Source Material

The Queen has been out on her annual fall trek through the thrift stores hunting clothing and other apparel for our upcoming trip (hopefully Haweewee if it doesn't get blown off the map by the hurricane currently spinning up in the Pacific). So, she sends me a text at the office with the a photo of the following t-shirt:

She allowed as how it was the perfect shirt for me...since I typically refuse to accept much of anything without critically assessing the facts and source material.

I can't help it. I come by my flaw honestly as I was trained that way by a wise, old, Jesuit priest turned history professor in my history methodology class. The man had to be in his 70s at least at the time, and that was...more than a few years ago. Let's just say, if that man is still creeping around this old mud ball, I'm shooting him in the head on general principle. You can't be too careful to prevent a zombie outbreak.

God will sort it out.

Anyspeculation, there was a point to this post. I'm sure of it.

Oh yes...critical assessment of facts and source material.

That old Jesuit had all us wannabe history majors do a project (a research paper really) the main point of which was an annotated bibliography. He didn't really care what the subject of the paper was as long as the bibliography was annotated with a critical assessment of the source material including whether it was primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. He also wanted us to take it a step further and assess whether the source material exhibited any bias (this came back to bite me in the butt with my African history professor, but that's a story for another time).

Fast forward mumble, mumble years, and that is one the lessons that has stuck with me to this day. Unfortunately, I think this lesson has been lost on an entire generation (or more) of people.

Case on point. The other night, I come home from work to find two, brand new, freshly purchased boxes of Cheerios (M&M's preferred breakfast cereal) on a pile of stuff being gathered for donation. I queried The Queen as to the reason suspecting something was afoot.

The Queen informed me that my father-in-law, Opa, had told her that he had read an article somewhere that claimed Cheerios contained dangerous levels of a particular pesticide residue. Opa is one of those people for whom a little information is a dangerous thing (no, seriously, he's never met an internet scare of conspiracy theory that he hasn't latched onto). He really should not be let loose with an internet connection without a minder.

This revelation, as one would expect, caused my eyebrows to raise and set off my facial tics just a touch.

I set about investigating the claim du juor. Opa was questioned regarding the source of the Cheerios Challenge. After much fumbling about the dustier corners of his memory, we were able to tease out the source of the pesticide proposition. It was a news article from the Detroit Free Press linked to from the Natural News website referring to a study done by a group called Environmental Working Group.

Now we were getting somewhere. I start doing my due diligence on EWG. EWG claims to be a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting human health and the environment. A laudable goal to be sure. Funding is primarily from grants and individuals. Notable names among the donor list is the Walton Family Foundation (think Sam Walton of Wal-Mart fame) and The Turner Foundation (Ted Turner - CNN Founder). They also have corporate partnerships with many of the bigger names in organic foods.

Nothing about this is particularly alarming. It's not like George Soros or the Koch Brothers are involved. Having said that, did I mention EWG has a lobbying arm? Silly me. That must have slipped my mind. And regarding what issues do they lobby? Environmental, agricultural, food, toxic chemicals, etc.

So, they are environmental advocates. Again, nothing particularly wrong with that, but it could color their findings on certain topics or influence their reporting of facts. We'll get back to that in a minute.

I tracked down the article EWG posted about glysophate levels in foods. Glysophate, for the uninitiated, is the evil active ingredient in RoundUp (created by the nefarious mega corporation Monsanto...yes, I'm being a tad tongue in cheek). It seems that EWG commissioned a laboratory study of glysophate levels in common breakfast cereals. The article published by EWG reporting the results of the lab study started with a link to a recent California jury verdict in which Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million to a plaintiff dying of cancer allegedly caused by exposure to glysophate. They then get into a discussion of the levels of glysophate in food allowed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (1.1 milligrams per day for a 154 pound average person), the EPA (not specifically noted by referenced to be 60 times higher than the CA state allowable level) and the EWG's calculated "one in a million" cancer risk of 0.01 milligrams per day.

