnects between the morality of Yahweh and the more evolved morality of modernity. I will not go into all of those here, but it’s not a small list.

After I made this leap in my own moral intuitions, it still took me some time to completely shed the baggage I had purchased during my religious obsession. For a while, I held onto the idea that civil unions would be a good alternative. That preserving tradition was a worthy goal. Or that keeping marriage between a man and a woman would prevent the slippery slope argument eventually leading to polygamy and goat marriage. I realized several years ago, even after I had begun to call myself an atheist, and truly believed that homosexuality was completely normal and moral, that even those arguments were deeply rooted in religion. They were reflexive beliefs more than well-thought out. It took more self-education in many areas of philosophy and science before I was able to articulate for myself a cogent world view that did not require a god for morality.

But it was this single issue that first revealed the Christian god (as I knew him) to be truly ancient, outdated, and immoral. It frustrates me today when I hear strains of “hate the sin, love the sinner” being expressed regarding this issue, even as I understand where it comes from. One reason I wanted to write this post is to explain that I do not believe most religious people who share that belief are haters or bigots, though they are often portrayed that way, even by other Christians. I think reality is more complicated than that. I do not doubt that many faithful Christians have grappled with the conflict I felt. It is a difficult choice to make between one’s all powerful god who controls your immortal soul’s destiny, and family and friends. Indoctrination is a powerful drug. Many who adopt an anti-homosexuality position tend to be regular people trying to live a good life, and trying to be a positive force in the world. Very few out there come even close to the level of vitriol spewed by the despicable Westboro Baptist Church. Regardless, of that, I do not fully give them (or my former self) a pass. If your god is forcing you to make a choice between him, and your treatment of other humans merely for behavior that has absolutely no impact on you or other sentient creatures whatsoever, I beg you to reconsider whether or not your god deserves that love and respect.

Photo Credit: http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/5583029/il_fullxfull.175325241.jpg

But They’re Not True Christians…

Some Christians get around this by claiming that anyone condemning homosexuality or homosexuals is not a “True Christian.” To those who say I have misunderstood the bible’s teaching in this respect, I would say, that is free for you to believe, but I believed and still believe there is more than adequate justification within the pages of the bible to support a position that gay love is morally repugnant. The notion is immortalized in the word “sodomy.” That said, if you must choose between being a fundamentalist Christian who condemns homosexuality, and a believer who cherry picks the parts you support and throws out the parts that offend you, I would rather you are the latter. I applaud your decision to ignore morally despicable teachings in favor of love for your fellow man, but not all of your brethren have been fortunate enough to grow up with that liberty in their faith. That is one thing I love about being an atheist. Unlike when I was a believer, and I felt that I had to find the truth in the whole bible, I can now choose any part of any world philosophy I want, and throw out others I have no use for without having to call myself a “true” anything.

For me, it all comes down to what are the things that improve human well-being and what are the things that destroy it? That is where my line of morality and immorality is drawn, and where the difficult discussions of right and wrong begin. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument that puts homosexual behavior of consenting adults remotely close to the “destroy well-being” category of behaviors. How can mutual love ever destroy the happiness of those who are in love, or those who live amongst them? If you can articulate an argument without invoking god (directly or indirectly), I’d be curious to entertain it, but I’d be surprised if you can.

A Path Towards Moral Maturity

As I think back to my former self, I am saddened by her and for her. I am saddened that she ever felt like she had to choose between her friends and family and her god, and I am horrified at the thought that she might have made anyone feel like a sinner. I am glad that I was able to shed my religious veil of self-righteousness relatively early in my life, and before I had met as many people as I have now, or will as my life continues. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” has its place in the world. There are many situations in life where we can deplore a loved one’s behavior, but still love them as a person. Homosexuality should never be included in that category, because at its heart, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It’s a natural behavior that hurts no one any more than heterosexual behavior does among consenting individuals. As a result, although it’s under the guise of reasonability, the mantra to condemn the behavior but love the individual falls flat. If you have ever judged someone for their homosexual behavior while purporting to love them, you should know you have probably hurt them deeply, because the only way they can ever gain your acceptance is by suppressing something within them that is perfectly normal and good. If you find condemnation to be a moral way of treating your fellow human beings, then I feel sad for you, as I did for myself. I can only hope you may one day reconsider. 

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

As a Christian apostate, I have gotten a taste of what it is like for gays and lesbians to come out of the closet. In fact, the atheist community has adopted many of the tactics used by the LGBT community, and it has begun to pay real dividends in society’s acceptance of us. They bravely paved the way, often under real threat of violence and harm. I am thankful for that. I feel a little bookend of solidarity with them in their fight to change hearts and minds. I know from personal experience, that we all are capable of changing our thoughts, even on such emotionally charged topics as homosexuality and religion. I’m inspired by their willingness to be themselves in the face of hateful speech (even if inspired by misguided good intentions), and ancient ideologies still looming large in our culture. The tide is turning, and I am confident that in fifty years, or so, people will wonder what all the fuss was about, both when it comes to gay marriage, and atheists walking among the masses. Maybe by then atheists will also be able to hold office and serve on juries in all fifty states. But it is because of the LGBT community in part that I speak out about atheism, and my personal experiences as a former Christian. It is why I celebrate the new law in Minnesota and the previous states. The times they are a changin’.  Thank the stars!

