Keeping Safe Online - Avoid Scammers, Spammers, and other Scallywags

You've heard the horrifying tales, ranging from annoying ads to ransomware and cyper-peeping toms. You want to know how to minimize your risk. You've come to the right blog post.

First let me say this: I don't do Macs. Some of this advice is applicable to macs, but not all of it. I don't like to give lengthy, witty intros, so I'll just jump right in to the tips.

1. Keep Your Operating System Updated

The vast majority of security risks come from not updating your operating system. If you update your operating system every few days, you'll be protected against most known security issues. I have my computer check for updates and install them every day. In most recent versions of Windows, you can check for updates and install them by going to Start > Settings > Control Panel > Windows Update. Click on "check for updates". When it is done "thinking", it will tell you which updates are available. Select all the "important" ones, and click "install". You'll want to save all your work because you may be required to restart your computer. After all the updates are installed, run windows update again to make sure there aren't any nested updates waiting.

2. Keep Your Browser and Plugins Updated

The second group of security risks come directly from your browser and plugins. First off, DO NOT USE MICROSOFT EXPLORER. I cannot stress this enough. Explorer is absolute garbage from a security standpoint. I recommend installing Firefox and Chrome. The vast majority of sites will run perfectly fine in either browser. Once you have Firefox installed, fire it up and navigate to:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/

Run the plugin updater, update the out of date plugins, and come back to run it again. Lather, rinse, repeat until everything is updated. Run this at least once per week. This won't update any of your Chrome plugins, but it will ensure your basics are covered: flash, java, silverlight, and adobe reader. That should patch most security issues.

3. Antivirus and Anti-Malware
You should always have good antivirus and anti-malware software running on your computer. Set them to update the virus and malware databases every night, and set them to scan after the update (again, every night). AVG is a decent free antivirus, but ESET is far superior. MalwareBytes is by far the best anti-malware software on the market.

4. No Script

I recommend that everyone download and run No Script (linked here) for Firefox. This plugin allows you to selectively allow or deny certain website's permission to run javascript. This will block another huge gateway to being infected. No Script takes some getting used to. For example: when I load CNN's website, none of the news content shows up (because it's all loaded via javascript). I have to "temporarily allow" cnn.com to execute javascript, then the content appears. One really nice benefit is, none of the ads show up because they are loaded by sites other than cnn.com. One slight pain is, none of the videos will play unless I also temporarily allow the "turner.com" domain. I recommend using "temporarily allow" because you don't want cnn to be able to execute javascript on another site. When I load CNN, 17 other domains try to execute javascript. Because you're blocking javascript, flash is usually not allowed to run unless you specifically allow a certain domain to execute the javascript. The only site I cannot use with No Script is Forbes. You can also take a look at Flashblock, Ghostery, and Lightbeam. You'll be surprised just how many websites are tracking you via cookies and cross-domain javascript.

5. Don't Click on Ads or Links in Emails

Tip 3 will save you from most website-based problems. Still, it's a good idea to not click on ads or links in emails / text messages unless you know the domain it is sending you to. Google does a pretty good job of stripping out websites that have harmful content. It's still a good idea to load a Google-referred website without javascript first. If you get an email out of the blue, even from someone you know, don't click on the link unless you're certain the sender intended to send you an email. Some malware and viruses will send emails to all contacts trying to spread itself. When it doubt, contact the person directly to make sure they intended to send the email / link.

6. Use a Firewall

A firewall is basically a thing that filters out traffic to and from your network. There are two types of firewalls: software and hardware. A software firewall is a program that filters out requests from the outside world, and can provide some protection if a virus or worm does happen to get through. A hardware firewall is basically a computer that sits between your network and the outside world to play gatekeeper. A good hardware firewall can block a virus from being spread outside your network, and a software firewall can block the spread of a virus inside the network. I recommend using both types of firewall. Most newer versions of Windows come with a software firewall, and it's a pretty good one (provided you keep your OS updated). You can get a wireless router that also has a firewall built in. To find the best router firewalls, use Google to find keywords like "best wireless routers firewall" (sans quotes). You can usually trust websites like cnet and pcmag to give unbiased reviews. I won't provide any links because they will be outdated. Using Google you will find the most updated information when you do your searching. Just make sure you check the dateline to ensure you aren't looking at an old article.

