The New Media Militia

Our latest question for Ray Buckley & Kathy Sullivan (NH Dem party Chair and former Chair) relates to the case of David Epstein, who conducted a consensual, three year, sexual relationship with his own daughter, starting when she was 21 years old.  (I’ll toss this one out to those of our more libertarian and socially liberal independent friends as well).

Question: If consensual sex (without coercion) between any two adults is a protected right, (gay sex is defended on these grounds) does the state have a right to prohibit sex between adult relatives, regardless of how closely related?

The pat answer (beyond the infamous ick factor) is that the risk of genetic mutation is too great.  Children of close relatives are more likely to be born with more or more severe mental or physical defects, or so the story goes. We should not risk  future generations to these kinds of physical and mental burdens (as if these folks had never heard of government run education.)  The best course is to simply prohibit contact, and that has more or less been the statutory position in the US.

But hey, you can’t help who you are attracted too, right? So what about abortion?

The acceptance of abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancy (by all classes of the socially liberal) make this genetic defense defense impossible to sustain with a straight face.  Life is already viewed by these folks as a potential mutation to be removed when the risk is no greater than an inconvenience to the mother.  If relatives want to have sex, there is no need to fear an unwanted pregnancy on those grounds.  If the birth control fails, just abort it?  Or is that too much responsibility for government to allow?

In New Hampshire, democrats, and some people elected as Republicans, already supported this solution.  The removal of parental notification laws to extend abortion rights to minors, without consent of a parent or guardian, always came with the risk of hiding acts of incest or rape, so this “solution” should not challenge their morality in the least.

Many of these more socially liberal folks are quite comfortable quantifying abortion by the number of weeks in the womb as if a pregnancy in the first two trimesters would never see the third, and then survive to see daylight, if left to its own devices.  Removing it prior to any defined marker is simply arbitrary so if life is arbitrary there can be no moral conflict.  Of course, life at conception creates human beings who have actual rights whether they want to admit it or not because conception leads to taxpayers if selfishness and technology do not step up to intercede with support from Rube Goldbergian morality puzzles.

But the puzzles are there, as are the semi-moral hi-jinks you get when people want sex to be more about pleasure than responsibility.  But abortion removes that responsibility so pregnancy resulting from incest, which is already almost universally accepted as justification for abortion, removes that objection to it.  So then, why do we still object?

Not every country objects, and that is the crux of David Epstein’s defense. That and civil support for gay sex.

So what about gay incest?  Democrats and the socially liberal should ask themselves about that as well.  If you can’t control to whom you are attracted, what about consensual sex between a father and son?  How or why is that situation different if there is a moral objection to a father having sex with his own adult daughter?  Wouldn’t it be sexist to be offended by heterosexual incest and not homosexual incest?

And while we are at it, why is there a prohibition on age?  What right does the state have to limit pleasure to anyone willing and able to engage in it?   We know that parents have no say when New Hampshire democrats are pulling the levers of power.  So what prevents them from admitting publicly that they have no moral objections to underage sex with whomever they are attracted to, or whomever is attracted to them?

Are democrats prepared to answer any of these questions? If there needs to be restrictions, age, relationship, then the next question has to be on what grounds, and if any of them are moral then the question of gay sex and gay marriage as a right are equally suspect.

I encourage a debate on the matter, and not just because it will piss off progressives.  I do not believe the left capable of reconciling all these questions under their umbrella of rights and equality.  Human rights are universal.  We all get them or none of us do.  When you start creating carve outs for political reasons you begin to create contradictions.  I think this is one of them.  Which of course would mean that sex based on attraction is not a right, it is a privilege–which we know to be true because sex against our will is still crime if  either party does not consent.

So what will it be? Are democrats the party of incest?  Inquiring minds want to know.

We’ve got loads of great video up at GraniteGrok from the big debate on HB 1 including floor debate, and interviews with leading House Republicans, with more to come.  I just do not have time to cross post it all.  So click on over and check it out for yourself!

 
Check it all out here: http://granitegrok.com/

A few people may be offended by this display of Kinetic Digital Action, especially from such a young fan, but who can argue that this is not a familiar pose to Red Sox fans of all ages; even when the Yankees are not in town?  Boston is regularly placed at or near the top of most ‘obnoxious fan’ lists and here’s why–they start training them early. 

He’s actually mad because a pop fly spilled his beer.

So it is opening day for the Red Sox.  The off-season held plenty of promise and we now have 162 chances for the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat.  Here’s to more victory than defeat.  (And here’s to hoping this picture shows up on someones facebook profile).

Game time is 4:05 (EST).  The Sox are in Texas against the Rangers.  Fifteen away games in April, and twelve at home.  (First home game is a week from Friday against the Yankees)

Go Sox!

 

 

 

 

NH Democrats and unions do not support New Hampshire workers rights.  If they did they’d be defending the other 90% of the states workers from the inequality in pay and benefits afforded to public union employees.  So this isn’t about workers rights, it is about protecting the big business of big Unions and democrat political campaign contributions, at the expense of 90% of New Hampshire’s workers.  If anyone is being an extremist it’s the democrats and their union backed, taxpayer funded ponzi scheme.pos

New Hampshire democrats are exposing their own hypocrisy again.  Doesn’t take much, but this time it is over HCR 19 which reaffirms our states sovereign duty to nullify actions by the general government in defense of New Hampshire residents.  Because the Federal government gets it power from the states, this is a constitutionally correct bill but democrats don’t like it.