Peace and love,

PersephoneK

Comments { 0 }

Unrealistic Expectations: Security vs Freedom

By on April 23, 2013 in Everything Else, Government Reform, Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

AP Photo

As Americans, we must decide whether or not we prize security over freedom. We cannot have it both ways. It’s time for us to understand that. The bombing on April 15th at the Boston Marathon re-enforced that point for me, although it’s a topic I have thought about a lot over the past years since September 11, 2001. After the 9/11 attacks, our nation changed significantly, both in our psyche and our structure. Preventing such a horrendous event from ever happening again became a personal mission for me as well, leading to a new career path. I applied to, and got a job with, a certain federal agency charged with protecting America from future terrorist attacks. Over the course of my nearly 8 years there, and in the time since I left it, my view point has changed from being fairly strongly “hawkish,” to one that is much more Libertarian (though I prefer “Classically Liberal”). In short, I don’t believe we can truly protect our nation from attack while also preserving civil liberties to the level we should expect, that is, to the level preserved in the Constitution.

I once decried the foreign policy of Libertarian Guru Ron Paul as “terrifying,” but now, while perhaps not completely in agreement with his isolationist ideals, I have shifted significantly towards the non-aggressionist end of the spectrum. I don’t know that I will ever be “dovish”, the usual opposite of “hawkish,” because I believe in using force as retribution when attacked. However, I believe our Nation’s foreign policy needs a significant change to a non-interference mantra. We cannot, and should not, try to push our agenda upon the entire world.

This shift in my thinking has been formed over time, from many influences, but is based upon two primary principals:

  1. I believe that by valuing individual liberty (here and abroad) above the wishes of the collective (or government), we have a better chance of achieving world peace in the most moral way possible, and
  2. I do not believe the government has the ability (both in resources and competence), nor the moral authority to protect us from all threats, perceived and real.

If I added an unofficial third principal, it would be that the law of unintended consequences often rears its head in horrifying ways.

How does this relate to security vs liberty? I do not believe perfect (or near-perfect) security is possible, regardless of the laws or policies we enact. Even the most totalitarian states are vulnerable to terrorism, and violent crime. A person intent on causing harm to one or more individuals, will find a way to do so. But in the process of trying to prevent as much carnage as possible, we as a society, tend to readily acquiesce our freedom as a surprisingly fast pace. And as we try to impose our will on each other and other nations, we stir a hornets nest of unintended responses and attitudes, not only because violence towards our enemies inevitably hurts innocents, but because in doing so, we become hypocritical of our moral imperative to protect individual life, liberty, and property, thus denying the right to pursue happiness.

After 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon attacks, and countless other atrocities, the natural inclination from terrified and horrified citizens, and politicians is to rush to DO SOMETHING! OR BLAME SOMEONE! OR DO SOMETHING BY BLAMING SOMEONE! Make laws and shame those that disagree! The choices we make immediately following something as horrific as these events highlight our emotional natures, and suppress our rational sides. Politicians throw barbs with the objective of trying to demonize the other side by playing off our natural emotional responses to feel revulsion, and our inability to put them into proper historical context. Inevitably, rash responses follow, and all too often get enshrined into law, further diluting our free society.

I’m currently reading Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”. This book should be required reading (if I believed in such a thing, which I do not) for all Americans. With astounding amounts of evidence, Pinker proves his thesis that the world is a much less violent place right now than in all of human history. It can be hard to believe such a statement when faced with the 24/7 news cycle bombarding us with images of bomb victims, or the latest school shooting. And of course, nothing can truly heal the wounds of victims and family members whose lives have been irrevocably changed, or snuffed out. Their suffering deserves attention. They deserve our compassion. But they do not deserve us changing the fundamentals of why this country exists. Ironically, even as we have become safer, we have become less free, mostly by our own submission. This is a trend I hope we can reverse.

It’s easy to forget what the Americans who fought the Revolution risked in order to create a state ruled by the people, yet one that protected the minority and majority alike by recognizing certain fundamental, and pre-existing rights. It’s easy for us to forget what an amazing goal and ultimate achievement this was, during a time when monarchies and empires controlled their citizens with absolute authority the world over. As American students, we learn about Patrick Henry’s cry to “Give me liberty or give me death!”http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-image-liberty-image26285626 and we think, oh, that’s nice, but that doesn’t apply to my life right now. Or we think of it in a detached way, as if the Patriots were not real people fighting for real ideals in a life or death situation of winner take all. They were willing to die so that a new experiment could take shape to form a society that valued the liberty of individuals over the whims of the King or the collective. They believed that through individual liberty, the society as a whole could be one of maximum peace, tolerance, and prosperity. It’s a gamble that has been proven to work over and over again since then. The freer a society, the more peaceful and prosperous its citizens are in general.

