New Jersey Activists Push Legislation to Ban “Anti-Gay” Therapies

I got a request yesterday to join a petition to force New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to sign legislation banning so-called “gay-conversion” therapy. The petitioner told sad stories of children forced by religious parents to enter gay-conversion therapy instead of accepting their gayness.  He further cited the American Psychiatric Association, which a couple of years back prohibited members from investigating, seeking todevelop or offering therapies designed to cure homosexuality. The APA stated "…potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior."

I could not endorse this young man’s petition in support of this legislation because I believe it to be discriminatory and a clear violation of our right to believe as we wish, even though it may be stupid, as Senator Kerry recently pointed out.  I do believe, quite sincerely, that it is discriminatory to create laws that virtually prohibit anyone who is gay from seeking a therapeutic solution that would restore them to heterosexuality.  Why should people who do not wish to be gay be forced to be gay.  Americans seem to have decided in recent years that it is wrong to prevent people from being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or trans-sexual.  We’ve even had some recent efforts to de-criminalize child pornography and sex with close relatives, minors and farm animals.  Thankfully, we’ve drawn the line on predatory sex - that is sex with someone who cannot or chooses not to participate. I believe the ban on gay-conversion therapy falls under the category of “choosing not to participate”.

The law already protects the gay community’s right to have gay sex.  In some state, gay marriage is even legalized and proclaimed a social equivalent of ordinary hetero-sexual marriage.  The Gay-Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Trans-Sexual (GLBT) movement goes further in its condemnation of all efforts to “fix” any person’s gay orientation.  GLBT activists assert that being gay is "normal" and therefore the only appropriate therapy for gay individuals is to help them "accept their gayness." 

If your religious beliefs embrace the idea the idea that gay sex is sin, then any such law which prohibits even the research into the development of a therapy to alter one’s homosexual orientation or prevents persons from seeking a physical or counseling solution, is blatantly discriminatory against your beliefs.

We are nation that recognizes each individual's right to choose.  If any legislator were to put forward a bill prohibiting any person from being forced to undergo so-called gay conversion therapy that I could support.  If, however, one supports legislation that prohibits even research and development of treatments that would help gay people become hetero-sexual or prevents a therapist from offering such treatments, then I have a real problem with that. 

I don't believe people should be forced to or prohibited from undergoing sexual reassignment surgery, plastic surgery, breast augmentation, breast reduction, penile implants or any other treatment to correct or alter the sexuality of any individual.  You ought to be able to do what you want. As my liberal friends frequently point out, “The government has no business in my bedroom.” 

That includes the bedrooms of those who are gay and wish gender reassignment back to hetero-sexuality.  The anti-gay conversion therapy bill clearly restricts the rights of Americans to choose their sexual orientation.  I thought that was what the GLBT folk were marching for.  Given their support for bills like this, I am forced to conclude that the GLBT Alliance wants the freedom to move from being hetero-sexual to homo, trans or bi-sexuality, but that they actively oppose any efforts to help people move from homo-sexuality to hetero-sexuality. 

Because a discomfort with one’s own homosexuality is generally a feature of religious believers, and that religion is often part of the motivation behind wanting gay-conversion therapy in the first place, then laws which prohibit anyone from doing so or helping someone do so are clearly a violation of the first amendment.  Such laws establish a virtual ‘religious’ belief that if one is gay, one’s only choice is to accept that and get on with your life. We’ll give you a lift to the nearest gay bar.

Were the straight community to pursue creating laws that force heterosexuals not to experiment with gay sex, bi-sexuality, transvestite or trans-gender behaviors, the GLBT community would immediately rise up and accuse us of discrimination. Further we could count on being accused of trying to protect the pool of potential heterosexual partners and keep the numbers as large as possible.  We’d be accused of being predatory.

GLBT activists claim there is no effective treatment for homosexuality.  They are only partially right.  This is because GLBT activists have worked hard to stop the development of any effective treatment. When the APA was pressured by the gay community to drop homosexuality as a “diagnosis” from the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, hundreds of thousands of gay Americans were instantly cured with the stroke of a pen. Not everyone in the psychiatric community agreed with the idea that homosexuality was not a “disorder”, but those who did not, have since found themselves hounded, pressured and persecuted for daring to do any research into a way to treat or cure homosexual tendencies in their patients.  It matters not to the GLBT activist that the person may not want to be gay.  Their advice to any homosexual person is to get used to it.  Go ahead and be gay. The GBLT believes the topic is closed, settled and finished.  Taking their cue from global warming alarmists, the GBLT community has declared the science “settled” and shouts down anyone who says otherwise as dangerous cranks.