The original article I read did not "show their work" on the math, but it seems to have been corrected as they now report that a person would have to eat a 60 gram serving of food exceeding 160 parts per billion glysophate concentration to reach their calculated risk level of 0.01 millgrams per day (which, by the way, is 110 times lower than the  level the state of California says is too much which in turn is 60 times lower than what the EPA says is too much). So, just to put a bow on the math, EWG is saying that the safe level of glysophate in foods SHOULD be 6600 times lower than the level currently allowed by the EPA. They don't make a convincing case for why the level should be 6600 times lower than the EPA or 110 times lower than the state of California. Instead, they seem content to make the argument that it is a chemical linked to cancer and is therefore bad in any quantity.

For the record, I'm not volunteering to drink or otherwise consume 1.056 million parts per billion (that's 160 parts per billion times 6600) concentrations of glysophate in my daily Cheerios; and, truthfully, EWG may not be wrong in their conclusion. I just take issue with the manner in which they are presenting their information.

Back to the report on the study results. First off, the article currently on their website has been drastically revised from the version I read a few days ago, and I really wish I had a screen capture or PDF copy of the original to compare and contrast. The current version shows that EWG took samples of 45 conventional breakfast cereals and 16 organic breakfast cereals and tested them for glysophate concentration. They then report the test results in concentration parts per billion for each sample. All fine and dandy so far. Where things really went off the rails in the original article was that samples results were grouped according to which ones had unsafe levels (color coded in red...for contrast I'm sure). The thing that really bugged me in the original was that  they did not make it clear that the table of results categorized each product according to EWG's much lower concentration level.

To clarify further, the report starts out talking about concentration levels in milligrams per weight before  shifting to parts per billion in the lab results table. The revised article does now provide a brief conversion from milligrams per serving to parts per billions, but the original article did not.

Even in the revised article, if someone is not reading carefully, they might miss that critical distinction. The skeptic in me suspects that was EWG's intent in order to advocate for a new, lower standard for safe concentration levels.

Another, in my opinion, glaring omission from EWG's article is the results of other scientific testing on glysophate, a discussion of the MSDS sheet on the chemical, etc. For instance, it took me literally seconds to find out that the WHO and UN studies on glysophate determined that mammal animal models suggest that concentrations as high as 2000 milligrams per kilogram of  body weight was not associated with genotoxic effects. There's more detail out there than I'm willing to transcribe or cut and paste here. Bottom line is that you would probably have to ingest enough to drown yourself before you'd be at a legitimate risk of getting cancer, and you'd probably puke it up before you got close to those dosage levels.

After I pointed out these little details, the Cheerios mysteriously reappeared in the pantry.

Now, this is just one little drop of questionable information in a practical galactic ocean of information floating around the internet. Why should you care? Well, the president attacks CNN almost daily accusing them of being fake news. Fox News claims to be fair & balanced. Alex Jones gets banned from social media for making wild claims reported as news. For every EWG, there is a company or interest group lobbying for the opposite position. And let's not forget all those companies out there trying to make a buck selling snake oil and legitimate products.

Everyone, it seems, is publishing information at the speed of light. The incredible quantity of information being published everyday makes it impossible to fact check it all. That is why it is so incredibly important to learn to critically assess source material.

So, the next time you hear someone ranting about the latest scandal, conspiracy theory, social justice melt down...etc. Take a step back and dig into the source material with a critical eye. I'd bet that, more often than not, you'll find discrepancies in the reporting that will be most illuminating.

I Seem To Have Hit A Nerve

Yesterday's open letter to the mainstream media has 942 page views recorded by Blogger so far. That's about 10 times my normal page view count for a single post and doesn't include people reading via a feed reader. Me thinks I tapped into a little pent up anger there. Thank you everyone who came by to take a look.

Dear Mainstream Media

While you are busy getting over having your pants yanked down around your ankles and your underwear pulled up to your ears by the new administration, can we have a moment to discuss a few things that the American public would like you to know?