But with the quest for liberty, we inevitably must accept a significant risk in our safety. Often in politics we hear the mantra, “if it saves one life, we should” enact that law, or restrict this freedom. My response to that particular use of our emotions as a political plaything: Of course we should try to protect lives. Of course we shouldn’t disregard the human toll. But we need to do so in a reasonable and effective way that doesn’t make this life undesirable to live, (if not for us today, but for future generations), in a way that preserves our diverse sub-cultures, and does not trample on the pre-ordained rights of individuals to live their lives as they see fit. We drift further and further from those ideals as time goes by. We have allowed fear to drive us into a collectivist way of thinking about how to improve society.

So, this brings me to my original point. Preventing terrorism is not really possible. The fact of the matter is, it is not possible to predict any future event, no matter how much money we throw at the terrorism leviathan, no matter how well trained our intelligence services are (and I’m not saying they are). There will always be a way to punch a hole in the security measures we implement. What our preventative measures almost exclusively do is make life more burdensome for law abiding individuals, while doing almost nothing to curb the violent ones. The burdens we’ve imposed on ourselves may seem worth it at the moment, but how often do we see laws being repealed, or softened? Nearly never. The call is almost always for MORE MORE MORE! And we the people allow this to continue. We are complicit because we do not value liberty any more. We are not taught to value liberty. We are taught to think of “society” as a single organism. We do not understand the unintended consequences of blessing the government with greater control over our movements and privacy. We somehow have been convinced that only through strong, central government intervention can we achieve some sort of Utopian society. We’ve been led to believe that individuality is wrong, and instead we are one people with the exact same thoughts and dreams. That we are there to serve our government, rather than our government being there to serve us.

Unlike many Libertarians, I do not believe the government is overwhelmingly corrupt. I think corruption undoubtedly exists. And I believe strongly in the axiom that “power corrupts”, but I think overall the abuses we see within government are the usually result of incompetence, and/or misaligned incentives. That is not to say that there is something inherently incompetent in people who work for the government. In my experience, some of the most amazingly talented and intelligent people work for the government. They care deeply about your life and your security. Many of them risk their lives to keep you safe. But as bureaucracy grows, so do incentives that are out of whack. Only through competition can individuals and organizations be held accountable in a truly democratic way. That system is simply not possible within government on any kind of large or adequate scale, which is one reason why I believe we need to limit the government’s authority in most aspects of our lives, especially when it comes to laws or policy designed to prevent something bad. Ultimately, government is made up of humans who are just as imperfect as you and I. To expect “it” to solve our problems is like tilting at windmills.

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-windmills-kinderdijk-image26564171

The FBI is the best in the world at solving a crime that has occurred and bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice. But to ask it to prevent a crime as if it has the power of the pre-cogs from Minority Report is ludicrous. There is currently much discussion in the media about the report that the FBI had interviewed the Boston bombing’s deceased Tamerlan Tsarnaev two years ago, yet allowed him to carry out the attack. Senator Lindsey Graham is quoted as saying, “So maybe it’s the system failed, didn’t provide the FBI with the tools, or maybe they didn’t use it properly,” he added. “That’s why maybe we need to find out what happened.”

Without getting mired in the minutia of how the laws of the land work, I will just summarize by saying, the expectation that the FBI could have prevented the bombing based on this earlier interview of Tamerlan Tsarnaev is absurd unless you also accept the idea that your personal liberty is meaningless. Tsarnaev was a US Person, a description that brings with it certain rights and requirements pertaining to investigations by law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Absent any specific information that this guy was plotting an attack, (not to mention the sheer volume of these types of interviews the FBI does), it is beyond silly to suggest the FBI could have done anything to prevent the bombings, unless of course, you would prefer the FBI trample on the rights of US Persons. The same could be said of almost every single terrorist attack that has ever occurred. Misusing the benefit of hindsight knowledge to criticize an agency for something it has no power to stop is vile.

