“Your life is happening now, right in front of you.”

– Madeline (“Christopher Robin”)

“That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and a man.”

– Chris Janson, “Take a Drunk Girl Home”

“You sang and I listened to every word, and then I listened to what they said after… that’s how I got saved.”

– Arthur (“I Can Only Imagine,” the movie)

I led our parish youth group on a Mission Trip a couple of weeks ago. As I mentioned last year <link>, this is a truly inspirational week of prayer, reflection and service, and it was an amazing blessing to once again be able to share it with my daughter. I made a conscious choice to avoid news and politics as much as possible during the week, and it really helped me focus on the purpose of the trip to not be constantly distracted by all the craziness that otherwise tends to preoccupy us. So, as a public service to DaTechGuy’s readers, today’s column will not be about politics. Instead, I’d like to share with you a few pieces of good news from today’s culture that have resonated with me since I’ve gotten back from my trip.

I’m a country music fan from way back in high school and a big reason I’ve loved the genre for so long is because of the stories the songs tell. I recently came across “Take a Drunk Girl Home” by Chris Janson. The song starts out telling of a girl who is partying way too much one evening, and you get the feeling that it might be about how easy it would be to sleep with her. Instead, the chorus of the song goes like this:

Take a drunk girl home
Let her sleep all alone
Leave her keys on the counter, your number by the phone
Pick up her life she threw on the floor
Leave the hall lights on walk out and lock the door
That’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man
Take a drunk girl home

Imagine if young men today were taught to take care of women instead of taking advantage of them?

Last week, my family and I went to see the new “Christopher Robin” movie. I literally cannot remember a time when I did not Winnie-the-Pooh. I even brought a stuffed Pooh with me to college. This movie was wonderful! Not only was it nostalgic to see Pooh and his friends from the 100-Acre Wood come to life, but the message of the movie was just great. Yes, it was a little cliched, with Christopher Robin having become too focused on his middle-management job to spend time with his family, but to see him come alive by playing with his childhood friends again, and realize what is truly important in life, was a very uplifting experience. I don’t want to spoil the movie if you haven’t seen it, so I won’t say anything else, other than that the voices of the characters were nearly perfect. Please go and see this movie.

The last experience I wanted to mention is the movie “I Can Only Imagine,” a movie about Bart Millard of the band Mercy Me, and the writer of the title song, which he wrote for his father. This movie does a wonderful job of showing the power of prayer to transform our lives. Not only our own prayers, but the prayers others may pray for us. It reminded me of a new friend I met on my Mission Trip, who helped me get a handle on some things that have been bothering me, and who promised to pray for me as we returned home to our “normal” lives. I think that these three experiences may well have been the result of those prayers.

If Andrew Breitbart was right that “Politics is downstream from culture,” then maybe all is not lost, after all.

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar or subscribe!

Every time there is a Supreme Court vacancy under a Republican president, the Left panics, at least since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided, inventing a supposed right to abortion that is nowhere in the Constitution. With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the pattern continues. We all know that this panic stems from the fact that the Left, when they control the courts, uses their power to push their progressive agenda on society when they can’t win at the ballot box, so they are afraid that our side will also use the courts to push our conservative agenda in just as underhanded a way as they do. There is one critical difference, however. Conservatives do not make things up. We adhere to the Constitution so any societal change that comes from a conservative SCOTUS is actually bringing society back in line with the Constitution, not some made up progressive vision of what society ought to be.

The disingenuous tactic most often used by the Left is the concept of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by that which is decided.” Practically speaking, the Left considers it to mean “Thou shalt not overturn Roe v. Wade.” And in all the sound and fury about stare decisis, they often point out that this constitutional abomination is some kind of “super precedent” that absolutely must be upheld because it has been on the books for over 45 years. You can bet that their argument that Obergefell v. Hodges (the gay “marriage” decision) can’t be overturned will be because it was just decided and SCOTUS can’t overrule itself that quickly. Convenient that two completely opposing arguments can be made for the same rule, “SCOTUS shall not overturn any decision that we like.” It’s the same tactic they use about global warming climate change, but I digress.

It turns out that Obergefell itself overturned Baker v. Nelson, which was decided in 1972, a year before Roe, so it should have been at least as strong a precedent as Roe. And Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which was decided 58 years previously (1896). Just for fun, let’s take a look at Trump v. Hawaii, the “travel ban” case that was just decided this term. Aside from making liberal heads explode by ruling in favor of President Trump, the decision also overturned Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Japanese internment decision from 74 years previously. Presumably the Left agrees with everyone else that Korematsu should have been overturned.