7. Use a Password Vault

It's virtually impossible to remember every password these days. Using the same password on multiple sites is a like putting a big red target on your life. Instead, use a password vault (Keepass, Keeper, LassPass, etc.). Generate a unique password for each site. I also recommend setting different (and random) security questions for each site. For example: instead of answering "spot" for your first pet, enter a random string of numbers and letters. Keep that information stored in your password vault (questions and answers) for each site. That way, if one site is hacked, the answers to the common security questions won't be compromised. After all, you don't have 5 different "first pets" withe 5 different names comprised of random strings of letters and numbers. If you use an offline password manager, make sure you keep a backup of the file just in case the original becomes corrupted (rare but it does happen). I'd keep the backup on a thumb drive and keep the thumb drive in a very secure place. If you use a browser plugin-based password vault, make sure you constantly update the plugin to the latest version.

8. Use Common Sense

1. Don't open emails from unknown people. Don't click links you receive, even from friends, if the email is unexpected or unusual. Watch out for a missing salutation line. If your friend usually says "Hey Bob", but the email doesn't, it might not be from your friend. When in doubt, contact the person directly.
2. Don't give your password, security questions / answers, or verification codes to anyone over the phone, via email, or text.
3. Make sure the website you are looking at is actually the website you intend. Keep in mind, a lower case L and a 1 look very similar, and the letter O looks very much like a 0. When in doubt, copy the address in the address bar and paste it into notepad and look for the proper spelling and easily confused characters. Keep in mind, the scammers could have cleverly hidden the real name inside a fake domain or sub-domain. For example: microsoftinfo.com and microsoft.info.com are not microsoft. When in doubt, put the real / known domain name in the address bar, or call the real company to find out if they sent the email. If it looks suspicious, it probably is.
4. Always use SSL (secure socket layer) whenever you are sending or receiving something private over the internet. The way to do this is to look at the address bar and see if it says "https://". If the "s" is missing, that is a non-encrypted connection, and what you're doing could be watched by anybody with simple (and freely available) hacking software. If your email provider doesn't use SSL, ditch them immediately.

9. Don't Change Passwords Often

The traditional wisdom was to change passwords frequently. But knowing exactly how hacks work, changing your password probably won't protect you. Most hackers immediately use the data they steal. They don't wait for 3 months to use it. Unless you just happen to change your password immediately after the hack, you're going to get no benefit. It is still a good idea to change your password every few months just in case a hacker publishes a huge list of usernames and passwords. They usually do this well after they're done with the data, so the damage is already done. Because they often publish username and password lists on the dark web, it's VITAL to never use the same password on more than one site. This is why it is so important to use a password manager.

10. Secure Your Wifi

Your wifi router can encrypt everything between the router and your computer. If you run a wifi that doesn't require a password to connect, everything you do can be seen by someone sitting outside your house with some basic equipment. To secure your router, read this article. Make sure you set a really good password. Your password vault can generate a good one. I recommend writing it down and keeping it somewhere secure.

11. Encrypt Your Hard Drive

If your laptop gets stolen, or you forget to properly wipe a discarded hard drive, your files will be vulnerable. The best defense is to encrypt your hard drive with an encryption system like BitLocker. An encrypted drive is useless unless the thief cracks the encryption algorithm or has your password.

12. Securely Delete Files

When you want to delete a file, make sure it is fully erased. There are tools out there that will overwrite the deleted file with random junk, then deletes the junk. A few good ones are: Eraser, Freeraser, and CCleaner.

13. Delete Cookies Often

Cookies are used for good and nefarious purposes. Good purposes mean you bank recognizes your computer and doesn't require you to go through the two-step verification process each time. Nefarious purposes mean advertisers, spammers, hackers, and government agencies can track your online browsing. Regularly deleting cookies is a great idea. I use a Firefox plugin called Cookie Culler. It clears my cookies every time I close the browser, but it allows me to set certain cookies to be "protected" against the cookie culling.

14. Don't Undress in Front of Your Webcam

Seriously. It is a well-known fact that government actors can turn on webcams (without the warning light). Now that this ability is well known, it's only a matter of time before hackers figure it out (probably already have). Since a laptop has a battery, it's entirely possible the webcam or microphone could be turned on even if the computer is off or in standby mode. Seriously. Don't do anything in front of a camera unless you're comfortable with that being watched by strangers. A piece of electrical tape can fix the camera problem. There probably isn't a way to fix the microphone thing.

I'm sure I'll think of other tips, and I'll update this post at a later date. Good luck to you.

Considering Driving for Uber, Lyft, or other service? A driver tells his experience

You want to drive for Uber or Lyft...

So, you're considering starting to drive for Uber, Lyft, or one of the myriad other sharing economy services. You're a bit nervous, and you're not sure what to expect or how to proceed. You're not even sure if your car qualifies.