According to Daniel Kahneman in his brilliant [easyazon-link asin=”B00555X8OA” locale=”us”]Thinking, Fast and Slow[/easyazon-link], the Nobel Prize winning psychologist, individuals, even experts, are terrible at prediction. Even financial advisors, people trained through the incentive of making money for personal benefit, do a terrible job at predicting markets. And in order to attempt to analyze a trend, you need data. The more data, the better the analysis. All kinds of data are needed, and in the case of intelligence, you don’t really know what data you need to find a trend. It’s not like investigating an event that has occurred in the past, where you know how it ends, and can track the evidence backwards. The thirst for data means that data must be collected. And when you don’t know what you’re looking for, you want it all. In the case of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, it appears the information the FBI was given was that he had become more radicalized and had changed. I don’t mean to point out the obvious, but becoming radicalized is not actually a crime. We have something called the 1st Amendment in this country, and you are allowed to say and believe some pretty hateful things. That is not evidence of a crime, nor should it be used to put you under suspicion absent additional information that points elsewhere. In this case, the FBI was protecting your rights, and is getting trampled for it in the media and by grandstanding politicians. Yet, we as citizens are culpable in that theater.

We cannot ask the US Intelligence Community to analyze data that is paradoxically too voluminous and yet inadequate in detail, and expect it to predict impossible future violent events while simultaneously protecting our right to privacy and free speech, among other rights. You simply cannot have it both ways. Not only is predicting future terrorist attacks (or other crime) with any level of certainty or specificity an impossible goal (even if our current USIC model was perfectly structured, which it isn’t), but it is certainly not possible without giving up our fundamentals of liberty. So by trying to force that impossible mission upon the government, we make both failure, and (usually unintentional) abuse of civil liberties probable.

As I’ve thought more and more about this basic truth, I have decided that the mission of US law enforcement needs to be explicitly changed back to serving justice rather than crime/terrorism prevention, both in the letter of the law and in the American people’s minds. Justice and prevention are not the same. In a free society, we grant human beings the right to live their lives in any way they see fit so long as they do not infringe the rights of others to do the same. Put another way, my rights end only where yours begin. I cannot hurt you physically. I cannot steal your property. I cannot infringe on your fundamental individual rights, many of which are stated explicitly in the Constitution, many of which are not. Any law that restricts my freedom is not justified unless it supports that notion of equal rights. Any law that prevents my equal freedom is not a just law. Unfortunately, our legal system is riddled with these laws. Take for example the rash of anti-texting laws sweeping the nation. If I text and drive, am I more likely to get into an accident? Yes. Without question. But will 100% of individuals who text and drive get into an accident? Absolutely not. So, if I text and drive, and a police officer cites me for it despite me never having hurt a single person, how is that a just law? He is citing me based on the mere possibility that I may hurt someone or someone’s property in the future, even though I may never do so. That is the definition of pre-crime. The federal government, in particular its law enforcement agencies, should exist to provide me justice when my rights to live freely are trampled by other individuals, and that is it. A law that says I cannot text and drive even though I have not hurt anyone else is a law that suggests I have hurt the state in some way by not hurting someone else (after all, how can I be restricted when I have not hurt anyone or anything)? When the state becomes the injured party, we have a problem. How is it just to hold me accountable for a crime I may commit? A law is not just, just because it’s a law.

Our mindsets as a society should not be to first assume the government will protect us from everything, from things like our abuse of food, to the dangers of texting while driving, to the huge things like terrorist bombings. http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-freedom-way-image18974409A focus on prevention should not be, and cannot be, the role of government. Government’s responsibility should be to seek justice for us when we are harmed and our rights are abused by other individuals (or sadly by the state). It is our responsibility as individuals who seek peaceful coexistence with other individuals who think differently than we do, and who value different things than we do, to find a way to live together, and influence one another in non-coercive ways.

Are we really making gains as a society if the only way we can force our neighbors to act in ways we prefer is to make laws, which are backed by government’s monopoly of force? I say we are not. I do not believe we can ever rid our world of violence or evil people, but I especially do not believe we will ever do so by expecting the government to protect us from evil. It cannot do so to perfection, nor can it do so without restricting privacy, abusing rights (however inadvertently), and using force. My dream is for a world where the government is there to help me seek justice against those who have harmed me, and to help me enforce voluntary contracts, but that otherwise leaves me alone to work with my fellow citizens to make the world a better place by using the power of words, and actions that promote human well-being.

Justice versus security? I choose justice. I choose freedom. How about you?

 

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 2 }

Are Athletes Who Dope Dopes or Dope?

By on January 21, 2013 in Liberty & Freedom, Sports

Prologue:  Posting this today because I figure what better day than MLK Day and a President’s Inauguration Day to talk about personal freedom to  dope… or its just a coincidence.  You decide.

Obviously, Lance Armstrong’s confession that he used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France has been at the top of the public interest stories the past few weeks (sadly more so than the terrorist hostage situation in Algeria involving some Americans). I guess I’m going to perpetuate that problem now. I originally wrote a draft of this post prior to watching the interview Armstrong gave with Oprah, partly because I wanted to see if my opinion of him would be changed. In some ways it was, but in others it was not. It was actually a fascinating interview. Oprah asked the correct questions, didn’t let him off the hook, and Armstrong seemed open and honest (of course I notoriously believe what people tell me, so take that with a grain of salt). It seemed that when he wanted to keep details close to the vest, he stated so, usually as a result of a confidence he had given to another person, usually a person on his very long “to make amends with” list. Only Armstrong knows if he means what he says. This post is not really so much about him and his fall from superhuman achievement as it is about the broader discussion of PED’s in sports.