But they liked the idea quite a bit when their democrat governor used nullification himself.  John Lynch was more than willing to refuse the implementation of Real ID, a federal program that sought to institute a national ID card like a domestic passport.   That law is still on the books but dozens of states have nullified it, including ours.  Is Lynch about to let the feds show up and issue ID cards?  I think he’d try to prevent that.  HCR 19 just affirms an authority governor Lynch and the state legislature already claims to have.

And how about medical marijuana?  Lynch isn’t a huge fan, but there are plenty of democrats who want to pass a law allowing its use, despite the fact that this would nullify federal laws which make it illegal.   Should we round up every democrat who voted for that bill and call them extremists?  If you listen to the democrats and their party leaders, we had best do that right away.

Then there’s Thomas Jefferson.  Mr. Jefferson wrote a lot of letters, and not just to Baptists about walls of separation between church and state.  He was also a big fan of walls between states and the federal government.  He even helped write resolutions to that fact, permitting states to ignore federal laws they believed violated the constitution and subverted the states sovereign authority over the rights of their residents.  Letters.  Lots of letters. 

So if Thomas Jefferson’s letters have the force of constitutional might when it suits the left, but have no force at all when it does not…?  Sounds partisan, biased, prejudicial, even discriminatory.  

The fact is that HCR19 is simply an affirmation of policies and positions democrats in New Hampshire have already taken and continue to take.  So what is more extremist?  Attacking political opponents over what you yourselves have already done, or ignoring the fact you’ve done it because it happens to fit the current ideological template?

You want to know what else is extreme?  That, Ray Buckley and the New Hampshire democrats appear willing to give your earnings, your property, your rights, your very person into the care of distant caretakers in Washington DC.  That Washington can have it, or come and take it, whenever they want.  That the democrats are wholly unwilling to separate your needs. or those of your state. from people who live in Alaska, New Mexico, Hawaii, or anywhere else.  They are saying that if a handful of bureaucrats down in Washington DC (elected or not) make a decision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, your state has no right to question it, they must simply enforce it.  

Is that the new position of New Hampshire democrats?  We are incapable of governing ourselves?  That our values and ideas have no worth if they contradict the ideas and values of Washington politicians, unelected boards or bureaus, power brokers or unelected lawyers in robes?  

Subservience to the “Crown” is the new mantra of New Hampshire Democrats.  

Good to know.

Is Obama serious or is this another shovel full of…

“…if history is any guide, any legislation to facilitate this latest “energy utopia,” (even one with oil in it) will be 3000 pages of nonsense that cripples the industry while spending hidden billions to create a new bureau to regulate cheese puff manufacturers, Phrenologists, and on-road truckers.

Read the entire thing here

On the oppressive nature of public unions….

“The facts are that the tenure system sucks.  It denies a younger generation of employees a future in their chosen fields.  The taxpayer propped up benefits are anything but equal, out of touch with economic reality, and with over 50 billion (is it higher?) in unfunded State pensions, unsustainable.  And the only workers and families getting screwed are the ones who do not have an organization with captive donors, access to millions of dollars nationally, well heeled lawyers, and well paid professional organizers like Mr. Foley, who sue that money and union power to keep their members well fed at the expense of others.”

Read the whole thing here: http://granitegrok.com/blog/2011/03/2012_cant_come_fast_enough.html

I’d go so far as to limit access to news, music, radio, if that is not already the case.  Especially liberal media–way too violent.  A pot and a cot.  That’s it.  And exercise?  Work is exercise.  Some work more than others.  Put them to work.  And keep them isolated from each other unless they have to eat or work.  It’s not a social gathering.  It’s prison.  It is a punishment.

And like Sheriff Hodgson says,”why are we paying them to be in prison?  They should be paying us.” And so they should.  Remember that whole “debt to society thing?” Start paying it.

And while they should have plenty of reading material, it should be limited to the kinds of books you’d give to public school kids who don’t live in Bedford New Hampshire.  No sex, no violence, and please, nothing by Al Gore or anyone who works at the  New York Times.

Movie night might be a nice treat.  I seem to recall the Sheriff telling us stories about how these guys were watching violent action flicks.  He made a change.  Say hello to Disney.  I think that’s what he said.  Maybe I’m confusing him with Sheriff Arpaio again, but the point is the same.  It’s something you get for good behavior, you keep it limited, and you keep it kid friendly.  Uplifting and spiritually motivating.

How about the environment?  I hear that in Japan they keep it just pleasant enough to be tolerable.  Maybe that’s just urban legend but it has a nice ring to it.   Keep that thermostat on the edge of uncomfortable.  Not too warm in winter, not too cool in summer.  Makes you re-think your life choices when the result of bad behavior is a quiet, uncomfortable cell with no entertainment, no work out gear, lousy food, and poor company.  What is this place a prison?  Yeah, just one or two steps from the average doctors office waiting room but no Cosmo.

Then there’s health care.  I’m not sure what the Sheriff said, but he had an innovation there as well.  Apparently the inmates like to abuse the free heath care; free to them, expensive for  taxpayers.  Medication and treatment reforms are an imperative.  Remove any incentive to abuse the system and you’ll see costs drop.

As I said in the opening, I have no idea what goes on in New Hampshire’s prison system, but I bet a few of you do.  Are we following any of these policies?  Better yet, should we?  And if we should, where’s the legislation or rule making authority to get this ball rolling.