1) No one trusts you anymore. This may come as a shock to you, but the days when the American public accepted the word of a reporter as gospel went out the door a long time ago. I'd venture a guess that ship sailed when Edward R. Morrow retired; or, maybe, when Walter Cronkite signed off the air for the last time with "...and that's the way it is." If you want someone to blame, go look up Dan Rather and ask him why HE felt the need throw away his journalistic integrity in favor of bias and partisan politics. The 2016 election demonstrated vividly just how biased and "in the tank" for progressive liberalism you have become, and we are sick of it. Here's a novel idea: how about you stick to reporting FACTS without spin or bias and let us feeble minded folks in the audience form our own opinions.

2) Words have meanings, you have access to dictionaries, put two and two together and start acting like you know the English language. A RIOT is not a PROTEST. Martin Luther King staged peaceful protests. So did Ghandi. (Insert tantrum throwing group of the day here) destroying public and private property, beating people who disagree with them and basically engaging in an anarchistic orgy of destruction is a RIOT and a CRIME. Someone who enters this country on an approved visa and applies for legal resident or citizenship status is an IMMIGRANT. Someone who crosses the border ILLEGALLY and makes no effort to apply for legal resident status or citizenship is an ILLEGAL ALIEN or an INVADER. One is a CRIMINAL and the other is a threat to NATIONAL SECURITY. Get it straight if you ever have any hope of regaining any measure of trust from the people you serve.

3) We understand that there is a lot of news to cover and that not everything is "newsworthy", but be aware that what you choose to cover and not cover is as much a part of journalistic integrity as is the language you choose to report the news. The "Fast and Furious" gun running scandal should have been extensively covered, and Eric Holder should be in jail over that. Ditto for Hillary's email server scandal. Donald Trump's locker room comment from 10+ years ago...still relevant but not nearly as critical as mishandling of firearms or sensitive government information by senior administration officials. While we are on the subject, repeating the same news every hour on the hour on a 24 hour cable news network is ridiculous. Use some of that time to air a few more note worthy stories.

4) The media should treat all politicians equally: suspiciously at best and preferably like lying, thieving, conniving dirt bags. It is disingenuous to suddenly give a flying flip about abuse of executive orders when you've been conspicuously quiet about it for the last eight years. Journalistic integrity demands that no one gets soft ball questions, evasive answers need to be challenged, and no one should be immune from close scrutiny. You can complain about Donald Trump's decade old locker room comments when you publish Barack Obama's college transcripts.

5) We the people really do not care what a Hollywood or sports celebrity thinks about politics, national security, little green men or global warming unless they just happen to be running for office, quitting the NFL to join the Army, was abducted on live TV or has a Ph.D in climatology. We want facts and not airheaded opinions from someone to whom we pay good money to "Shut up and Dance Monkey." Using celebrities to forward an agenda is playing to vanity, and it is part of the reason the public's trust of your services are in the toilet.

In closing, the media has an awesome responsibility to be guardians of the public trust. Use it wisely or lose it forever. We are watching.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

More Changes

It was with great optimism that I attempted to resume regular blogging here a while back. I think the results speak volumes about how that worked out. Life, as usual, has been in a near constant state of flux thanks to health issues (mine and others), work issues, crazy ideas and the overwhelming need to sleep once in a while.

So, in an effort to make things even MORE complicated than they already are, I went and made a Facebook page for the blog. Facebook claims you can visit the page at fb.me/preachersandhorsethieves . I would assume that searching "Preachers and Horse Thieves" will get you roughly in the ballpark as well, but I have been wrong before.

In theory, this will allow me to post quick thoughts and pictures from my phone without the need to actually think and edit. We shall see how this works out.

Fox News Has WAYYYY Too Much Time on Their Hands

Now, I know that the mainstream media went in the tank a long time ago and does everything in its power to avoid actual fact based reporting with any kind of integrity especially regarding anything vaguely important like EVERY SINGLE FRIKKIN' SCANDAL BLOWING UP IN DC RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

But,...

THIS is a tad ridiculous.