Our freedoms are being eroded on all sides. While I cannot compete with the massive organizational capabilities of the GLBT community on this issue, I certainly will not sign a petition in support of it.  My liberties are already wearing pretty damned thin.  Cannabis supporters want marijuana use to be not just legalized, but normalized.  They’ve won in the issue in two states already. Nudists want to run loose in San Francisco. Ru Paul is a popular celebrity. Reality TV has people eating bugs in prime time – something once reserved for the Jerry Springer show during the afternoon when decent people are taking naps.

So what’s next?

I suspect that farm animals will soon need to start watching their backs.

© 2013  Tom King

Supreme Court - Farmer vs. Monsanto

I hope this old guy wins. 

Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old Indiana farmer figured out how to squeeze an extra bonus crop out of the growing season and to get around seed-giant Monsanto's strict monopoly on weed-killer resistant seeds. Tuesday he goes up against the monolithic agricultural company in the supreme court.

The deal is this:  Bowman bought Monsanto's patented Roundup-resistant seeds for his first crop.  Roundup, by the way, is also a Monsanto product.  For a risky, late season crop, however, Bowman needed a cheap source of seed. Monsanto doesn't allow farmers to reuse some ot the second generation seeds from their own crops, a practice that has kept farming viable for millenia.  Since Bowman can't reuse his own beans and he can't buy seeds from other farmers who are also bound by the agreement they are forced to sign when buying Monsanto seed.  Few dealers carry cheap unmodified seeds, especially later in the season and a late season crop is too risky to buy the more expensive seeds.
.
What Bowman did was go down to a grain elevator that had a supply of viable soybeans that they usually sell for livestock feed or milling, but not as seed.  Bowman figured most of those beans would be resistant to weed killers and would grow just fine.  He continued the practice, not keeping it a secret from anyone, for eight years before Monsanto, smelling a profit to be made, or rather to be lost and sued him for violating their patent.

Monsanto, too my way of thinking, is a bit too much of a monopoly. They hold a virtual stranglehold on agricultural seed production with up to 90% of the seed market in some places. Monsanto claims to own the gene for weed-killer resistant soybeans, corn and other genetically altered seeds, even unto the third and fourth generation as the Book of Judges would put it.  I'm not sure that's quite fair.  If you look at how other industrial patents and copyrights are treated, it seems Monsanto is being treated rather better than some of us.

For instance, I'm a writer. My book is posted on Amazon.com. My publisher and I own the rights to those books as my intellectual property.  When my publisher prints a copy and sells it, they pay me a small royalty.  My books are also sold on Amazon.com.  If they are sold new, I make about $3 per book.  Amazon.com  also sells used copies of my book that belong to people who bought it new and no longer need it sitting around on their shelves.  I receive absolutely no royalties for those used books, whether or not I own the intellectual property rights.  I only profit from what I actually produce. I get paid for first sale of my product, but I don't get paid when my product gets resold, lent out or stuck on a library shelf for anyone with a library card to read. It's the same for any other patent or copyright holder. If I buy a Ford Mustang new from the company, keep it 40 years in mint condition and resell it for 10 times its original value, Ford does not get a penny from my good fortune.

I think Monsanto is over-reaching by claiming that subsequent generation seed genes are covered under its patent. While I understand that Monsanto needs protection so that another seed company shouldn't be able to just start producing identical seeds for sale by using Monsanto's seed stock, we're not talking about patent infringement.  The farmers have already bought and paid for the original seeds. Mr. Bowman is merely wanting to use the seeds he already paid for to get an extra crop in the same year on his own farm.  Okay, so don't let him buy the seeds from the grain elevator.  Fine, you don't want grain elevators setting themselves up as seed companies using Monsanto's seeds.  But I think a farmer should be able to use the second generation seeds in the same year if he already paid for the seeds once.  It would give Monsanto a bit of good will with the farmers if they could okay farmers using second generation seeds in that way if they get them from their first harvest in order plant a risky second season crop.

