Intolerance by any other name.....

tol·er·ance

ˈtäl(ə)rəns/

noun

noun: tolerance

1. 1.

   the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

 

Have you ever noticed that words often seem to lose their meanings when politics are in play?

Take for an example the debate surrounding SB1062 in Arizona.  Supporters of the LGBT movement, as well as some others, have long proclaimed themselves as practitioners of tolerance.  Opponents of the legislation have declared supporters to be "intolerant". (see definition above)

I believe them to be 180 degrees out of sync with reality.

Let's compare and contrast the results the opposing sides seek.

 

Pro SB1062 - If enacted the bill would ensure the proprietors of privately owned businesses to refuse service to anyone, except for statutorily 'protected classes', to which they may have a religion based conflict.  In essence it would leave it up to the individual business owner to decide with whom to do business. It would not require anyone to refuse service they wish to perform.

 

In a supposedly free society, it seems to me that this legislation would be unnecessary.  Liberty means allowing people to make their own decisions, does it not?  The right to decide with whom to do business, for ANY personal reason, seems to be fundamental.

 

Con SB1062 - Opposition to this legislation means that the opponents want the government, and/or disgruntled citizens, to be able to use the force of law, on pain of prosecution or lawsuit, to mandate that everyone do things their way.  In other words they want to criminalize business decisions with which they disagree.

 

One side wants to let all business owners decide with whom to do business.  The other side wants to outlaw business practices they personally dislike.  Now, which side is truly intolerant?

The longest journey begins with a single step.

 

 Turn off music player at bottom of screen. 

I hadn't really anticipated hearing this spoken so boldly, but I'm not exactly surprised either.  It fits the pattern thus far.  In the past decade the gay rights activists have progressed from claiming to simply want tolerance, to acceptance, to public endorsement.  Did you really think it would end there?
Some of you will choose not to take this seriously.  After all, she doesn't speak for all gays, right?
That's quite true, but irrelevant.  In any 'movement', it is the activists that set the agenda. While it is surely true that many, most even, gays would be perfectly satisfied with "marriage equality", the activist leaders will not be.  It will be a minor but necessary victory on the march to their eventual goals. 
Movements don't just fold their tents and go away.  I remember very well, 15 or so years ago, that the Arizona legislature was debating the repeal of what were coined "archaic sex laws".  During the debate it was suggested that the proponents wanted to use it as a step toward legalizing gay marriage. Steve May, an openly gay state representative, vehemently denied it.  Look where we are now.
Anyone believing that this movement will come to a stop with gay marriage is either VERY naive or living in denial.

Liberal hypocrisy exposed. Again.

President Obama speaks a lot lately of his devotion to protecting innocent children.  I'd like to challenge that devotion.

For over a month now our nation has been in the throws of yet another debate over gun control.  It's not the first time and won't be the last.  Those in favor of establishing restrictions the types of weapons and ammunition private citizens can own are currently resting their arguments primarily on the devastating attack in Newtown, CT.  The stated motive: protecting our innocent children.

Aside from my belief that banning any type of weapons will do nothing to make us or our children any safer, and that the unintended consequences could actually do the opposite, I was met with a perplexing juxtaposition this week.  In the news of the week was an 'anniversary' of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision making abortion legal in all 50 states.  Some in our society celebrate this decision, and its anniversary, as a milestone accomplishment.  Oddly, at least in my view, the proponents of strict gun control measures, ostensibly for protecting children, almost unanimously favor abortion.  It is certainly true of the political leaders pressing the effort.  I find those positions to be absurd and irreconcilable.

To illustrate the absurdity of it I offer my point by point comparison of the two.

• The right to keep and bear arms is expressly listed in the Bill of Rights.  The right to an abortion was invented from whole cloth by the Supreme Court stretching to connect it to a right to privacy and based on medical knowledge of the 1960s. (At least one of those justices later stated that his decision was based partly on the perceived need for population control.)
• The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, as were those in all of the first 6, because the framers understood that they were the rights most likely to be threatened by future tyrants.  They also understood that some would attempt to chip away at this right a little at a time.  Thus the phrase "shall not be infringed", the strongest language found in the Bill of Rights.  Abortion, or anything like it, is never mentioned anywhere in any part of the Constitution.
• Second Amendment supporters are called extremists if they object to encroachments of their liberties that detractors call "reasonable gun control" measures, despite the strong prohibition to such expressed in the amendment.  Abortion rights activists fight against any limitations or even conditions, such as Informed Consent.
• There are millions of the proposed-ban guns currently owned by law abiding, responsible gun owners.  Less than .01% of those guns are ever used in a crime.  EVERY abortion ends in the brutal death of an innocent child.
• Gun control advocates claim the founding fathers could never have imagined the semi-automatic weapons we have today.  Regardless of what technology they envisioned, they intended for the citizens to have parity with their contemporary criminals and potential tyrants, foreign or domestic.  What the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned is tens of millions of innocent children being ripped piece by piece from their mothers' wombs, and that their mothers themselves would be co-conspirators.
• Abortion supporters claim that prohibiting abortion would lead women "into back alley abortionists" risking their health. This suggests an awareness of the concept of 'unintended consquences'.  Libs are not so willing to acknowledge the unintended consequences of banning semiautomatic weapons.  Dozens, if not hundreds, of citizens defend themselves with firearms every single day.  Most never have to fire a shot, simply making the would-be criminal aware of the firearm does the trick.  Under Fienstein's proposal, those people would likely become part of the violent crime statistics.
• This recent uproar was started by the senseless mass murder of 26 people, including 20 beautiful, innocent children.  That same day nearly 4,000 beautiful, innocent children were killed in American abortion clinics.  Sadly there were another 4,000 the next day.  And the next, And the next. 
• In the estimated 8 minutes in took for the Sandy Hook shooter to kill those 26, and every 8 minutes before and since, 51 healthy babies were slaughtered without being allowed to draw their first breath. (Presuming an average 10 hour/day, 6 day work week.)

