Its The End of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)

The Pilot Newspaper: Columns

First, a correction from last week’s column.

In that column, I reported that Donald Trump was polling second in the crowded field of Republican candidates. Between the time of the writing of the column and its publication date on Sunday, Trump became the front-runner.

This columnist regrets the error, but probably not as much as the GOP regrets having Trump in the lead for the nomination, since the same poll shows Hillary Clinton beating him by 17 points. Anyway, on with the show.

Well, I expected a complete freakout on the right after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down bans on same-sex marriage. But I have to say, the drama queenery, raging paranoia and hysteria exceeded even my wildest expectations.

Some of it took the form of dire predictions of what happens next, as if the legal sanction of lifelong monogamy between consenting adults is the key that will inevitably unlock the floodgates to practitioners of every imaginable perversion.

This wingnut trope was most bizarrely expressed by former Texas Rep. and “Dancing With the Stars” contestant Tom DeLay. DeLay told Newsmax TV that he’s found a “secret Justice Department memo” that reveals “they’re now going to go after 12 new perversions, things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal. … LGBT is only the beginning.”

It should be noted that DeLay only specifically mentioned three out of the 12 “new perversions” the DOJ is preparing to “legalize.” Wonder what the other nine are? On second thought, probably best to just let that go. Imaginations like that are best left unexplored.

Not content to torment themselves with fevered dreams of what nasty things others might soon be doing legally, a certain segment of Christians is pretty much convinced that the gays and the liberals are going to treat them pretty much the way they’ve advocated treating LGBT people. Some are even convinced the Christians who don’t back gay marriage are going to be jailed for their beliefs.

In fact, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of a for-profit wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, have filed a lawsuit claiming they could face up to 180 years in jail under the town’s anti-discrimination ordinance for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

Only problem is, no one’s threatened the Knapps with any such penalty, the ordinance in question specifically exempts “religious corporations” like the Knapps’ “Hitching Post Wedding Chapel” from its coverage, and the very Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage specifically states that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”

That, however, doesn’t stop people like Republican presidential candidate and Ted Nugent sideman Mike Huckabee from repeating the falsehood that the Knapps are being threatened with almost two centuries of jail time, apparently by the voices in their heads.

Finally, there are the people predicting that, because of the action of the Supreme Court in lifting bans on same sex marriage, God himself will either smite our country or allow evildoers to do so, leading to thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of deaths.

“God’s hand of protection will be withdrawn,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, “as future actions from external and internal forces will soon make clear.” (Texas again. What IS it with these people?) Fox News pundit Todd Starnes even blamed recent heavy rains and flooding in the D.C. area on the Lord’s pique over the Supreme Court decision.

“Anyone got an ark?” he quipped.

This particular style of “prophecy” has always bugged me, by the way, as it implies that God will indulge his wrath by indiscriminate slaughter of both the just and the unjust, including, one supposes, opponents of gay marriage. I’m glad I don’t follow that God, because I’ve got to tell you, that one’s kind of a psycho.

Look, folks, the day Obergefell vs. Hodges, the landmark case legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, was decided, I woke up, kissed my wife, and took her to her doctor’s appointment. Later that day, we took the dog to the vet together. (Everyone’s fine, thanks for asking). The week after, I helped my son move. Nothing that happened at the Supreme Court affected my marriage or my obligations to my family in the slightest. And it doesn’t affect you.

If you don’t like same-sex marriage, then don’t do it. If you’re a member of the clergy and you don’t want to perform a same-sex wedding, then don’t. It’s that simple. There’s no need to panic, file lawsuits to prevent things that aren’t going to happen, or flee the country to avoid God’s fiery and indiscriminate wrath.

It’s going to be OK, y’all. Really.

Beware Twitrage

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

Happy Sunday, friends, and welcome to “This Week in Twitrage,” where once again we report on people’s propensity to go off half-cocked (sometimes as little as one-quarter or one-eighth cocked) and take to the Internet like Cheeto-stained Paul Reveres to spread the alarm about some outrageous story they’ve heard.