Someone at Fox thought it would be a great story to dig into whether the UNITED STATES NAVY has an opinion about whether or not CAP'N CRUNCH is a fraud.

You have GOT to be smokin' crack Batman. The press should be busy slow roasting the current administration over hot coals on a spit slathered in barbeque sauce NOT trying to determine whether a flippin' CARTOON character on a kids CEREAL box is "for realsies".

Bread and Circuses. The Romans at least had gladiator matches involving real men putting their lives on the line. We get stuck with American Idol and the NBA Finals.

If you will excuse me, I think I just prolapsed my spleen and the idea of getting drunk for breakfast just became very appealing. It's a shame I gave up profanity over a decade ago. The "universal adjective" yelled at high volume over a bullhorn would feel very cathartic right now.

An Open Letter

Dear Dr. Kermit Gosnell*,

You do not know me, and I do not know you. My God warns me not to judge others lest I be judged myself; however, I your case, I would say that you had best be glad that I am not on the jury or in the same room with you. That judging others thing and the whole "vengeance is mine sayeth The Lord" thing just might have to be conveniently forgotten for a time.

Having said that, I do not write to condemn you as God will see to that far better than I ever can no matter how temporarily satisfying it may be to me. No, instead I write to thank you. I know that may come as a shock to you at this point in your legal troubles; however, it is a true and sincere thanks that I offer you nonetheless.

Why do I wish to thank you? Quite simply, you have succeeded in restoring some small measure of my humanity to me that I had thought lost forever. You see, I have been in the insurance claims business for over 17 years now, and I have seen some much injury, death and destruction that I am numb to it. I became immune to the tragedies of others. Very little, if anything, disturbs me to my core anymore.

That is, until you came to my attention. When I first read the story of your alleged crimes a week or so ago, I was not surprised that it had not made bigger headlines. Why cover the legal troubles of an abortion doctor when there is the blood of innocents to dance in in the furtherance of a gun control agenda?

Then I scanned an article too fast and saw a photo depicting the results of your "snipping" procedure. To say that I was shocked is an understatement, and I do not shock easily. I have seen charred bodies, decapitations and more in my line of work far more often that I care to admit. Those tragedies were merely the result of accident and misfortune. Your procedure, in comparison, is the work of precise, clinical intent.

And that is what disturbed me to my core.

That you could look at a perfectly formed infant (and don't you dare try to say it was nothing more than a fetus) and do what you do without a second thought is in my mind absolute purest evil far worse than anything that Jeffrey Dahmer or any other mass killer has done. Not only have you decimated an entire population of infants, you did with absolute cold hearted precision and you took payment for the service.

As a new father thanks to the miracle of adoption, my heart truly breaks for the hundreds and probably thousands of lives that you have ended. I do not understand what would lead a woman to seek out the services you and others like you provide, and it is not in my power to forgive in this lifetime. Perhaps I am not spiritually converted enough yet, but it is the truth nonetheless.

God will surely demand a reckoning from you, and I pray that I will be able to see His justice done.

In the meantime, I do thank you for showing me that there is still some humanity residing within me.

Sincerely,

Daddy Hawk

P.S. Seriously, never, ever come into my presence. Witnesses will not protect you.

P.P.S. Since the death penalty does not appear to be on the table for you, I'd ask for solitary confinement if I were you.

*For those that do not know or have not heard who Dr. Gosnell is, Goggle him at your own risk. Scan articles slowly as some contain graphic photos that can not be unseen.

Points to Ponder - Vacuum Advertising

Vacuums are perhaps the only product only the planet that you can say that it sucks and it be a good thing. If a vacuum doesn't suck, it's a bad thing. Why for have advertisers not picked up on this yet?

Sample TV/Radio Commercial:

Scene: Man and wife in the housewares department

Wife: Honey, which vacuum should we buy?

Salesperson: Well, the [brand x] vacuum really sucks.

Wife: Why would I want to buy a vacuum that sucks?

Salesperson: Isn't that what you want it to do?

Husband: Good point.

Fade to product info screen.