The founding fathers warned us that tyrants and despots would attempt to limit our liberties.  In this instant Pres. Obama, Diane Feinstein, et al would have us believe that they attempt to do so as an attempt to save innocent lives.  I cannot accept that motive because their proclaimed devotion to saving the innocent rings very hollow.  They have the blood of millions of beautiful, innocent children on their hands.

Go ahead! Try not to cry.

Scott's Picks

That time has come that I've begun fielding phone calls asking about my picks on the ballot.
I have decided to post them on here this time too as an added resource.
As always remember that I am unabashedly conservative and all these picks come from that perspective. This also presumes that you live in the appropriate districts.
For candidates I will just give names.  No comments where there's only one name on the ballot.
I'll include a brief synopsis for the ballot initiatives. You can ask specific questions in the comments section and I will answer ASAP.

President - Mitt Romney
US Senate - Jeff Flake
US House - Matt Salmon
(9th District - Vernon Parker. Behind the scenes Kyrsten Sinema is an exceptionally vile person)
State Senate - Steve Yarbrough
State House - Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard.  Remember to vote for both.
Corporation Commission (I know, yawn) Burns, Stump, Bitter Smith
County BOS - Denny Barney
County Attorney - Bill Montgomery
Sheriff - Flip a Coin (I'm no Arpaio fan)
Water Conservation District - Whatever. Just don't vote for Terry Goddard. For anything. Ever.

I always vote NO on all the judges.  Not because I want to kick them out.  What most people don't seem to know is that we cannot vote them out.  If they win the retention vote they are automatically retained.  If they lose the vote it simply puts them up for a review board that will decide based on their individual merits.

PROPOSITIONS (buckle your seat belts)
(FYI - Propositions numbered in 100s are amendments to the state constitution. Those numbered in the 200s are statutory.)

114 - Yes.  No brainer.
115 - Undecided. Some reasonable reforms, but will give more power to the Governor in making court appointments. Sounds good when you like the governor, not so good when you don't.  Of course the current procedures tend to be 'left friendly', so the risk may have more upside than risk for conservatives.  But there is risk.
116 - Vague.  Seems to be a solution looking for a problem.
117 - Yes. If we see quick increases in property values again, this would limit the increases in property taxes to 5% per year.
118 - No opinion
119 - Sounds reasonable.  I haven't studied the precise language to check for possibilities of abuse.
120 - YES. 
121 - NO NO NO NO NO
204 - NO. This is a contentious one. Largely because people will misunderstand the ultimate effects.
This will be a PERMANENT increase in the state sales tax. This proposition will tie the hands of the legislature in unacceptable ways. It is a great example of the rule of unintended consequences, for which Arizona's initiative process has become renowned. The writers of this initiative, in an effort to assure the new revenue would actually increase education funding, have included restrictions that would restrict the legislatures ability to decrease the current sales tax base EVER, and annually increase education funding without being able to exercise discretion.  And thanks to Prop 206 from years ago, the legislature is forbidden from amending any statutes passed by initiative regardless of changing conditions.  It is short-sighted and will result in regret.

That's it folks.  I won't comment on City elections because I don't live in the city and honestly couldn't care less. 

What will we leave our children?

Our founders, having fled the tyranny of an overbearing government, envisioned a nation with liberty as its foundational principle.  This principle of self-mastery and individual sovereignty, designed my God, eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution enabled a relatively young nation to become the most productive, innovative, successful and powerful nation in the world's history.  This was due, in no small part, to the struggles faced by the generations: taming the land, expanding our reach, surviving by their wit and industry.  Through difficult eras of expansion, depression, and wars our resolve to our founding principles brought us through. 
But there is a consequence to such prosperity.  Well-meaning people began to forget that it was liberty that crafted our success and struggle that forged our character.  Many people began to believe, and many still do, that it is somehow compassionate to shield their children, and others, from such struggles and instead to ease their burdens.  Our national character suffered.  Now a large part of our population believe that the government should provide security rather than protect liberty.  This has spawned a generation now vying for leadership of the nation that has and fosters an entitlement mentality. Like any other Ponzi scheme it is short-sighted and ultimately unsustainable.
I believe the result will be that future generations, perhaps our children or grandchildren, will have neither liberty nor security.

A propensity for intensity

Personalities don't just come in different types and shapes, they come in different sizes too.
I have a larger than average personality.
Our personalities are not only made of up of individual traits, but how they mix and combine together. 
When you magnify charisma with a big personality, you end up with someone that's "larger than life".  Enlarge a less charismatic personality and you'll often just end up with someone that is "over the top".  I, unfortunately, am the latter.
This is not something of which I am completely ignorant.  But all too often awareness dawns just a little too slowly, leading to regret and remorse. 
With conscious effort I've learned to hold it in check most of the time.  But sometimes it seems to just come pouring out like a salt shaker cap someone failed to secure properly.  The results are similar too: someone ends up with more of my personality than they wanted. Sometimes a LOT more.
To people with normal size personalities, surrounded by other normal people, I can appear stressed, upset, or even angry when I'm not.  They mistake a sudden change in VOLUME of personality as a mood change. This is where the regrets come in because I can make people uncomfortable. That in turn sometimes leaves me feeling somewhat foolish.
I'll continue to work on managing it. It doesn't always fit with my desire to be more Christ-like. Meanwhile I hope those to whom I am close have, or will, come to understand.