Said story, more often than not, turns out to be a total hoax, fabrication, half-truth or crazy rumor being reported as fact by our incredibly credulous news media.

Last week was a fertile one for Twitrage, what with the continued fallout from the Charleston terrorist attack, the controversy over the Confederate battle flag, and the Supreme Court’s bombshell decision upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry.

First, there was the picture making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook after Amazon.com, among other retailers, announced that it was pulling Confederate flag merchandise off its site.

This latest expression of Neo-Confederate butthurt claimed, and I quote: “You can’t buy a Confederate flag on Amazon, but you can buy this ISIS flag,” followed by a supposed screenshot of an Amazon page offering to sell one of the terrorist group’s amateurishly designed black and white flags. And the thing wasn’t even eligible for Free Amazon Prime shipping. The nerve!

Pretty outrageous, huh? If you can purchase one symbol of a group violently hostile to the United States, why shouldn’t you be able to grab another, right? Well, as it turns out, you can’t buy either on Amazon. I myself did a search for “ISIS Flag,” “ISIL Flag,” “Islamic State Flag” and “Daesh Flag” (hey, I’m already probably on a half-dozen watch lists, so what harm can it do now?)

No results. The folks at the urban legends site Snopes.com dug a little deeper and found an archived page for a vendor selling ISIS flags that went up in May — and was quickly taken down. So no, as of right now, you cannot buy either a Confederate flag or an ISIS flag on Amazon.

Then there’s Don Stair of Little Rock, Ark., who was mightily offended by the actions of his local TV station when they adorned their logo with what he called the “gay colors” of the Rainbow Flag after the Supreme Court’s historic decision. “Just stay out of it,” Don tweeted furiously.

Problem is, the station in question, KARK-TV, is an NBC affiliate, the logo in question is the NBC peacock, and that rainbow color scheme has always been part of it.

I recall it as far back as my own childhood, when the network used the Bird (as it called it) to tout that its programming was presented “in living color!” 

Hey — who knows? — maybe they were all gayed up back then, too.

The left had its own episode of Twitrage over the alleged “coddling” of accused (and admitted) Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof. In particular, people were unhappy with reports that Roof, who’s white, had been “taken to Burger King” on his way to the police station after being apprehended. They point out that a lot of the black suspects we hear about lately have tended to get shot, asphyxiated, slammed around inside of police vans, and otherwise killed. And this murderer gets to “have it his way”?

Well, as it turns out, Roof wasn’t exactly taken to the drive-through and given a gift card. Some officer may have gone and gotten Roof a burger while he was locked in a conference room in the Shelby, N.C., Police Department waiting for the feds and the Charleston police to arrive, but you know what? That’s not all that unusual, especially with a subject you’d really like to get a confession from.

And let’s face it, you can’t just starve prisoners in your custody, even ones accused of mass murder. So once again, there’s less to this “outrage” than meets the eye.

Look, folks, “I saw something on the Internet” is not a reason to automatically get your dander up. I’ve seen pictures of rabbits with antelope horns and a video of a little gray alien peeking in a man’s window on the Internet, too. It doesn’t mean we have to believe in either of those things.

The World Wide Web is full of useful information. It’s also full of useless and dangerous lies. Take the time to keep calm, do the research, and learn which is which.

Ready For Hillary, I Guess

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

So we finally get a moderate Republican in the presidential race. Too bad she’s running as a Democrat.

A week ago today, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton surprised absolutely no one when she declared that she was seeking the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. As usual, the press and the Republicans immediately ignored the actual problems with Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and a possible president, such as her cozying up with corporate interests and her hawkish and interventionist foreign policy.

No, in deference to the “base,” they went right to the usual trivia, previously refuted tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories (Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI!!!) and of course, thinly veiled sexism.

Take, for example, the often-voiced criticism that Clinton is “arrogant” or “entitled.” Look, people, it’s a supreme act of arrogance for anyone to put themselves forward as qualified to lead the Free World. As far as I’m concerned, this “arrogance” claim is just a euphemism for the word those on the right really want to use (and occasionally have): “uppity.” They said it about President Obama, they’ll say it about Hillary Clinton, they’ll basically say it about anyone they regard as one of their inferiors who has the effrontery to aspire to political power.