Wing Nut Alert

As an avid spectator of the American society in general and the political landscape in particular, I’ve really come to appreciate the diversity of stupidity I see every day in the news, in my work, and in life in general. I’ve learned that there is no such thing “foolproof”, “idiot-proof” or “responsible government spending”. We are Americans. We have the technology and the lack of will power necessary to make bigger and better idiots. We crank them out of schools like .22 long rifle ammunition….cheap and marginally effective. For those who are not gun enthusiasts, you can pick up a box of .22LR ammo 500 rounds to a box for less than $20 with at least 5 duds per box.

No, to answer the question forming in your brain, I have no faith in humanity as a whole. I had a sociology professor in college who used to pontificate that the only animal in existence with 100s of stomachs and no brain was an angry mob. Or Congress. Individually, there are several bright and shining examples of peoplehood that give me a small grain of comfort that all is not lost for the species; but, as a group (and especially when gathered together in groups…or mobs…or governments), people are dumber than a bag of hammers.

At least a bag of hammers is useful.

Anyway, I mention my views on humanity as a whole because of an email I received from mom. Mom is an unapologetic and unrepentant email forwarder. I don’t mind because, usually, the stuff she sends is interesting, cute, funny or otherwise entertaining. I do, however, frequently do a Snopes check on some of the stuff she sends when it sounds too farfetched to pass the smell test.

Mom has learned to accept and even embrace my skepticism. It’s her fault. She raised me. So, she can’t complain too loudly.

So, yesterday I open up the email account and find an email from mom:

You are always the one that can sort out fact from fiction. Here is one for you.

Love MIMI

See, I told you she had embraced her calling as MIMI. And you didn’t believe me did you? I digress. It’s a habit.

The email she forwarded to me yesterday was a rather polemic diatribe about how Hillary Clinton signing a UN Small Arms Trade Treaty means that the Obama administration is going to circumvent the Second Amendment by confiscating guns from law abiding Americans by executive fiat to comply with the UN Treaty in violation of the constitution…run for it!...shiny black helicopters…SOCIALISM!!! (seriously…in bright red, all capped, 32 point type)

Trust me. That one sentence sums up the content and thought process of whoever wrote that mess. I really wish there was a way to link to my email account so you could get the full effect. Copying and pasting into Blogger just won’t do it justice. Not that I won’t try.

On a side note, do you notice that you can never really tell who originated an email like that? Somehow, the original email header detail always winds up getting deleted in the forwarding. There should be some internet etiquette class to teach people how to forward things so the origination information does not get lost. It’d probably only trace back to a generic hotmail account; but, just once, I’d like to see the original header with the date sent and an email account name like BillyJoeBob(at)weaselmail.com. It’d be nice to put a name with the mental image I have of some guy in a trailer park with militia flags all over his 1960s vintage single wide and a rabbit ear TV antennae sticking out the bathroom/kitchen window.

I digress again. That’s two in one post. Maybe I’ll try for the hat trick and a new personal best.

Anyway…Here’s how the email starts out:

While you were watching the oil spill, the New York failed terrorist bombing and other critical crises, Hillary Clinton signed the small arms treaty with the UN.
OBAMA FINDS LEGAL WAY AROUND THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND USES IT. IF THIS PASSES, THERE COULD BE WAR
On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States
On Wednesday the Obama administration took its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Again, you really don’t get the full effect without the flaming, multicolored, multisized type. That’s not the point here though. As is my usual SOP, I started researching the email. There was a link to a October 15, 2009 Reuters news article in the email which I dutifully clicked and read. Typical news speak reporting on the activities of the traveling pant suit masquerading as our Secretary of State. The point is that, when you read the Reuters article and then read email, you will notice some glaring holes in the author’s thought process. Not unlike Swiss cheese or a homeless person’s underwear.

First, Hillary Clinton did not sign a UN Small Arms Treaty because no such treaty yet exists. What she did was indicate that the Obama administration is willing to support such a treaty under certain circumstances which is a change from the Bush administration’s opposition to such a treaty. Secondly, this change in position was delivered at a working conference on the development of a small arms treaty. Minor details.