As you likely may know from my previous posts, in particular one I wrote about the War on Drugs, I support legalizing pretty much all drugs (though I’m ok with some regulation and think they should be legal for adults only). I don’t want to rehash too much of that here. But to oversimplify my position, I think taking (most) drugs is stupid, but a person’s ownership of their body is about as fundamental a right as there is, so drug use should not be illegal.

That said, my issues with the use of PEDs (which especially in the world of endurance sports can include “blood doping” where an individual basically gets a transfusion of their own super oxygenated blood) are complicated for me, and to be honest, I’m still not sure exactly where I stand. Writing this post is an exercise in working it out for myself.  I’ll categorize my concerns into three groups:

1. The government’s involvement in the use of PED’s in sports vs private entities’ right to ban them;
2. Where to draw the line and the impossibility of monitoring it;
3. Integrity of the sport’s history.

Issue #1: It drives me insane whenever the federal or any government gets involved in any of these scandals involving athletes doping. How much money and time was wasted by the investigations of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens by the Federal Government during their doping scandals?  Hint: Lots.  Usually the charges end up falling back on the old catch-all charge of lying to federal law enforcement or something in that vein. Which is a circular argument, begging the question, if you have nothing else to charge a person with but that they lied about their involvement in a non-crime… what justice is served? It’s a lazy law enforcement tactic that must end (I know I’m going to get in trouble for this one….).

Of course, as of now, some drugs are illegal, and there are issues surrounding fraud that are legitimate (though that is also a crime that wouldn’t happen if drugs were legal and everything were out in the open). As much as I despise the deadly War on Drugs, if a person uses drugs that are classified as illegal, they should not be surprised if law enforcement comes a-knocking. It’s totally within the Fed’s rights to do so. However, in the case of sports, illegal drugs are not often at the forefront. Many so called drugs used are legal, or considered herbal supplements and vitamins.  Essentially, they’ve usually been banned by the organization the athletes work for, or some agency like the USADA which governs US Olympic athletes, but they’re often available to any average adult.

What bothers me most about the government’s involvement is usually the political grandstanding, Senators and members of Congress calling athletes to testify under the auspices of protecting the reputation of such integral parts of Americana like baseball or football. If someone can give me a valid justification for this behavior, I want to hear about it. In my mind, politicians have no business whatsoever getting involved in the concerns of private entities like Major League Baseball or the National Football League.   One exception may be in the case of Lance Armstrong since he was sponsored by the US Postal Service. He took millions of taxpayer dollars under fraudulent terms. The feds had a claim there (they dropped the case). But by in large, the doping behaviors of athletes should be between them, their employers, and their fans. Employers have every right to set the parameters of behavior expected from those who represent them, so if the NFL or MLB or USADA want to ban PED’s they have every right to do so, and exact any consequences such as banishment or loss of sponsorship. If fans want to shun athletes for doping, it is their prerogative. But it then boils down to a breach of contract concerns. My question is, and I by no means claim to have an answer, should they do so?

This question leads me to…

Issue #2: It seems that almost every day a new PED is created or discovered. Many of them are considered herbal supplements by the FDA. What always stops me when it comes to banning substances, especially those categorized in such a murky and often arbitrary way, is where do you draw the line? One could argue that caffeine could be included. Or for that matter, super foods like blueberries, broccoli, and pretty much any lean protein, or protein supplement. Armstrong admits now to using Testosterone (a natural hormone in humans) and Cortisone (something used by athletes in many sports to cope with chronic pain), EPO, and blood doping (both were Armstrong’s favorites).

Regardless of the method, the fact is, the body uses what we consume and put into our body as fuel. Some fuels help us more than others. Some can harm us in unintended ways, especially if we have allergies. Perhaps the line could be drawn at oral consumption versus injected substances? That seems reasonable. Ultimately, every improvement in nutrition and training, every new understanding of how our bodies metabolize and absorb nutrients, could be seen as magic to the athletes who came before. It seems the most sensible approach might be to just allow anything. Put it all on the table. That way every athlete can decide for himself whether the costs are too high for the ultimate achievement. Some of these substances are dangerous, you may counter. True. As long as those risks are known, a free person must accept them or reject them on his own. Come what may. At least the inherent hypocrisy of sports such as cycling would end once and for all. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The stakes are obviously too high for athletes not to use PEDs. So let them have their cake.