Actually, the controlling precedent on abortion is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, from 1992. As I’ve written before, this decision should be overturned if for no other reason than to strike the execrable “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from the American legal lexicon (don’t let the door hit you on your way out, Justice Kennedy). But is 27 years enough time to make Casey a supposed “super precedent”?

Here’s what it comes down to: The Left can use “emanations” and “penumbras” to make up constitutional rights out of whole cloth and then hide behind stare decisis, effectively claiming a ratchet effect towards their progressive vision for our country. We on the right can use the actual text of the Constitution to bring things back to where they should be. With President Trump replacing Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh, we have an opportunity to make that happen. I’m not wishing ill on any other member of the Court, but there is a chance we will be in even better position to do so in the coming years. Let’s hope that President Trump will continue to nominate strong conservatives and that the Justices have the courage to make it happen.

Pride goes before disaster,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.  -Proverbs 16:18

I spent last week in San Francisco for work. My duties required me to arrive on Sunday, which means I got there smack in the middle of the Pride Parade. The practical effect of the parade is that it snarled traffic enough that my Lyft driver had to drop me off a block and half from my hotel, and the parade lasted for six hours. I  had work to do once I arrived, so I didn’t actually attend the parade, but I definitely saw some of the crowd.

Mostly I found myself wondering what these people were thinking. I fail to see how wearing lingerie in public and dying your hair orange – as one woman (I assume) I saw in the hotel lobby – or wearing T shirts with offensive messages “celebrates” anything. It was a six-hour long exercise in seeing who could break the most social norms and get away with it. Apparently, you can get away with anything in San Francisco.

The tragedy of a once-great city like this spending so much money on a parade was brought home to me later in the week when I walked about a mile and a half from my hotel to go see a movie (“Infinity War” – I’ll just say I’m not a fan). You know all that stuff you’ve read about homeless people and feces on the street in San Francisco? It’s all true. And it’s heartbreaking.

The caricature of Republicans is that they are heartless and uncaring, but then you see a Democrat-run city like San Francisco spend all of its money on Pride Parades and a massive construction project to extend the rail system to the new Chase Center, the future home of the Golden State Warriors. Yes, the arena itself is privately financed, but the infrastructure costs around it will come from taxpayers. And all of those taxes are being spent to make it easier for people to hand over even more of their money to the greedy capitalist who owns the team. As Instapundit always asks, “why are democrat-run cities such cesspits?”

Is it possible that the Democrats who run San Francisco are using the Gay Pride movement as a “shiny object” to lure people to this supposedly “enlightened” city to take their tax dollars while distracting them from the fact that they get nothing in return but the opportunity to dress up in weird outfits and vent for a day? What is there to be proud of in that?

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court (thankfully) ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the baker who declined to be forced to bake and decorate a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The ruling was based almost completely on the documented religious hostility of the members of the Civil Rights Commission, and thus there is concern that in the future the Court would allow government to force bakers and other service providers to support same-sex weddings over their religious objections as long as the bureaucrats pretended to be neutral to the baker’s religious views.

There are a few fig leaves in the decision that an optimist could take as good news, such as Justice Kennedy saying “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” and that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.” And at least he conceded that “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”

The path to the case, if not necessarily the decision, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an easy one to follow.  It started back in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to Liberty as exemplified by homosexual sodomy in that particular case (although Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion explicitly refused to declare that homosexual sodomy itself is a constitutional right). Justice Scalia correctly predicted the path in his dissenting opinion, noting that the decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

The next step in the chain was United States v. Windsor in 2012, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts both pointed out that this Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion would inevitably lead to the Court declaring same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, which of course it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (also authored by Kennedy). This is where Justice Thomas presciently predicted that the decision “threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” And here we are.

A lot of the analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop centered around whether baking a custom wedding cake counted as “speech” for the purposes of the Free Speech clause of the first amendment. And was Phillips really discriminating against the gay couple when he offered to sell them anything else in the store, or to create a cake for any other occasion? The answer is obviously “no” and therein, I think, lies the solution to this conundrum.

As I have said before, no one has a right to force someone else to provide a good or service. If Phillips had refused to sell a pre-baked cake to the gay couple, that would have been discriminatory since he had already invested his time and talent to create the cake and it was already available for purchase by the general public. This would be the same as if a gay couple tried to by a photo print from a studio where the photographer was displaying his images for sale. But in either case, the gay couple does not have the right to force the baker or photographer to participate in a gay wedding if the vendor’s religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. So the government could not force the photographer to attend the ceremony, document the event and then produce the images, all of which require him to devote his time and talent to an event that violates his religious views.