Second, neither the President nor the State department has the authority to bypass the normal legislative process when it comes to treaties. The President and State Department are tasked with negotiating treaties. Any and all treaties negotiated by the executive branch must first be ratified by two thirds of the Senate before having the weight of law. Any such treaty ratified by Congress could then be challenged in court if the aims of the treaty infringed upon the constitutional rights of citizens as is alleged by our mystery writer here. The chances of a treaty limiting firearms ownership in America being ratified by the Senate in any election cycle much less one where there is a very real chance of shift in the balance of power in Washington is almost non-existent. No senator up for reelection wants to be on record as voting to limit firearms ownership and draw the wrath of the NRA and thousands of gun and Bible toting rednecks around the country.

The next part of the email starts wading into conspiracy theory territory:

Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment. This has happened in other countries, past and present! THIS IS NOT A JOKE OR A FALSE WARNING.

What? A politician lying, obfuscating or otherwise saying one thing while having someone else do the dirty work of pursuing his true agenda? No. That would never happen. They’re saints, right?

Seriously though, does President Obama have a desire to limit ownership or transfer of firearms in America? Despite his public statements to the contrary, I would be surprised if the progressive liberal democrat from Chicago (land of the disarmed, besieged, huddled masses) currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. (or the nearest golf course) DIDN’T have a desire to enact stricter gun control.

Before we all go running to the nearest gun store to stock up, let’s take a deep breath and see if there is anything that might shed more light on this alleged small arms treaty. A quick Google search of “UN Small Arms Trade Treaty” will direct you a few short clicks later to the “Report of the Group of Governmental Experts to examine the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms”

If you take the time to read the 16 page report, about half of which is a listing of the people involved in the conference to develop the report, you’ll find out that this is about limiting illegal, international small arms trading as a means to limit terrorism, organized crime and human rights violations. All laudable goals. Not one word about confiscation of legal arms from law abiding citizens.

As I mention, in part, in my response to mom:

The problem is that politicians so frequently manage to blur the line between fact and fiction. To make matters worse, extremists on both sides of a given issue blur that line even further. I try, whenever possible, to straight to the source. In this case, it only took a few minutes to find the UN expert report for the working group on the Arms Trade Treaty. There is no specific treaty wording to review and say "Aha!" to yet. The report is about as close as you get for now.

The focus of the proposed treaty is what to do about the international illegal small conventional arms trade to combat terrorism, organized crime, human rights violations, etc. By small arms, they are referring to everything from machine guns and battle rifles to shoulder fired missiles to C4 explosives and hand grenades, etc. Stuff that your average citizen can't get their hands on anyway. Nothing I read in the report suggested an effort to take away lawful weapons from citizen. The key there will be lawful weapons as there is no definition of what the highest standard for internal controls should be.

Could it be used as a means to crack down on individual gun ownership? I suppose everything is possible now that we have "healthcare reform" that the majority of Americans didn't want.

Love,

Your Son (head researcher, chief wing nut exposer and BS detector)

There's another section or two to BillyJoeBob's email, but I've got to get to work.

My advice…keep an eye on it. Be an avid spectator of our elected horse thieves.

BillyJoeBob(at)weaselmail.com’s advice: Silence will lead us to Socialism!!!

The News is all Happy and Gay

Even though it’s usually depressing, I try to keep abreast of the news so that I have at least a vague idea of what’s going on in the world around me. I still remember going to a retreat up in the mountains of Washington state which was so far removed from any contact with civilization that there was no phones, no radio, no TV and no internet access. You’d only see a newspaper if someone brought one with them when they arrived. However, after spending a week on the side of that mountain with no contact with the outside world or modern conveniences like cars, I was stunned to find out how alien everything in our modern society felt. It was absolutely wonderful, and I’ve been meaning to go back there for years.