I'm here to help. I started driving for Lyft in June 2015, and moved to Uber shortly thereafter. I can only tell you my experience driving in Seattle (hereafter known as the People's Republic of Seattle or PRS). I suspect it's fairly similar to driving in other large cities.

Here are some common questions I see on many forums.

Does my car qualify for Uber or Lyft?

Chances are, if your car is 2002 or newer, in good condition, and can seat 4 passengers plus the driver, you probably qualify for some kind of driving with Uber or Lyft. Depending on your vehicle age, gas mileage, and condition you may be limited to certain types of services.

Another important thing to note is your car must be in good condition, no damage or safety issues, and have current plates and insurance. You will be required to get your car inspected, so make sure your car is clean and in good condition before you take it for inspection. You will need your insurance and registration, both of which must have YOUR NAME on them.

Some cities place gas mileage restrictions on drivers. For example, here in PRS (Seattle), you cannot pickup from the airport unless your car gets at least 45 MPG. You can drive anywhere else in the city with lower MPG, but it wouldn't surprise me if PRS expanded the restriction to the entire city.

For specific examples of city requirements and restrictions for Lyft and Uber, see the following links:
Uber Driver and Vehicle Requirements
Lyft Driver and Vehicle Requirements

What is the minimum driver age for Lyft and Uber?

Generally speaking, you have to be 21, and have a clean driving record to drive for Uber or Lyft. They might overlook some blemishes on your driving record, but not the big ones (DWI, DUI, reckless driving, hit & run, etc.). The only thing you can do is apply and see. The worst they can do is say no.

Some cities have higher age restrictions. See the links above for city-by-city and state-by-state restrictions.

How long does it take to get approved?

This really depends on how badly they need drivers in a given area. I was approved for Seattle Lyft in 3 days. When I got around to applying for Uber, it took a couple weeks.

What do I need to apply?

You need the following documents to apply:

• Valid Driver License in the state you're applying for
• Valid Vehicle Registration with your name on it
• Valid Insurance with your name on it
• A car that meets the minimum requirements and can pass an inspection
• Photos of you and your car
• An email address
• An android or iphone to setup the driver app
• Ability to pass a background check

What happens after I apply?

They will do a background check and pull your driving history (multi-state). Once approved, you'll get an email with instructions to take your car in for an inspection.

For the Inspection: Clean out your car. I mean clean it. It should be clean as though it were being sold. Don't have a bunch of stuff in the trunk. Keep only the bare necessities (jack, lug wrench, etc.), and they should be segregated off to a small corner. If they roll around while you drive, consider getting a small net to hold everything in place. Make sure there is enough room in the trunk to put 2 big suitcases. Not on top of everything. The suitcases must be able to lay flat on the floor of the trunk.

Make sure you vacuum out the car, and clean any dirt or stickiness. Basically, the car should look as it would at a used car dealership. Do a detail job, or get a detail job done. I cannot stress this enough. Your car must be clean clean clean. Take your driver license, registration, and insurance with you to the inspection. Your insurance and registration must have YOUR NAME on them. Not your parent's name or a company name. Your name can be listed along with someone else, but these documents must have your name or they will not be accepted. When you arrive, they will do a detailed inspection, which will look at the cleanliness, mechanical condition, and appearance of your vehicle. They will let you know if you need to fix anything before you can drive. Whatever they say, you'll have to get it reinspected after you fix the items on the list.

Uber and Lyft have different inspection processes, so you'll have to be flexible.

In most cities, you can start driving once you're approved and pass your inspection. Some cities place additional requirements, but they usually aren't required immediately. For example: in Seattle, we're required to take an online defensive driving course and get a certificate. It takes about an hour, and it's free. PRS also requires us to register for a rideshare license, but it takes them like 6 months to issue it. We're still allowed to drive in the mean time.

What are the insurance requirements for Lyft and Uber?

Uber and Lyft have similar insurance requirements. When you have a passenger in your car, Uber and Lyft have really strong insurance that covers you, your car, and your passenger up to $1 million. The same policy covers you when you're on your way to pick up a passenger. When you're logged in waiting for a ping, your own insurance covers you and your car. Even with a passenger, I believe your own insurance is on the hook first. Important Note: Many insurance companies have been known to cancel policies and deny claims if they learn you are doing rideshare. The cheapest proper rideshare policy I could find was $1200 every 6 months through Allstate. I have excellent credit and a perfect driving record.