This rule would also apply to the Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington case currently being petitioned to the Supreme Court.

If Mrs. Stutzman had refused to sell a floral arrangement available to the general public to a gay customer, she would be guilty of discrimination. But she had sold flowers to the gay couple – whom she considered friends – for years without a problem. It was only when she refused to be forced to design the flowers for their wedding, which involves not only creativity on her part, but also the nuts and bolts of getting the flowers to the ceremony and arranging them there, that she supposedly discriminated against them. Clearly, this is an infringement on her first amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion.

Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in all of these cases seems to be rooted in the infamous “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, this is “the passage that ate the rule of law,” but is nonetheless central to Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. A person’s religious views, by definition, define his or her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Why is a religious person’s liberty, which is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, worth less than a gay person’s?

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!
Or better yet, subscribe!

The Massachusetts Legislature is apparently trying to out-California California by considering House Bill 4014, “An Act relative to abusive practices to change sexual orientation and gender identity in minors.” The bill would prohibit any kind of counseling or therapy, even just talking, aimed at helping a confused minor be comfortable in his or her own body. If a parent seeks such counseling for a confused minor who thinks himself or herself to be “transgender,” the bill would consider that a form of child abuse. As Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, has aptly put it, “This is a bill that would allow the state to take away your daughter and make her someone else’s son.”

The bill was originally written several years ago by former state representative Carl Sciortino, who is now executive director of the AIDS Action Committee, which focuses on the health needs of LGBT people. He (it’s not clear if this is his “preferred pronoun” but I don’t really care) claims that “the point of this bill is that if a young person has an identity and is being told by a so-called therapist that they can change their identity, that is a false hope and abusive and shouldn’t be allowed by licensed professionals in this state.” He declares it to be a “false claim” that a therapist can help a gay or trans person become straight. Sciortino actually admits that the bill could cause the state to remove a child from parents who refuse to mutilate or chemically sterilize their child who claims to be “transgender.”

One would think that such a bill would violate the First Amendment on its face, but I’m still trying to figure out how anyone who supports such a bill can claim even a shred of logical reasoning behind their thinking.

Sciortino clearly believes that LGBT people are “born that way” since changing a person’s belief about his or her sexuality or gender is a “false claim.” But since being gay or transgender makes it biologically impossible to reproduce naturally, this position is clearly at odds with Darwinian evolution, which requires reproduction in order to pass on genetic mutations to the next generation. It is simply not possible for LGBT behaviors to be based on genetics.

Being transgender means that a person is more comfortable acting in stereotypical gender roles which, until fifteen minutes ago we were told were socially constructed. Thus we find the ridiculous argument that a “transgender female” can also be a lesbian. That is, a man’s desire to dress as a woman – a completely social construct – makes him more a woman than his attraction to women, which is biologically normal, makes him a man. The whole idea of transgenderism is a house of cards held up only by incessant propaganda.

As with the Bathroom Bill, I am appalled that the Legislature could even consider a bill that obviously has no logical basis for criminalizing activity simply because some misguided souls don’t like that behavior. If the bill’s supporters want to outlaw truly abusive therapy like electro-shock, then write a bill that specifically outlaws abuse. But to criminalize a parent’s desire to counsel a confused child to live as God intended, and define as child abuse a parent’s refusal to chemically alter the child irrevocably based on the child’s confusion is simply abominable. We must oppose this misguided bill. If you are a Massachusetts citizen, I urge you to contact your State Representative and Senator to make your voice heard.

Please consider subscribing, but at least please hit DaTipJar!

Politics is downstream of culture.          -Andrew Breitbart

Between network television and Netflix, I have been watching three separate series that all take place in and around the White House: “Designated Survivor,” “Madame Secretary,” and “House of Cards.” House of Cards is fun (although there are plenty of disturbing scenes made for fast-forward) because it makes no pretense that anyone in politics is motivated by anything other than naked self-interest and the pursuit of power. To be honest, I’m a bit surprised that it aired during the Obama administration, and with the Underwoods being democrats, too.

Madame Secretary was clearly developed to promote Hillary for president. If you realize that going in, you can laugh at the typical tropes like “Global Climate Change is the single biggest threat to our national security,” the non-gender-conforming policy advisor, and even the fantastical “Iran Deal” that could only be negotiated in a television show. Given the failure of this show to drag Clinton over the finish line resulting in (I love saying this) President Trump, the next goal of the show will be to show everyone how awesome it will be when we have a woman president.