Issue #3: However, that line of thinking brings me to my most conflicted side of the issue. I am a pretty big baseball fan. I can’t recite stats like the ultimate nerds can, but I love the game of baseball. It appeals to my methodical and my romantic sides. I love the anticipation of the action, the enjoyment of the outdoors in summer, and I love the long and storied traditions. I love that records from the dawn of professional baseball still stand. But when Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and then finally Barry Bonds broke Roger Maris’ nearly 40 year old record within a matter of a few years of each other, it highlighted how PED’s can drastically impact a sport. Baseball used to be one of those sports where you could have rhetorical arguments about the greatest players of all time, and have solid evidence to put players like Babe Ruth in the same breath as a living player. The stats were there. You could put together the exact events of a game from 100 years ago all by reading a box score. A .300 batting average today means about the same as it did when Shoeless Joe Jackson played the game. But with PED’s, that ability is tainted. Of course, there have been other improvements in the game. Despite players still using wooden bats, they have countless advantages in equipment, nutrition, travel, money, training techniques over previous generations.  There are all kinds of ways players today have gained an edge. How is that different from the use of PED’s? To be honest, I don’t have an answer. To me, from a logical perspective, taking an all or nothing approach and allowing PED’s makes the most sense, however, my romantic side aches for the way PED’s have tarnished the spirit of sport and fair play.  Perhaps its illogical, but Roger Maris’ record means much more to me than Barry Bonds’ ever will.

So, at the end of the day, I still don’t know where I stand on the issue of PED’s. In the case of Armstrong, and any other athlete who broke their contracts and commitments, I think they need to pay the penalty of that broken trust. As much as I think PED’s maybe should be allowed, the fact is they were not, and the athletes knew it. I do think Armstrong has a point when he talks about his price being significantly higher than other athletes who did the exact same thing as him. He has been banned for life, whereas many others got a couple of years out of the sport, partly because they ratted on him. I think it’s easy for outsiders to gloss over the pressure endemic to the culture of doping in cycling. But if you apply it to your own life, you might be able to understand how it can happen. Maybe that’s all I’m trying to say. Perhaps we all need to judge a little less, and understand that these are human beings under real pressure to perform at an extraordinary level, and as fans we’re complicit in that pressure. I doubt our heroes will ever be perfect.

Perhaps that’s what makes them extraordinary to begin with.

Comments { 0 }

Better Angels, Triumphant

By on December 17, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, Ruminations, US & International Affairs

What can anyone say after a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that is remotely adequate?  For me, there was almost so much to say that I had nothing at all to say.  Simply no words were sufficient.  Horrific might be the single best word, but even that grossly pales.  Last Friday, the nation glimpsed the worst of humanity, and we wept.

Inevitably following such an event, social and mainstream media, and everyone around the water cooler has been a-buzz with discussions about gun control (for and against), mental illness, the degradation of society, the loss of god in our culture/schools, and countless other proposed reasons to what’s “wrong with our society” and how to fix it, how to prevent such a terrible act from ever happening again. 

Instead, I find myself thinking over and over again about something else entirely.  I keep thinking that I feel lucky to be alive, in this country, in this point in time of human existence.  I keep thinking about how good life actually is right now, right here.

Our justified condemnation and outrage over an atrocity like children and teachers being murdered in the classroom tells me how far we have come as a species, a culture, and as a nation.  Our reflexive response tells us how rare an event this truly is, and how much we value the lives of children and the adults who want to protect them.  I’m sure as a result of what happened, our political leaders will rush to create new laws and limits on our freedom, and generally the people will support that reaction.  How could we not?  It’s to protect children, right?  Anyone speaking out against it risks being labeled insensitive, or stupid.   I do not intend for this to be a political discussion.  I think there are plenty of valid points on all sides of many of these debates.  From my perspective, creating new laws – at least immediately – is completely unnecessary, and is another nail in the coffin of liberty, and the reason for America’s existence.  Each one risks pushing our society backwards towards eventual despotism.   Knee-jerk responses to create more laws are unnecessary because by any reasonable standard, the world is getting better, partly as a result of increased liberty.  Often our emotional rush to action creates many more unintended consequences that are problematic (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).  What I wish is before any decision is made about what actions to take is for us to take a collective breath and reflect on how wonderful our lives and society actually are.  

Recently I started reading the brilliant Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”  The title is a nod to Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful sentiments in his First Inaugural Address in 1861.  Pinker’s book is thus far so extraordinary, that I recommend you stop reading this blog right now, and go read his book for yourself.  Pinker more eloquently states, with gobs (that’s the scientific term) of data, what I (and countless others before Pinker) have observed and believed about humanity for years: 

By almost every measurable standard, life is better now than it was in our past (recent and distant) for almost every human society, even the poorest among us.  And violence is undoubtedly on the decline. 

It’s sometimes difficult to believe those truths.  Some people willfully deny them despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.  Human society is more peaceful than it has ever been.  