I did find a reasonable alternative to a "proper" rideshare insurance policy. MetroMile. MetroMile is a per-mile insurance company, and it is way cheaper than "proper" rideshare insurance. Once your MetroMile account is linked with your Uber account, they deduct the miles you drive for Uber. That means you don't have to pay the per-mile insurance rate on miles you drive for Uber. There are some drawbacks to MetroMile though, so keep them in mind:

Issues with MetroMile:

1. You can only drive for Uber. If you drive for Lyft or any other sharing economy service, you'll be paying the per-mile rate.
2. If you have an accident while driving for a non-Uber service, MetroMile could cancel your policy.
3. Road trips are out of the question because you'll be paying the per-mile rate, which could get very expensive.
4. Even a trip to the grocery store will cost you the per-mile rate.

I pay 8.7 cents per mile for my MetroMile insurance, with a base rate of $69 per month. I did the cost-benefit analysis in the following way:

I was paying $200 per month for an Allstate rideshare policy. The difference between $200 (Allstate) and the MetroMile base rate was $131 per month. At 8.7 cents per mile, I could drive 1500 miles outside Uber before MetroMile becomes uncompetitive. I average around 500 miles per month outside Uber, so my bill comes to around $113.00 per month. That's $69 for the base rate, and 0.087 x 500.

You can certainly take on the risk of having a regular insurance policy. I have too much to lose, so I went with MetroMile. Sadly, that meant I had to stop driving for Lyft.

How much can I earn driving for Uber and Lyft?

The advertised rates for both services is around $35 per hour. That's not what you'll be making. Depending on the hours you drive and your location, you can earn $10-$25 per hour on average. One hour you can have two airport trips and make $70, and the next you can have 4 short "down the road" trips and make $15. If you drive only in the middle of the day (9 AM to 3 PM), you'll probably only make around $10 per hour. If you drive during the morning and afternoon commutes, you can make closer to $40 per hour. If you work the bar rush hours on the weekend, you can make even more.

It all depends on your availability and location. If you live in the suburbs, you can make fairly good money during commute times in the morning and afternoon, but it's totally dead in between. If you live downtown in a major metro area, you'll get a fairly steady stream of short rides all day long.

If you've found this information useful, consider using the following links to sign up. I'll make a little money, and you'll get a signup bonus. The signup bonuses are based on your location and current promotions.

Sign Up to Drive for Uber

Sign Up to Drive for Lyft

Check back soon for more posts about ridesharing. Good luck!

Arcan Cetin may not have been a Muslim

Right wing social media have latched on to the shooter's Turkish ethnicity, and just assumed he must be a Muslim. However, there are many signals on his myspace and twitter accounts that point to him not being a practicing Muslim, and possibly even being a Catholic.

First, let me point to all the things on his twitter feed that do not look like a practicing Muslim:

1. The header on his twitter profile is Santa Claus. Santa Claus is haram in Islam. Haram means forbidden.
2. His twitter feed is full of references to playing video games, like Halo and Guardians of the Galaxy. Playing video games is frowned upon in Islamic cultures as a "waste of time".
3. He certainly liked playing Guardians of the Galaxy, which is based on the movie of the same name. The fact that the movie is dripping with Christian memes seems to turn off a lot of Muslims. Seriously, the "Star Lord" is the son of an angel, and his nemesis is called "The Accuser", which is actually what "The Satan" means in the OT as well as part of Revelations. Also, "The Accuser" is clearly a caricature of jihadists.
4. He also liked to play Halo, which also contains a lot of Christian memes (the crusades, ark of the covenant), and "the Covenant" is clearly an stand-in for Islam and the modern "clash of civilizations".

Second, his facebook profile has some odd things, like a fascination with Russia.

Third, on to his myspace profile. We can only see pictures, but it certainly doesn't look like a Islamic jiahdist's profile:

1. He has an image of Balrog, the fictional character from Lord of the Rings, Fellowship of the Ring. The Balrog is the beast Gandalf blocks by saying "you shall not pass". This certainly isn't Islamic, and some Imams have even labelled it haram (forbidden).
2. In an image where he's holding a Smith & Wesson pistol, he appears to be in a garage. The toolbox next to him has some stickers that certainly don't look Islamic: NHRA, Choppers, etc. Perhaps he was at some kind of gun show, as the seats behind the curtain don't really look like a configuration you'd expect to find in a car repair shop or a home garage.

THE BIG ISSUE:

If you look at the "fat boy with a gun" picture from his myspace profile (below), you will notice a painting hanging on the wall behind him.

That is "Saint Bride", by John Duncan.