Make it a one season deal on the contract. How hard would that be. Good for the economy because it makes risky second crops profitable for farmers, it increases the crop grown for that year and thereby reduces the price of soybeans and soybean products. Good for the farmer because it makes that second crop affordable. Good for consumers because it lowers prices. 

It's time American companies gave a little bit to help their direct customers and their indirect customers, the food-buying public. Monsanto, at 90% saturation of the seed market, looks a wee bit like a candidate for an anti-trust suit if you ask me.  I would think it wise if they stopped acting so much like robber barons that they draw the attention of some ambitious lawyer. Monsanto has the Obama administration in their pocket on this one thanks to generous campaign donations to Democrats, no doubt. Like too many corporations participating enthusiastically in what the dominant party calls "managed" capitalism, Monsanto doesn't much care if consumers pay for their protected business monopoly at the grocery store.

Like I say, I hope this old guy wins in the Supreme Court. It would be refreshing if the Supreme Court could encourage corporate giants to show a bit of compassion to their customers.  It isn't going to cost them anything in this case.  Bowman isn't going to risk a second crop if he has to buy the expensive seeds. Then he doesn't make a profit.  Had Monsanto taken a look at the situation and said, "Okay, this is fair use, we'll allow it," they would likely have saved themselves a lot of legal expense.  They're certainly not going to make more money if they win.  Bowman and other farmers will simply not plant that second crop and consumers will pay at the grocery store for higher priced food.


Besides, there are people starving in Africa. The more food we grow, the more we have to sell where people need food.  The more we sell, the more we can afford to give to the hungry around the world and in our own country. Where's the compassion Mr. President?  Here we have one of those evil corporations the president is always saying need to contribute a little more to the general welfare, AND we have a solution available that neither hurts the corporation, the farmer, the public nor the poor and starving of the world. It is not an expensive solution. It doesn't require the creation of a new government agency.  It requires only a slight change of wording on Monsanto contracts. Monsanto doesn't lose money. Arguably, it would never have had that money anyway.  Farmers won't do second crops with Monsanto first generation seeds. It's not worth the risk given the high cost of the investment. If Monsant's competition is smart, they'll get the cheap seeds out there for that second crop and capture that niche market.  After all, the fields have already been weeded, so the fields shouldn't need another dose of roundup.  You have to wonder how Mosanto is going to charge farmers for second use of weed-free fields if farmers start heavily using non-engineered seeds for high-risk second crops. Monsanto should stop worrying about its monopoly and start worrying about what's good for its customers.  Second use per season of their seeds would be a great way to show farmers and consumers that the company wasn't pulling a modern day version of the JP Morgan, John D. Rockefeller or Cornelius Vanderbuilt.monopolies that earned them the sobriquet - "robber barons".

Ah, but like someone once told me when a group of us proposed a low-cost and simple solution to a local transportation problem that seniors and people with disabilities were having, "The problem with your idea is that it's too simple and it's far too inexpensive, and besides," he grinned, "Nobody would make money on it and no politician would be able to take credit for it."


Our idea didn't get accepted and I don't hold out a lot of hope for poor old Mr. Bowman. It's too simple and only farmers and consumers would benefit. It would be far too difficult for any politician to take credit for and it certainly wouldn't help the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) to get re-elected.

Just sayin'


Tom

Gun Control: The Afghan Conundrum

A liberal blogger recently made the statement that the death of Chris Dorner demonstrated once and for all the fallacy that a person can resist the government, so we might as well go ahead and give up our weapons.  She roundly criticized all those "nutty" pro-second amendment, knuckle dragging rednecks who resisted the perfectly rationale belief that if you take away everyone's guns it would put an end to gun violence.

So, let me pose one question. I'm a reasonable man and I have changed my opinions on things, so give me your best argument.  And my liberal friend's argument was nowhere near a "best argument". It was name-calling at best.  But give it a go, somebody.  I do listen to rationale arguments. That's how I went from being a leather fringe, moccasin booted, headband-wearing long-haired youth to being a member of my state's public transit advisory committee at the head of a massive bipartisan local rural transportation initiative.  Here goes:

My friend's argument as best I understand the argument, goes something like, "None of us could resist the government with private weapons if they want to take us down.  The Chris Dorner case proves it and proves we're nutty for thinking so, therefore there is no reason for us to cling to our guns."