On the other side of the coin, I was also stunned to learn that people wondered what planet I had come from when I said I had no idea Princess Diana had died in a car wreck while I was busy communing with nature. Why couldn’t I have been there when Michael Jackson died instead?

Now, the other day, I read a news article that President Obama has nominated a policewoman from Minnesota to be the first openly gay U.S. Marshal. My first reaction was: Why is this news? Did she cheat on her taxes, too? Apparently not. The brief news story makes mention of the president’s rocky relationship with the gay community and specifically his pledge to end the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military despite his lack of concrete efforts to do so. It reminds me of an Bloom County cartoon from the 1980s in which Milo is calling NASA about shuttle launches back when NASA was making a big push to get the first [fill in the minority/ethnic/special interest group here] into space. Milo asks if NASA had launched a blind, Indian contortionist or some such and the NASA spokesman said “Yep, he went up this morning.”

I’ve never thought of myself as homophobic. I just plain don’t understand why a man or a woman would look at another person of the same sex with lust in their heart to borrow a phrase from Jimmy Carter (and to think that man won the Nobel Peace Prize), and let’s not talk about lopitoffamy or addalittletomy surgical “interventions”. That just makes my skin crawl to think of looking at an original, standard equipment item attached to your own body that’s functioning properly and not cancerous and decide you can’t stand the thought of living with it another day so badly that you pay good money to have it removed. Uh, uh. No thank you, sir. Step away from me with those sharp objects.

So, this news story, to me at least, is a thinly veiled article about progress the administration is making towards ending discrimination against homosexuals. Despite the fact that I am a committed, life-long heterosexual, I have always wondered what sexual orientation has to do with what a person does for a living. As far as I’m concerned, the only criteria beyond education and prior work experience is whether or not a person is physically capable of performing the duties and responsibilities of a particular occupation. For instance, I’d love to be able to earn a living as an airshow pilot; however, I am not sure that I’m physically capable of keeping myself from puking through a 10 minute aerobatics routine. Does that mean I’m being discriminated against?

Then, today, I see another news article about the administration’s efforts on behalf of the gay community (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091014/D9BB3IIO0.html). This article makes no bones about the fact that the administration is working to end workplace discrimination against the gay community. Okay, fine. More power to you; but, really, how far do we need to go with this?

I mean, seriously, do we need to be adding more groups to the list of protected classes? I think we have more than enough of those already. I think the fact that we even have to have a list of protected groups is a sad commentary on us as human beings. Think about it for a minute. Companies are in business to make money. Non-profit groups exist to effectively achieve a certain goal or provide a certain service while wasting the least amount of resources necessary. They should WANT the best, most productive person for the job regardless of what the look like, which god they worship or who they pick up in bars; and, yet, here we are still dealing with discrimination in the 21ST freaking century since Jesus came down from on high to show us the way.

Does that mean we have to force people under penalty of law to do what’s in their best interests? Have any of the government’s affirmative action efforts to coerce people into being “diverse” changed anyone’s attitude about anything? I doubt it. I still hear racist jokes and religious jokes, hear stories of sexual harassment and glass ceilings, and more. We’re still seeing a culture of thin skinned victimization reported in the media, and you can’t disagree with President Obama without people looking throw your dresser drawers for a Klan robe. The only thing I’ve seen discrimination laws do is keep lawyers busy like they needed any help with that.

I tend towards a healthy dose of common sense in my opinions. I think an employer should be entitled to seek out workers who fit within the culture and demographic of their business to more effectively work within an industry or market. Does it make sense to force a fundamentalist Christian organization to hire an openly gay or transgender person as a lead spokesperson? Probably not. Does it make sense to hire a person who barely has a command of the English language and speaks with a heavy accent that no native born Texan can understand to sit in a customer service or help desk call center? No, it doesn’t AT&T. Neither of those scenarios make sense.

My feeling is this: If a business person is too stupid or small minded to over look their own prejudices so that they can hire the best person for the job and pay that person according to the value they bring to the company, that company deserves to lose money. Their competitors won’t always make the same mistake. Unfortunately, a distressing number of them do.