Saint Bride is a Catholic Saint, also known as Brigid of Kildare. The caption on the "fat boy" picture says the man sitting behind him is his uncle. Presumably, that uncle owns the house, or perhaps it is the house of Mr. Cetan's parents.

Would you expect to find a painting of a Catholic saint on the wall of a Muslim family home? Nope!

So, now that I've shown reasonable doubt as to the religion of the shooter, let's delve into the clues about who he actually was.

Army Wannabe? His twitter feed includes a shout out to his "ROTC peeps".

His twitter feed also has pictures of him wearing a shirt that says "Army Strong" with some kind of map print on it.

Hillary Supporter? (doubtful)

On January 18th 2015, he tweeted "OMG WE GOT HEADS!!!!!" at 3:24 PM.

Two minutes later (3:26 PM), he posts "We win I vote for Hillary Clinton".

Something to keep in mind about this: Hillary Clinton didn't announce her candidacy until April 12th, almost 3 months later. Considering the fact that he posted "we got heads", then two minutes later says "we won", it really sounds like a group of friends playing "heads or tails", and he ended up on the "heads" side which was assigned to Hillary Clinton. If the coin had fallen the other way, he probably would have posted "We win I vote for Donald Trump". This certainly isn't a ringing endorsement of Clinton, especially since she didn't announce her run for president until 3 months later. Some reports say the "I vote for Hillary" tweet was over the Seahawks beating the Packers that day. Apparently it was some kind of bet.

In another tweet, he lumps Hillary Clinton in with Hitler's wife. Does that sound like someone who supports Hillary? I think not.

Someone who went to school with him has posted that he was a "conservative" and "in the rifle club & ROTC".

Gun Enthusiast? His myspace profile shows pictures of him holding two different guns. The first is posted above (see fat kid holding M-16). In the second, he is holding a Smith & Wesson revolver.

He was obviously fond of guns. He also liked playing "shoot 'em up" games, especially Call of Duty.

My Conclusion: Arcan Cetin seems to be a wannabe soldier with a gun fetish. His Turkish heritage and his alleged (but clearly not certain) religion have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he killed 5 people at a mall. As of this writing, his motives have not been released.

I'm so sad to see so many Americans scapegoating a minority religion. As an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion. I see the serious problems in Islam. Hell, I've actually read the Quran to see what a blood thirsty book it really is. I've also read the bible, and in comparison the Quran isn't all that different in it's thirst for the blood of infidels. Even if Mr. Cetin is Muslim, I'd say his enthusiasm for guns and violent video games, along with his violent past contributed far more to this evil deed than his religion.

Katie Couric misrepresents gun enthusiasts, but their arguments are hollow

Before we get started, I need to state up-front that I support the second-amendment right to keep and bear arms. However, I recognize that gun violence has become a serious problem, and I support legislation that uses the least restrictive means to address this problem. I do not buy into the NRA line that more guns equal less violence. I get into nasty arguments with left wingers who think the only solution is a ban. I also piss off the right wing gun enthusiasts by supporting a waiting period, background checks, and a lock-up requirement. There is nuance to both these positions that neither side is interested in hearing. As usual, they dig in their heels and refuse to listen.

Katie Couric made a "documentary" about gun violence in the United States. For the documentary, she interviewed a group of gun enthusiasts called the "Virginia Citizens Defense League".

The interview was clearly misrepresented in the documentary. Couric asks basically: "without background checks, how do we keep felons and terrorists from purchasing a gun?" The group actually answered with a slew of predictable NRA talking points. Instead of showing their answers, the video was edited to make it appear that the group was stumped by the question, and dramatic sounds are played to enhance the effect. It's one thing to not use footage, but it's another thing entirely to edit the footage to lie.

This is the actual interview transcript, as I transcribed it from the gun nut group's audio recording:

Begin Transcript
Couric:  If there are no background checks, how do you prevent... I know how you all are gonna answer this, but I'm asking anyway. If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say, a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?

Male Gun Enthusiast: Well, one... If you're not in jail, you should still have your basic rights and you should be able to go out and buy a gun.

Couric: So, if you're a terrorist or felon...

Male Gun Enthusiast: If you're a felon and you've done your time, you should have your rights.

Another Male Gun Enthusiast: The fact is we do have statutes, both at the state and federal level that prohibit classes of people from being in possession of firearms. If you're under 18 in Virginia, you can't walk around with a gun. If you're a [sic] illegal immigrant; if you're a convicted felon; if you've been adjudicated insane; these things are already illegal. So, what we're really asking about is a question of prior restraint. How can we prevent future crime by identifying bad guys before they do anything bad. And the simple answer is, you can't. And particularly under the legal system we have in the United States, there are a lot of Supreme Court opinions that say prior restraint is something that the government does not have the authority to do. Until there is an overt act that allows us to say "that's a bad guy", then you can't punish him.