On the “trivia” front, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman took an entire column to break the story of Mrs. Clinton and her assistant dining at a Chipotle restaurant in Maumee, Ohio. Mrs. Clinton, we are told, was “in a bright pink shirt, ordering a chicken burrito bowl — and carrying her own tray.” This, it should be noted, came from a review by Ms. Haberman of the restaurant’s security video after receiving an “anonymous tip.”

But they didn’t stop there. Ms. Haberman delved deeper to bring us the news that “their order also included a Blackberry Izze drink, a soda and a chicken salad, and was filled just after 1 p.m.”

This led to a “what does it all mean?” analysis on CNN.com, which asked, with no visible trace of irony: “One of the biggest obstacles Hillary has to overcome is the perception that she represents the past. What better way to shed that outdated 1990s stigma than appearing at a hip restaurant of today?”

The real issue, of course, it the cover-up as to whether or not Clinton left a tip or whether she got more guacamole than she deserved. I think a House committee needs to be convened on this, and God help Hillary if she can’t produce the receipt.

I’ve detailed several times in these pages why I’m not naturally a fan of Clinton’s brand of Republican Lite. She seems to have come late to the realization that income inequality exists in this country and that it’s a serious problem. And, lest we forget, she voted for the Iraq War.

I’d much rather see, for example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the race. Problem is, Warren’s adamant that she’s not running. The people pushing Sen. Bernie Sanders to declare for the Democratic nomination seem to have forgotten one basic problem: Sanders isn’t a member of the Democratic Party.

As for the other potential Democratic candidates, I like former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb’s positions on criminal justice reform, and he was talking about income inequality before it was cool. But he’s very much a long shot at this point. And who the heck is Martin O’Malley?

All that said, when you look at the current actual and potential GOP slate of candidates, the choice is pretty clear. For example, the day after Hillary announced, Marco Rubio jumped into the race and reminded us of the weakness of the forces against her. Sen. Thirsty, apparently not aware of Mrs. Clinton’s “hip” lunch habits, derided Hillary as “the candidate of the past” before promising to roll back everything that’s happened in the last six years.

You may think it somewhat odd to hear a member of the party that idolizes Ronald Reagan and would like to see us return to the “family values” of the 1950s talking about “the politics of the past,” but as I’ve noted before, no one should expect consistency from these people.

The next president may get to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices. I want someone in that position who’s pro-choice, pro-science, pro-LGBT rights, and pro-health care reform. And you know what? So do the majority of American people. Even on health care reform, when you ask them about the specifics of the Affordable Care Act and don’t call it “Obamacare,” people are overwhelmingly for it.

So voting for Hillary Clinton is going to be like getting old: annoying and occasionally painful, but not so bad when you consider the alternative.

The Curious Incident of the Supreme Court

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

Ah, the first Monday in October. A day of great interest to those of us in the law biz, because that’s the day the Supreme Court of the United States officially starts its term.

This year, the Supremes began by, like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, doing a curious thing: nothing. They decided not to review the decisions of lower courts which struck down bans on gay marriage in seven same-sex marriage cases.

Because those appeals courts also have jurisdiction over more than just the states the original cases came from, bans on same-sex marriage will almost certainly fall in those other states as well. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which struck down Virginia’s gay marriage ban on constitutional equal-protection grounds, also has jurisdiction over West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Therefore, while a challenge to North Carolina’s egregious Amendment One hasn’t yet reached the Fourth Circuit, it’s legally dead in the water, waiting only for the harpoon, and the Supreme Court isn’t going to try to resuscitate it.

On Tuesday, the mighty Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, struck down same-sex marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada. By the time the effects of the decisions are fully felt, 35 states will likely have to recognize the right of same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights the rest of us take for granted.

As one might expect, the haters and bigots went nuts. Sen. Green Eggs and Ham himself, Mr. Ted Cruz of Texas, referred to the decision of the SCOTUS not to intervene as “the worst kind of judicial activism.”

