Saturday, April 4, 2015
I want the raspberry-lemon free-trade chocolate four-layer from the place on twelfth street and I want it shaped like my favorite characters from Walking Dead OR ELSE
(Why do I feel like I've seen this show already?)
Even could such things be weighed against each other, a single hungry child's life would vastly outweigh the indignation felt by a million plump Americans who can't buy the right kind of cake for their ten-thousand-dollar wedding celebration.
In 1899, how many of those people would have been protesting against Roosevelt for piling up mass graves of still-writhing Filipinos in the name of freedom? In 2003, how many of those people would have been criticizing Dubya for liberating Iraqis via bombs? In 2007, how many of them were nodding along with scathing critiques of Dubya in The Atlantic, in which the use of terms like "liberty" and "freedom" was analyzed as a hypocritical, deceptive manipulation meant to justify a militarized oil-grab?
It needs little saying that now, the white nationalists are objecting to land wars in Asia, which have ceased to be Dubya's heroic defenses of the Homeland, and have become instead Obama's socialist interventionism. Not far away, the braying narcissists of Comfytown, USA are united in their newfound belief that "liberty" means "armed gunmen forcing some guy to make a wedding cake for customers he doesn't like." Not ten years ago, they were, like, totally against the idea of armed gunmen eliminating Sharīʿah--no matter how bigoted they thought Sharīʿah might be--but they've suddenly realized their error. The would-be ABDs of whimsical America's MeMeMe Fads, Inc. once wrote extensive blog posts on how the Taliban's religious views, however extreme, were far less important than the carnage Dubya had caused in Afghanistan (I read dozens of those essays myself, and agreed with them all), but now--despite simultaneously critiquing the militarization of police--MeMeMe Fads, Inc. employees care more about enforcing their preferred secular strictures than they do in letting people self-determine. Less than a year after wringing their hands anew over Missouri's slave patrols, they don't mind writing laws that send Darren Wilson and his 9MM into any local bakery where some moron wants to lose a few dollars' profit.
American MeMeMe Math
What a shame these fair weather anti-interventionists were. If Obama murders thirty people at a wedding party, and if 1/4 of those people were gay, what is the value of the stolen lives?
If Rudy Smith the Christian wedding photographer refuses to take pictures at a gay wedding, and Ian and Jacob have to spend almost eight full seconds googling a different wedding photographer, and they tell their story to thirty of their guests, what is the value of their collective indignation?
Well? Which number is bigger? Which occurrence should we be more upset about? Does it matter how many of the dead Pakistani guests were 100% gay, or how many were merely bisexual? Do the straight Pakistani victims matter as much as the gay ones when compared to Ian and Jacob's indignation over the wedding photographer? Does it matter if some of the Pakistanis presented as straight, but were secretly harboring demisexual inclinations? Does it change things if one of the victims had been intending to visit a pharmacy after the reception to refill her birth control pills, but now can't do so because Obama inseminated her brain with eight slivers of steel?
Ding Dong. Have you ever thought about...?
Amongst the innumerable ironies of this latest drosstraction is that this symbolic battle--being fought not between bigots and actually-affected people, but between fad-shoppers and people who think the totalitarian state can be stopped--is that this is what so many religious people have wanted all along. All of the Gideons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Westboro Baptists, too-eager Salvation Army Santas, and hip new youth pastors putting up advertisements everywhere--why would they ever think of resisting this? This is an occasion where the totalitarian state wants to force them on other people!
What we need is a nationwide explosion of JW wedding photographers to drive all other wedding photographers out of business. And then, at every single wedding they shoot, the JWs can show up two hours early, and begin setting up folding tables covered in complimentary rainbow-speckled copies of The Watchtower. They can mill inappropriately about the reception, mentioning Jesus every tenth word, smiling constantly, filming their endless blessing of the union, and encouraging people to come to their meetings and to donate (I know, I know, JW is a cult that uses their completely ineffective home-visits to embarrass and isolate their dues-paying members from the larger community, but still, this could apply to any other organization except the Mormons, Unitarians, and other pro-business groups that don't let themselves get held back by measly "scripture" and "doctrine"). What a strategy! Before long, no one LGBT would want professional wedding photography. They'd do it themselves, and the JWs would go out of business, and things would resume their normal, slightly-less-unfree state of Americana.
(For an example of this approach as used at border checkpoints, see this.)
This could have fallback, though. The diversity lobbyists might take another step in the totalitarian direction, and call for legislation to ban professional wedding photography entirely. But we can use that to our advantage, because at least then there would be no more professional wedding photographers. And if the Westboro Baptists took over all the bakeries, then picketed the weddings at which they catered, then people would have to make their own simple, homemade wedding cakes, and if all wedding quartets or deejays started working bible-talk programs into their dance rotations, then people would have to bring their own friends playing live instruments, or just converse, instead of spending nine grand on a techno DJ and an open bar patronized by a bunch of casual acquaintances being used to plump the event's numbers.
I know, I know--I jest. The next step is to prohibit references to cultural texts or traditions which could conceivably offend someone else's cultural texts or traditions, unless the latter cultural texts or traditions have been deemed to be officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions by the State, in which case it's acceptable to employ non-officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions to demean the officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions, but not okay to employ officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions to demean the non-officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions of groups whose non-officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions have been so deemed by the State, provided the non-officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions do not, in so doing, inadvertently or otherwise cause offense to different non-officially-offensive cultural texts or traditions which are then defined as non-officially-offensive by the State. It's a perfectly rational, simple process, and as has been said before, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
But the one plus of totalitarian regimes is that, like narrow mustaches, they're at least good for a few jokes. We might as well hope for a few Watchtower Weddings before some new Clinton or Stalin institutes some kind of Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for preferences about sexual preferences.