Female Gun Enthusiast: Um.. I would take another outlook on this. First I'll ask you what crime... er... what law has ever stopped a crime? Tell me one law that has ever stopped a crime from happening.

Couric: Well, some would argue since the Brady Bill was enacted... you know, people who have an opposing point of view... 2 million guns have been kept from the hands of criminals.

Female Gun Enthusiast: But who's to say that that person that was denied a background check didn't go out and buy or steal a gun?

Couric: Well (unintelligible) made it more difficult... and who knows, that's sort of hypothetical. But I think that that's a law that kept guns from getting into the hands of wrong... uh... people who should not own guns according to people who support the Brady Bill.

Female Gun Enthusiast: If that were the case, we would have seen a significant reduction in crime with the reduction of sales of guns.

Couric: Or we would have seen a smaller increase, and that again is hard to measure.

Male Gun Enthusiast: I tell people all the time if you go to Prince Georges County Maryland, it must be the safest place on earth because they have tremendous gun control. But in fact, it's practically the murder capitol of the country. It's because people who have.. um.. who are otherwise law abiding, self reliant folks are prohibited from being able to defend themselves, and the people who want to kill them are not. Like Chicago.

Female Gun Enthusiast: So... Back to the point I was getting to in a round-about way. Um.. If someone wants to commit murder, and even if they are prevented from getting a gun to commit that murder with, it doesn't necessarily stop them from committing the murder, and the murder is already against the law. The tools they use may change, but if they are bound and determined to break a law (commit murder, commit robbery, break into somebody's house, whatever it is that they are going to do), then the law is not stopping them, it is just giving an avenue to punish them if and when they are caught.

Couric: Is it making it though... potentially more difficult to carry out a crime if it is harder to obtain a gun?

Female Gun Enthusiast: I don't think it is harder to obtain a gun.

Couric: Well, let's say they're [sic] aren't able to buy a gun legally because of a background check, and they have to go somewhere else or they have to find someone to sell them a gun. Theoretically, is that making it perhaps harder for that person to go and kill someone they're angry at. Could they have changed their mind in the interim? I'm just asking.

Female Gun Enthusiast: I do not think that it would make a difference in the person wanting to commit the crime. Where we have seen it make a difference, and there was a case just recently which there was a woman that wanted to buy a gun because of an ex that was threatening to kill her, and there was a waiting period in the state that she lived in (male voice: New Jersey) and she was killed before the end of the waiting period.
End Transcript

My Responses:

Objection 1: They did their time.
Did you notice how they avoided the terrorist part of the question? Anyway, the first objection is this idea that all rights should be restored once one has "done their time". There are a couple problems with this:

1. At the moment, our legal system is purely punitive, having very little focus on rehabilitation. If shortcomings or social problems led to the crime in the first place, pure punishment and release will not reduce the likelihood of repeat offenses. If anything, spending time in prison for the crimes your education predisposed you would seem to harden a criminal.
2. In the case of someone who has a history of violence, why is it rational to give them easy access to lethal weapons immediately upon release from "doing their time"? At the very least a probation period should be required. If a child molester "pays his dues", should they immediately be allowed unlimited access to children? If a pyromaniac "does his time", should he immediately be given access to matches and gasoline?

Given our "justice" system's laser-like focus on punishment and disregarding any kind of rehabilitation, I think it's a mistake to allow anyone access to the tools or victims of their crime.

For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them. - Thomas More (1516 CE)

Objection 2: We already have laws to keep certain people from owning guns.
The second objection sounds rational on the surface until you apply the same reasoning to a different crime. Let's apply this reasoning to child molesters. Before states started passing the sex offender registry laws and laws restricting where sex offenders could live, there were already laws that made it a crime to molest a child. If we apply this reasoning to the sex offender restrictions, we'd have no idea when a sex offender moved in to the neighborhood. We'd also have no means of restricting them from living within a certain distance of schools and daycare centers. We'd have no legal means of keeping them from lingering outside a school, or standing outside a daycare taking pictures of the kids.

It seems perfectly rational, for certain crimes, to ensure that people convicted of those crimes do not have access to the tools of violence or potential victims. Restricting where a sex offender may live, how close they can be to schools and daycare centers, and requiring them to register their home address with authorities seem like rational responses to someone who has demonstrated their willingness to harm children.