Compared to the age of the earth and even compared to the time modern humans have walked on earth, our life spans are short (though getting longer all the time).  A generous one hundred years next to 200,000 is miniscule.  The blink of an eye.  We have an extremely difficult time comprehending times longer than a few decades, much less those on the scales such as these.  So, we get wrapped up in the here and now and compare something like what happened in Connecticut on Friday against our typical daily existence (which is usually quite peaceful, and relatively easy, especially in the west).  We are barraged daily by the media about the threat of terrorism, America’s homicide rate, and this atrocity and that one.  The news is littered with stories about murders, rapes, kidnappings, wars, and we think, what have humans descended to?  When will the violence end?  Surely, it wasn’t like this in the good ole’ days!  The truth is that more than ever before, humans are showing an ascendance of virtue.  We just have a natural tendency to remember the irregularities over the far more prolific prosaic experiences.

And the good ole’ days weren’t really that good after all.

Humans most certainly have a dark side.  Violence has always been a part of our species’ existence.  The capacity to commit violence has been evolving in us for millions of years along with other traits like competitiveness, ambition, empathy, compassion, and love. But consider this:  Only 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization in the world – the Roman Empire – regularly entertained themselves in great arenas by watching animals and humans rip other animals and humans to shreds in regular bloodbaths. This was their sport of choice. Gladiators were the Champions and heroes, the rock stars of their day.  People would spend an entire day eating, laughing, drinking while unbelievable carnage happened in front of them.  Today, in America, our bloodlust is channeled into the “violence” of football on Sunday afternoons, and into violent, but fictional, video games and movies. 

The Romans would have thought we are a weak society with those notions of violence.  They are welcome to that opinion.  But it is notable to consider how far we’ve come.  The Romans – the epitome of advanced and civilized society for their day – would have thought nothing of a game of football that resulted in mass homicide for one or both sides.  Simply for entertainment.

We have progressed.  We continue to do so.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe violence will evolve out of us anytime soon, (millions of years from now, perhaps) if ever. I’m often frustrated when people talk about the decline of our “culture.”  What this usually means is the loss of morality defined by religion.  Or the loss of some sort of repressed “Leave it to Beaver” style existence of post World War II America.  The fact is the murder of children, adults, sacrificial animals, is repeated over and over again within the bible (particularly the old Testament), and other holy books.  Violence was a far more acceptable and expected in everyday life for our ancestors than it is for us today.  Thankfully, we are moral in spite of some of the lessons taken from our holy books.  We are able to rationalize away, modify, or outright ignore those terrible stories of our religions’ (while retaining our religious beliefs) because we know that human suffering – especially the suffering of children — is bad.  

Through our intellect, capacity for reason, and the power of civilization (which despite popular belief to the contrary is the driving force of our mundane, peaceful lives), most of us are able to suppress the violent tendencies of our nature, ignore the casual and prolific violence of most of our history and our myths, and even decry with outrage when those tendencies are expressed in a rare event like Sandy Hook.  The better angels of our nature are far more prevalent today than they ever have been in our history as a species.  The atrocity of Friday, December 14, 2012 should not propel us to take emotional, and unnecessary actions that could be a step backwards from the progress of freedom and liberty that have helped bring those angels out to play far more than ever before.  At least not right now.  Not in the immediate wake of destruction when emotions are running high, and our rational sides are suppressed.  

We should mourn the loss of life.  We should remember them and cry over the lives shortened by the unspeakable evil that struck down so many before their lives had even really begun.  We should honor the heroic efforts of the protectors who died trying to save them.  We should support the families and friends of those lost.  We should try to figure out if anything reasonable can prevent another terrible day like that one, and talk about it without demonizing each other.  We should continue to progress and strive to eradicate violence from our nature, despite it being a fool’s errand.

But most of all, we should remember that life is precious.  Life is short.  Life is beautiful.  And this kind of evil is not who most of us are.  Not anymore.

 

Peace,

PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″]
Comments { 2 }

My Plea to Anyone Voting “Yes”: A Libertarian Marriage Amendment Perspective

By on October 9, 2012 in Liberty & Freedom, US & International Affairs

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RZVN56TAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”100″]On Election Day this year, Minnesotans – like myself — will vote on whether or not to add a ban of gay marriage to the state’s constitution.  This is an open letter to anyone planning on, or considering, voting “Yes”, as in, planning on voting to add the amendment to the constitution and thus ban gay marriage by law.  Even if you’ve made up your mind, I implore you to let me bend your ear (or eyes), and I promise in return to respect your choice, whatever it may be.  It can never hurt to have another perspective.  

Let me say upfront, I understand where you’re coming from.  Fifteen years ago or so, I would have absolutely voted “yes.”  My position at that time was largely informed by my religious values.  I’m not here to argue those views (if you share them) because they are unarguable.  If you hold certain religious beliefs, you hold those beliefs.   Nothing I can say here would change that, nor do I wish to try.  The debate on the merits of religion is not relevant to this issue, despite it being entwined with the issue in the media.