So let me ask my pro gun control friends something.  Why did the Russians, arguably a very powerful nation, fail to subdue Afghan rebels armed with personal weapons and smuggled small arms?  Why also have American forces, arguably the most powerful in the world, failed to eliminate the Talaban resistance in Afghanistan.  If government can always subdue privately armed citizens, why haven't they done it?

For that matter, why did we retreat from Vietnam?  It wasn't the massed forces that beat us there.  We won every single military engagement we fought with Communist regulars.  It was the guerrillas that we couldn't beat. The citizen soldiers with private weapons (the kind that we would make illegal here if the President has his way.)

Are you saying that the United States government wouldn't have considerable trouble rolling into, say East Texas, and disarming or subduing the millions of armed East Texans living out in the woods there?  That it was only the Taliban that was capable of resisting government forces?  Americans, who whipped a nation ten times its size (TWICE) largely with private weapons, couldn't provide a creditable resistance?

I'm here to tell you that the only way the government could suppress a real rebellion in East Texas would be to nuke the whole region and what American soldier would willingly press the button to wage that kind of war against his own kin and his neighbors. How many would join them?  The only reason there hasn't been such a war is because these armed citizens are honest, hard-working law-abiding citizens. So why would you want to disarm the good guys is what I want to know?

An armed citizenry gives the government pause when it decides to use even what the president called for in a campaign speech "a constabulary force as powerful as the US military" to suppress disagreement.  That ability to suppress citizen disagreement with government policy is a two-edged sword.  It threatens both Democrats and Republicans, Green Party and Tea Party. 

It's all been done before.  In post-Tsarist Russia the citizens were first disarmed in the name of public safety and then they went for mental health-based crowd control solution.  If you disagreed with the Communist authorities, you were dubbed mentally ill and sent to the gulags in Siberia to get some fresh air and exercise. If you pulled out your old rifle from your days in the Army during WWII, you could be declared insane and off to the gulags you went.

This is not paranoia.  This is history. What conservatives fear, and rightly so, is a steady creep toward full-fledged socialism and historically, full-fledged socialism has never ended well for anyone.  We believe the President and his advisors when they say things about what they want to do.  We don't dismiss them as liars just because we can't really believe they're saying when they talk about collectivism, nationalizing industry, and collapsing the economy deliberately to provide an avenue for the establishment of socialism as the law of the land. When they talk about redistribution of wealth, getting rid of guns, universal housing, healthcare and taking over the energy industry for our own good, we conservatives believe them.  We think the insanity is not to.  We recognize the pattern we see here and we look at societies where the things they are talking about have been done.  Russia - 56 million dead, China 160 million dead, Cambodia - who knows how many million dead and the list goes on and on. 

"Ah, but..." the socialists argue. "We'll never choose leaders like Stalin and Mao and Pol-Pot.  We'll choose wise leaders like Obama, Biden and Clinton."  They can be trusted.

Is that right?  Remember, the Russians trusted Trotsky and he wasn't a bad guy.  Stalin had him killed.  They trusted Lenin and he was only a bit more dictatorial.  He died rather younger than expected and Stalin maneuvered himself into place and started making deals with Hitler and later, slaughtered anyone who disagreed with him.

"Power does not corrupt," wrote Frank Herbert. "Power attracts the corruptible."

I've never understood how the left can talk about how our government cannot create democracies nor deliver justice at the point of a sword everywhere else in the world and yet be so eager to take away our own swords and deliver them into the hands of the government in our own country.

"Insanity," pointed out Albert Einstein, "Is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Under the US Constitution, our nation has become the wealthiest, most powerful and free nation on Earth.  People risk their lives to get here for the chance to live in freedom and to have the opportunity to make their fortunes.  We are the last refuge for them.  If we fall, the free peoples of the Earth have no place else to go.  If we fall, I believe human liberty falls.  The corruptible are lurking at the gates waiting for the first opportunity to seize power over their fellow man.  If we fall, it will be a long time before we can win it back our freedom.

Just one man's opinion...


Tom King