If these gun enthusiasts are so concerned with rights, how many of them are willing to send their children to a daycare run by sex offenders? Probably none. Yet these same people are perfectly happy giving a felon unfettered access to guns. They may not come right out and say it, but their support of the gun show loophole says with deeds what they refuse to say with words.

Objection 2: The law forbids "Prior Restraint".
This one is a real doozy. I'm not sure if this guy is aware that he's misapplying a first amendment legal precedent, or if he's purposely trying to confuse people. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Prior restraint has absolutely nothing to do with guns or crime in general. Prior restraint is a legal prohibition on the government doing anything to stop publication of information it doesn't like. For example:  If the Nixon Administration had tried to stop the publication of the Watergate Scandal, or if the Clinton Administration had tried to stop publication of the Lewinski affair, or if the Bush Administration had tried to stop the publication of the Bush-Aznar Memo.

Applying "prior restraint" to the second amendment is like applying the "plastic reindeer" rule to the 19th amendment. It's not just absurd, it's dishonest. The government absolutely can restrain someone from re-offending. It's not considered unreasonable to take away the driver's license of a repeat DUI offender, or to require that the offending driver use a breath alcohol ignition interlock device.

I used to complain about my beloved partner being racially profiled at the airport because he's brown. I stopped complaining when I noticed so many self-proclaimed "patriots" give the following excuse: "Sorry for the inconvenience, but 9/11 changed everything".

Yep. 9/11 made it so gun enthusiasts focus entirely on their 2nd amendment rights, while completely ignoring the fact that other people's constitutionally enumerated rights are being curtailed every day.

Objection 3: What law has ever stopped a crime?
Katie Couric did a poor job responding to this question. She brought up the "Brady Bill", but that's a soft pitch to throw at seasoned gun apologists. Why the hell didn't she bring up the Patriot Act? Conservatives love to tout how we haven't had another terrorist attack since we gave up our liberties in the Enabling Act.... er... Patriot Act. It's true that we haven't had another massive attack like we had on 9/11, so apparently the law is working. Why aren't these gun enthusiasts decrying the Patriot Act? It certainly has stopped large-scale attacks.

Objection 4: Criminals will find a way to get a gun.
By this logic, child rapists will find ways to gain access to kids, and terrorists will find ways to terrorize (see Boston Bombing and Planned Parenthood shooting). By this logic, we shouldn't have any sex offender registries or the Patriot Act. By this logic, we should pass basic laws forbidding certain activities, and do nothing to plug holes that are later realized to exist in the law. I guess we don't have any lawyers waiting to exploit loopholes, and businesses never EVER exploit loopholes to increase profits or avoid regulation.

If we have reasonable gun control and a requirement to lock up guns, buying a gun on the black market will become increasingly difficult. If guns are required to be locked up, there is no reason to expect robbers to target gun owners, as the guns would be locked up. As more and more guns are seized from criminals, the black market will be slowly depleted of stock. The black market prices will go so high that no one will be able to afford to go the black market route.

Objection 5: If restricting gun sales worked, we'd have noticed a reduction in crime after passage of the Brady Bill.
There's really no way to know because the Brady Bill left this massive gun show loophole in place. However, we actually did see a massive drop in violent crime starting in 1993 (when the bill was passed). Here are the data for violent crimes from 1990 - 2000:

1990 - 1,820,130
1991 - 1,911,770
1992 - 1,932,270
1993 - 1,926,020
1994 - 1,857,670
1995 - 1,798,790
1996 - 1,688,540
1997 - 1,634,770
1998 - 1,531,044
1999 - 1,426,044
2000 - 1,425,486

As you can see, from a peak in 1992, there was a drop of 506,784 by 2000. In 2014, the number was  1,197,987, which is a reduction of 734,283. Just imagine how much this number would drop if we got rid of the gun show loophole.

Objection 6: If gun control worked, Prince George's County should be the safest place in the country, not the murder capitol of the country.

The problem is, counties don't have border enforcement. When you drive from one county to the next, you aren't expecting to be stopped, and have your person, vehicle, and possessions searched. It's extremely easy for the average person to simply drive across the county line to buy a firearm. If we enacted strict gun control legislation nationwide, a person would have to travel outside the U.S. and sneak the gun in the country. That's far more difficult for the average person to do just to get around a background check.

Objection 7: The criminals will just find other ways to kill.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather fight someone who has a knife or machete than fight someone with a gun. This is doubly true if I, as a law abiding citizen, do have a gun that I've purchased legally.