What is relevant is how you regard freedom, and the covenant We the People have with our government as expressed in the US Constitution.

You may say this amendment merely impacts a state constitution, but all state constitutions must adhere to the US Constitution as the ultimate law of the land.  If you read the US Constitution, you’ll note that all of the Amendments, except for the 19th (Prohibition of Alcohol), preserve the rights of the people, not limit them.  That one amendment limiting freedoms was repealed soon after it was enacted.  It didn’t work.

This is a powerful concept:  Laws limit freedoms; Constitutions preserve them. 

The US Constitution was designed so that no law could be created that limits freedoms (of the majority and the minority alike) preserved within it.  I am not going to argue that gay marriage is protected in the Constitution.  It’s not.  Not directly.  But the Founders very carefully crafted the original Bill of Rights with the intent of enabling individuals to pursue their own individual happiness without stepping on the rights of others to do the same.  That is the primary purpose of the Constitution.  

I’ll say it again in another way.  The Constitution is there to ensure you can do anything you want – anything – so long as you do not infringe on another person’s right to do the same.  

This new amendment if enacted, clearly limits the rights of certain individuals to pursue their own happiness.  This amendment if not enacted, does no such thing to any individual.  I take it as a very serious matter any law that restricts freedom for any reason.  You can disagree with a behavior and not require that it be set into law.  The creation of any law – much less one set in a constitution – should be undertaken with extreme caution, and thoughtful reason, and not merely on the basis of trying to mold the world into a single group or individual’s ideal.  We are all doomed to having our freedoms limited if we misunderstand that truth.

True freedom is messy.  True freedom requires that we live among people who do not hold our values.  True freedom requires that we work together, if not to live in harmony, then to at least leave each other alone.  Each law we add to the books tears down the fabric of true, voluntary (free) society a little more.  Would you rather your neighbor adopted your beliefs because they are beliefs worth having or because they are required by law to do so?

Another argument for voting “no” is more esoteric.  The discussion always turns to the idea that those who are pro-gay marriage want to “redefine” marriage.  The problem is that marriage has had vastly different definitions during our relatively short time as a country, much less throughout all our existence as social creatures.  If you have the time, I’d encourage you to read a fascinating book called [easyazon-link asin=”B000EUKR2C” locale=”us”]Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage[/easyazon-link] by Stephanie Coontz.  It is quite dense, but it is immensely thorough in its study of the history of marriage throughout human history, from ancient cultures, to our own.  One thing is certain: Marriage has never had a consistent definition.  

Marriage has been through many upheavals and re-definitions throughout its existence.  For example, marriage licenses required by states and other governments are a recent phenomenon.   Until very recently, the state had no business in “defining” marriage.  That was done by religious institutions and local custom.   In some cultures, a couple merely had to say “we’re married” for it to be binding.  Just as easily, they could say “I divorce you.”  The point being that marriage was a contract between individuals.  Some hold it as a religious sacrament, and that is fine.  Nothing prohibits you from getting married in a church, and having that recognized by God without getting a “legal” marriage certificate.  True, there are many “benefits” bestowed upon married couples in today’s law crazy world.  The stakes are high for deciding who is married.  I would solve that by saying the state should have nothing to do with deciding anything about marriage.  Leave that to We the People.  Leave that to your churches, mosques, and synagogues.  Leave that to you and your partner (gay or straight) to decide what commitment you want to have to each other and how you want that defined.   

Laws never succeed in changing behaviors as much as social pressure and good ideas do.  True democracy comes from the bottom up – from us – not from the top down via mandate.  Prohibiting alcohol did not eradicate its use, and alcohol abuse has arguably done much more to destroy the fabric of society and family than gay marriage could ever dream of doing.  I am not asking you to give up your beliefs about gay marriage.  As I said when I began this essay, I once believed as you do.  I understand why you hold those beliefs and do not wish to demonize them despite having significantly changed my own beliefs on the topic.  But I implore you to not be part of setting something in near stone because it does not conform to how you believe your life should be lived. 

The beautiful thing about this country and the ideals upon which it was founded is that people with vastly differing opinions and beliefs about how life should be rightly lived can literally live side by side in peace.  Thomas Jefferson was speaking of religious tolerance when he said the following, but I think it equally applies to the idea of marriage:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”  

The only way to ensure that one day your own ideals won’t be made illegal is to preserve the rights of others to be different — even if you don’t agree with their lifestyle — as long as they do not hurt you, take your property, or infringe upon your own rights to purse Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Voting “Yes” on this Amendment is about far more than gay marriage or marriage in general.  Voting “yes” sets us down the path to giving up on this Great American Experiment and deeming it a failure.  

That is the ultimate tragedy. 

I doubt I have convinced you to change your vote, but I hope I have at least given you something to consider.  Thanks for reading.  Vote “No!”

Cheers,

PersephoneK

Comments { 4 }