Designated Survivor is perhaps the most subtle of the three. It stars Kiefer Sutherland (formerly Jack Bauer in “24”) as Tom Kirkman, the former HUD Secretary who gets thrust into the presidency after a terrorist attack during the State of the Union. Of course, the original Muslim suspect turned out to be a decoy and the real mastermind was actually an evil capitalist. Sutherland portrays the president as a non-partisan straight shooter, but it’s clear that he and his staff are anything but. In a recent episode, they were trying to nominate a “progressive icon” to the Supreme Court. Everyone was excited about how much “good” he could do on the Court which, of course, is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice. Interestingly, in a nod to the #metoo movement, the nomination was derailed due to a past sexual harassment claim that was initially only deemed a problem because “the Republicans control the Judiciary Committee.” I guess they were admitting that Democrats would have overlooked such things just to get a progressive on the court.

All three are entertaining, but keep your antennae up and be on the lookout for propaganda. And try not to get confused by the different Oval Office decorations.

And don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!

Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well.
– Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield

I hate the term “working mom” because it implies that moms who are not employed do not “work.” My wife is a stay-at-home mom and she works plenty hard. More importantly, she works hard at things that matter. And the fact that she is not spending 40+ hours of her week focusing on not being a mom means that she is able to do things for our family that a “working mom” simply can’t. There simply aren’t enough hours in the day.

On Mothers Day, I salute all mothers who put their families first, especially my wife. When our son was born, she left the business world to be a full-time mom and wife. Our two children (and I) have benefited in countless ways from this decision, which she and I made together even before we were married. She has always been there, from playing with my son when he was an infant to being there when my daughter comes home from high school and needs advice or just someone to talk to.

Our parish bulletin contained a page of quotes about Motherhood today. One that particularly stood out is:

“Motherhood is not a hobby, it is a calling.
It is not something to do if you can squeeze the time in.
It is what God gave you time for.”

This perfectly sums up my wife’s calling to be a mother. Today let us reflect on the fact that many of the ills facing our society today could be solved if more women felt the same calling.

As I mentioned last year, I spent many years in the Boy Scouts as an adult leader while my son, who became an Eagle Scout, was going through the program, only to be disappointed by the national organization in recent years. As predicted, the Boy Scouts went from allowing homosexual boys into the program, to allowing homosexual scout leaders to admitting girls-who-claim-to-be-boys to now allowing girls to be Boy Scouts.

While the parent organization will still be knows as “Boy Scouts of America,” the name of the group of 11- to 17-year-olds that used to be called “Boy Scouts” will now be called “Scouts BSA,” further distancing them from the original point of the organization, which was to teach boys how to become men and good citizens. The BSA is claiming that they are doing this to give girls the opportunity to earn the coveted rank of Eagle Scout and to give families the opportunity to have their sons and daughters in the same program to make it easier to coordinate the children’s activities.

That goal, however, completely contradicts their pledge that the new Scouts BSA troops will be single-sex. As a former scoutmaster, the idea that any local sponsoring organization will be able to procure separate spaces at the same time so that boys’ and girls’ troops can meet at the same time, to say nothing or recruiting enough parents to support both groups, is ludicrous. It’s simply not going to happen.

A large part of my son’s journey to Eagle Scout was Summer Camp. Aside from the opportunity to just learn how to “be a guy” by spending a week in the woods with other boys, he earned the majority of his merit badges at camp. It is simply not possible to reconcile these two important aspects of scouting when girls are added to the mix. If girls are not given the opportunity to attend Summer Camp, it will be much more difficult for them to become Eagle Scouts. To avoid yet another discrimination lawsuit, BSA will be forced to either a) allow girls to attend Summer Camp alongside the boys or b) create parallel camps for girls. It is simply too expensive to create separate camps (also subject to a “separate-but-equal” lawsuit anyway), so the BSA must allow girls to attend Summer Camp alongside boys.

It is simply a fact that boys will behave differently when girls are present. They will spend more time trying to impress the girls and compete with the other boys for the girls’ attention than they will learning how to just be comfortable with themselves around other boys. The very nature of scouting will change.

While it sounds nice to give girls the opportunity to become Eagle Scouts, there is no way the BSA can give girls this opportunity without robbing boys of the unique things that made the Boy Scouts the Boy Scouts. Anyone who tries to convince you otherwise is either lying to you or doesn’t know what Scouting used to be.

Don’t for get to hit DaTipJar! Better yet, subscribe.