Get that? Doing nothing is now “activism.” Proof once again, as if you needed any, that the words “judicial activism,” like the words “liberal” and “leftist,” have been robbed of all meaning other than “anything I don’t like.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah fell back on the tired and hackneyed complaint about “unelected judges”: “Whether to change that definition [of marriage] is a decision best left to the people of each state — not to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

Sadly, Sen. Lee, like most right wingers claiming to be defenders and upholders of the Constitution, seems to know very little about it. See, according to that pesky old Constitution, federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, aren’t elected, and therefore not “politically accountable.”

That’s how the whole thing was set up from the beginning, for the very reason that the interpretation of federal law (including the Constitution) shouldn’t be subject to the vagaries of political opinion, and that you can’t “leave it to the people of each state” if what they decide to do, even via popular vote, violates the Constitution. You got a problem with that, take it up with the Founding Fathers.

It’s particularly amusing because Sen. Lee himself used to work for one of those “unelected and politically unaccountable” judges, namely Justice Samuel Alito, for whom Mr. Lee clerked. So we can assume he knows better and is just playing to the rubes — sorry, I mean the “base.”

As of this writing, the rulings and others like them have not caused the collapse of so-called “traditional” marriage. Despite the fretting of Butch Otter, Idaho’s wonderfully named governor, allowing same-sex marriage has not led “opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies.” At least not any more than they already do.

As Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt drily observed in responding to that argument, “We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock ’n’ roll.” Dang it, I was so looking forward to that.

All that said, the issue isn’t completely over. It’s entirely possible that another federal circuit — say the Fifth (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), Sixth (Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee), or Eleventh (Alabama, Florida and Georgia) — which still have cases on marriage equality pending, may decide differently than the ones whose decisions the Supreme Court left alone.

That would create the dreaded “split between circuits,” at which point the Supremes would almost certainly decide they needed to step in and resolve the question once and for all as to whether states can deny people the fundamental right to marry and equal protection of the law just because they’re different.

Let’s hope they decide to stay on the right side of history and tell them, “No, you can’t.”

The Brilliant Bigot

Latest Column-The Pilot Newspaper: Dusty Rhoades


Those of you who aren’t science fiction geeks have probably never heard of Orson Scott Card. But those of us who love stories of possible futures and pasts that never were, he’s one of the legends. He’s won the Hugo, the Nebula, the Locus and a slew of other awards.

One of his best-known novels is the classic “Ender’s Game,” the story of a young boy being turned into a killer in a brutal orbital boot camp set up to train child soldiers to fight an alien enemy. It’s a great book, a real-page turner. It’s complex and dark and shocking and thought-provoking, with an ending that makes you go “Whoa. I did not see that coming.” Card is a truly gifted writer. A master of the craft.

He’s also an irrational anti-gay bigot.

Card has written extensively against homosexuality and same-sex marriage, even going so far as to suggest that legalization of same-sex marriage would be sufficient justification for armed overthrow of the government.

“Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy,” he wrote. “I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”

He’s claimed that “the dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.”

One wonders how Mr. Card knows the “dark secret of homosexual society,” but we’ll leave that aside for the moment. Lately, however, there was some evidence that Mr. Card has come around — or has he?

He wrote a piece that appeared in Entertainment Weekly, in which he stated that the recent Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act has rendered the gay-marriage issue “moot.” He said, “The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.”

So far, so good, and probably legally correct. But he went on to say: “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

Well, I have good news for you, Mr. Card. I’m reasonably sure that there won’t be a French Revolution style Reign of Terror against you and people who think like you. No guillotines, no tribunals.

I’m even willing to bet that there won’t be any kind of movement to deny you and your beloved the things you’d deny to same-sex couples — everyday things such as being able to cover your spouse on your health plan, pay hospital visits as a matter of right, be considered next of kin for health care decisions, inherit without a will, etc.

You get to keep doing all that stuff. You don’t have to get divorced and gay married now, and your children can still “expect to marry in their turn.” And you can still write whatever you want. Feel better?

As it turns out, though, that’s really not what Mr. Card means when he talks about “tolerance.”

See, “Ender’s Game” is being released as a movie, and there are some pro-marriage-equality groups who have put forth the proposition that since this Card fellow has spent a great deal of time, creative energy, and money supporting causes that directly oppose interests vital to their well-being, maybe they shouldn’t help support him with their own hard-earned shekels by paying for tickets to see the movie.

I can see their point, although I personally have always been of the opinion that the artist’s work should be judged on its own. Let’s face it — there have been some artists who have done great works despite being generally awful people.

The brilliant poet Ezra Pound was a Fascist and a Nazi collaborator. Jackson Pollock was a wife-beating drunk. And so on. But I don’t boycott them. Of course, those artists have the advantage of being dead, so I don’t have to worry about the money I spend enjoying their art being used against the interests of people I care about.

So will I go see “Ender’s Game: The Movie”? I don’t know. I still haven’t made up my mind. But I certainly won’t blame those who make the choice not to help the career of someone who’s worked, written, and spent money to deny them the things they hold dear.

“Tolerance” doesn’t require people to help pay for the shine on the boot that’s been kicking them.

What Is "Traditional Marriage"?

Blogger Archie Levine passes along an excellent editorial in the wake of the recent decision overturning Prop 8:

Traditional Marriage Perverts the Tradition of Marriage

...which traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?

...The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
...Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
...Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
...Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
...Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
...Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?

No, the truth of the matter is, that we're trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it "was and always has been" during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s - just before most of us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion (within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed.

Read it. Read it all. It's worth the time it takes.

Dear Carrie

Latest Newspaper column:

An open letter to Miss California, Carrie Prejean:

Dear Carrie:
First off, congratulations on keeping your title as Miss California, despite all the brouhaha over allegedly "racy" pictures and your, uh, surgical enhancements. I've seen those pictures online, and they seem pretty vanilla, at least compared to some of the other things I've seen online, but hey, let's not go into that.

As for the other thing: Hey, it's California, right? I thought implants were more or less mandatory out there. And it's a good thing to have Donald Trump behind you. Just don't let him get too close behind you, if you know what I mean. The guy's reportedly a major hound.

Frankly, Carrie, I've been pretty uninterested in the whole kerfluffle surrounding your not getting the Miss USA title. And since a girl from my home state of North Carolina took home the crown, I'm pleased, to the extent that I care at all, which is not much.

But I do feel like I need to address one thing you said in public. Apparently you're unhappy with what happened when you answered a ­question about gay marriage by stating you felt marriage was only between a man and a woman. Your words were, I believe:

"On April 19th, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech and I
was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It
­undermines the constitutional rights which my grandfather fought for."

When I heard that, I felt I really needed to speak up. Because, see, I'm a major, major fan of the First Amendment. I'm talking pre-teen-girl-crush-on-the Jonas-brothers level of fan. I don't actually write "Dusty + First Amendment" inside a great big heart on the cover of my notebooks, at least not anymore, but still. Big, big fan. So when I heard your complaint that your First Amendment rights were being violated, I felt I had to speak up.

Carrie, you're very pretty, and you seem like a sweet girl. But here's the thing, darlin', and I say this with all due respect: You're ignorant. Now, I could be a jerk and call you dumb, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I'm ­awesome like that. I'll attribute this boneheaded statement to your never having been taught right, rather than any kind of mental defect.

I'll just assume that while you were learning ­little beauty pageant tricks like putting Vaseline on your teeth to make your smile wider that no one ever taught you what the First Amendment really says. But unlike stupidity, ignorance can be cured. And Carrie, I'm here to help. Because I'm a giver. I give. It's what I do.

Now, on to the First Amendment. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ­establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Get that first part? Congress shall make no law. Now, if Congress was trying to pass a law to shut you up, I'd be hollering as loud as anyone. But they're not.
You got criticized. People said nasty things about you. One of them was the contest judge to whom you addressed your comments, a bitchy Internet gossip columnist who's about as far out of the closet as you can get.