I’ve mentioned in the past my daughter’s obsession with Hamilton, the musical. We were in the car this afternoon listening to “One Last Time,” in which George Washington tells Alexander Hamilton that he is stepping down as president after two terms and asks Hamilton to help him compose his Farewell Address (which was actually published in the newspaper), I commented to my daughter that this was one of the greatest decisions ever made by a politician in our country’s history.

Until FDR, all other presidents had followed Washington’s precedent and chose not to run again after two terms. Following FDR, the 22nd amendment formalized this tradition, forcing a two-term limit on the presidency. Just think of what this arrangement, started by Washington, has saved our country.

There is no doubt, given the size of Barack Obama’s ego, that he would have run for a third term and, given the media bias – which was even worse in his favor, if you recall, than for Hillary – there is little doubt that he would have won. Which means that we would still be looking at a potential nuclear strike from North Korea, anemic economic growth, high unemployment and the continued corruption of the FBI and intelligence services that have only come to light since President Trump was elected. Thank you, General Washington!

The other key lyric in the song is when Washington says “I want to warn against partisan fighting.” It’s a pity that our politicians didn’t heed that warning. Imagine what President Trump could accomplish if he didn’t have to spend so much time and effort defending himself against made-up charges and fighting against for-no-other-reason-than-they-hate-the-fact-that-they-lost obstruction by the Democrats.

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!

No matter how “woke” you think you are, you are tolerating things right now that will make you cringe in 25 years. – Bill Maher

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. – inigo Montoya, “The Princess Bride”

While I disagree with some of the specific examples Bill Maher cited in the linked video above, I agree with his two main points. The first is that it is silly to judge people or actions out of the context of their time, and the second is that years from now we will be appalled at the things that are being done in our society today. I shudder to think that twenty-five years from now our society could possibly be more “woke” than it is today, mostly because I have to believe that we have reached peak silliness in the perceived intersectional injustices that are supposedly perpetrated by us normal Americans. When Starbucks can be accused of being racist simply because a store manager did not want to allow non-paying non-customers to squat in a store, thus keeping paying customers from using the space, then you know that the Left has truly crossed the Rubicon of Wokeness, and no one is safe.

Of course, the biggest problem is that real damage is being done right now, not only to our society, but to individuals who are caught up in all this intersectionality and wokeness.

When my son was going to college a few years ago, he filled out a survey and his college provided him with several other incoming freshmen to contact to see if they might be suitable roommates. He contacted one individual, but upon learning that this student was militantly homosexual, sexually active and expected his roommate to be OK with this, my son politely declined to room with this individual and selected another roommate. I wonder how long it will be until some student like my son is brought up on charges by the school for being “intolerant” of such a potential roommate – even though my son would have chosen not to room with a sexually active heterosexual as well – and perhaps being forced to live in this situation as a way to “expand his views” or some other such “woke” nonsense.

We are in the process of visiting schools with my daughter, and encountered a surprising trend among several “elite” colleges that we’ve visited. Gone are the days when dorms were segregated by male and female floors, or even wings, and the idea of male and female bathrooms has gone the way of the dodo. At several of these schools, males and females share the bathroom, including shower facilities. Apparently the showers are individual locked stalls, but that still means that my freshman daughter could step out of the shower in her robe, and be faced with a male senior who may only be wrapped in a towel shaving at the sink next to her. Now, given the #MeToo environment we are currently living in, I am fairly confident that any male in such a situation would be scrupulously careful not to give his female neighbors any pretext by which to accuse him of harassment, but that doesn’t really make the situation a good one. And if it were my son in this situation, I would tell him to shower at 2am and make sure there were no women in the bathroom to avoid just such a possibility. How is that possibly a good environment for either sex?

The only possible “solution” to this quandary at any of the non-Catholic schools we visited was the traditionally all-female dorm at one school. Of course, given the times we’re in, this has now been expanded to the all-female-and-gender-non-binary dorm. This means that my daughter could be sharing the bathroom with a man who claims to be a woman. I wonder if such a person would be nearly as scrupulous as the male in the co-ed bathroom about covering himself in the presence of my daughter. After all, if he’s a “woman” what’s the big deal? And I’m sure that my daughter – or your daughter – would be the one brought up on disciplinary charges for complaining about the situation.

It is my sincere hope that, when we look back on these times twenty-five years hence, our society is in a place where “wokeness” is the what-were-you-thinking absurdity. It has to be, because if it’s not, then that means that we’ve gone even further ‘round the bend and I can’t even imagine what that might be like.