And you ­didn't win. But imagine if you'd been in Alabama, and the judge was the head of the local Baptist church. And imagine if you'd made the comment that you were all for gay marriage. You probably wouldn't have won that one either, and the same people who are shedding tears for you now would be applauding the judge who voted against you.

But none of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't mean no one can disagree with you, or even that they have to be sweet to you when they do. It doesn't mean you can insult a contest judge and still win.

So, and again, I say this with respect: Come down off the cross, honey. We need the wood.

When the Buzzwords Fail

Latest Newpaper Column:

I tell you, folks, last week was not a good one for the favorite buzzwords of the Far Right.

We start with one of those favorite rhetorical bugbears of the wingnut, the so-called "unelected judge." Whenever a legal decision doesn't go their way, the cry goes up by the politicos of the GOP torch-and-pitchfork brigade: "unelected judges!"

It was no different recently when California's Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on gay marriage on state constitutional grounds.

U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, House minority whip, fumed with clockwork predictability: "Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people."

See that? He got the buzzword in twice. I think they get some kind of bonus if they do that. Or maybe Dick Cheney just promises not to shoot you for a whole year .

Well, Roy, old son, there's only one problem. The judges who voted to overturn the ban are, it's true, appointed by the duly elected governor, but they then have to be approved by a vote of the people at the next general election. In fact, all of the seven justices participating in the decision were elected by 69 percent or greater of the voters.

So much for "unelected judges," and so much for the idea that the leadership of the House Republicans has the foggiest idea what it's talking about.

Then you had poor right-wing talk show host Kevin James, who on Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show on MSNBC began literally screaming at the top of his lungs the moment he was allowed to speak about how Barack Obama was another "appeaser like Neville Chamberlain" for his position that the U.S. should have talks with Iran.



Matthews asked, not once but several times, if James actually knew who Neville Chamberlain was and if he knew what Chamberlain had done that constituted appeasement. I won't bore you with the five minutes of twisting, dodging, and outright ignoring of the question that James engaged in, but suffice it to say that the answer was, "No, James had not the slightest idea what Neville Chamberlain actually did that could actually be called appeasement of Adolf Hitler." (Hint: It involved giving up half of Czechoslovakia.)

If simply sitting down and talking with enemies is enough to constitute "appeasement," then let's look at some other famous "appeasers" in history.

Ronald Reagan: The patron saint of the right presided over an administration that conducted numerous high-level meetings with a state that supported terrorism, actually had nuclear weapons that were actually pointed right at us, and who had threatened to destroy us in the name of their ideology. (That would be the Soviet Union, in case you didn't know.) Oh, the shame! Oh, the appeasement! We even, horror of horrors, had an actual embassy, with ambassadors and everything, in the heart of the enemy capital!

But St. Ronald never sat down and talked with any Iranians, by golly, at least according to Sen. John McCain. Well, I suppose that's true, since the hostages were released at the moment he became president. It should be noted, however, that what St. Ronald DID do was approve the sale of weapons to Iran, including sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles that could have been used against American planes, and state-of-the art anti-tank missiles that could have been used against American armor. But he never did talk to them, that's true. That would have been appeasement (insert eye-roll here).

George Bush the Elder: James Baker, Poppy Bush's former secretary of state, made, by his own count, 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991 -- at a time when Syria was on the list as a "state sponsor of terrorism."

And, he noted in a 2006 interview, " On the 16th trip Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in history to come sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time. And, thereby, implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist." Talking to an enemy, he said, is not appeasement: "You don't just talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies, as well. And the diplomacy involves talking to your enemies."

But Reagan and Bush the Elder came from another time for the Republican Party, a time that the GOP, whatever its other faults, was at least run by grownups and not by mouth-breathers who have trouble articulating any concept that can't be reduced to a bumper sticker. What will they do now that the buzzwords are failing them?

Dusty Rhoades lives, writes, and practices law in Carthage. His third novel, "Safe and Sound" will be released in paperback on June 3.