Objection 8: The NJ waiting period cost Carol Browne her life
The New Jersey case mentioned toward the end is the murder of Carol Browne. After getting a restraining order against her woman-beating ex-boyfriend, Carol Browne applied to purchase a gun. New Jersey has a 7 day waiting period once you get a permit (which requires a background check). Getting the permit itself can sometimes take up to 30 days.

While I sympathize with the family of Mrs. Browne, it appears the militant right has blown this way out of proportion. Rather than pushing for a victim / restraining order exemption, they just lay the blanket claim that waiting periods put victims in danger. Let's not forget that these are the same lunatics who, out of the other side of their mouths claim that a violent felon should be able to buy a gun immediately upon release from prison. They aren't interested in the rights of victims. If they were, their actions would line up with their words.

Conclusion: 
While I agree that Mrs. Couric misrepresented these gun enthusiasts, their arguments don't appear to have any validity outside the echo chamber of right wing gun enthusiasts. I don't know why the hell anyone is surprised that a "documentary" lied. Hell, just look at Bowling for Columbine, where they hint at a link between the founding of the NRA and the founding of the KKK. Also, take a look at the right wing hit job "documentaries" done against Obama and Hillary Clinton. Take a look at "Food Inc.", and observe the anti-science, logical fallacy laden snow job. This is part of the whole "free speech" thing in the first amendment. We have to be vigilant and expose lies, regardless of who tells them. I'd also like to add that this "documentary" was never aired or published as fact-based, nor was it ever sold as journalism. Documentaries don't have to meet any journalism standards.

I wholeheartedly support the right for law abiding citizens to own firearms for defensive and hunting purposes. I oppose the short-sighted left wing efforts to ban guns (anyone who says they don't exist is lying), but I also think the NRA is the biggest threat to second amendment rights. Their staunch opposition to basic gun control allows so much violence that people will eventually force the issue in the form of a ban. The shortsightedness of the NRA can be summarized by reviewing the ridiculous law in Kennesaw GA requiring homeowners to own a gun. There are exemptions in place, but they were an after-thought brought about by a lawsuit. Supporters of the law claim that the law decreased burglaries 89% immediately after the law passed. However, FBI data shows a slight increase that year. Gun enthusiasts really don't like facts they can't spin.

Sarah Palin - Christian Dominionist Swine and Horrible Mother

I'm sure you've all heard the news about Sarah Palin, the Wasilla Hillbilly Queen herself, endorsing Donald J. Trump for President Inc. You may have also heard that her beloved son Track Palin was arrested (the same night) for punching his girlfriend and brandishing an AR-15 while threatening to kill himself.

His poor girlfriend was so scared that she was later found by police hiding under a bed in the Palin home.

I really hate Sarah "Momma Grizzly" Palin. Aside from being an amazing simpleton, she's also the antithesis of everything I stand for (nuclear non-proliferation, separation of church and state, personal liberty, personal responsibility, equality under the law, science, rigorous education, free education, etc.). Still, I can't help but feel bad for her kids.

Her kids never really got a fair shake at life, Track least of all. The eldest kid always bears the brunt of the parent's failings. Let's be honest here: the entire Palin clan is pretty nomadic and backward. Most families don't have brawls at birthday parties.
Palin Family Brawl

Most families don't have "abstinence only" daughters getting pregnant (twice) before marriage (while criticizing successful free birth control programs in my state).
Bristol Palin is a Hypocrite on Washington State's Free Birth Control Program

But just look at their parents. Sarah Palin (also an "abstinence only" crusader) got married on 08/29/1988. Their first child, Track, was born on 04/20/1989. That's 7.8 months. It is conceivable that Sarah got pregnant in the first few weeks of marriage and had him early, but it's pretty unlikely. What's more likely is she was pregnant from a rendezvous with boyfriend Todd, and they "eloped" so they could claim they hadn't been fucking before marriage. One interesting tidbit: They seem to go out of their way to keep their son's date of birth out of the media. You've got to dig a bit to find his DoB. We only have Todd and Sarah's wedding date based on Sarah's claims that it was her 20th wedding anniversary during a campaign speech on 08/29/2008. We always know we can trust politicians to tell us the truth. I mean, Sarah always accepts the word of politicians without requiring any documents, right?
Reliable Citation? Really, Kelly?

At least we can say for certain that Track WAS born on 04/20/1989. The complaint from his arrest on 01/18/2016 clearly shows his date of birth.
Track Palin Complaint - January 18, 2016

Let me be clear: I personally don't care if she did have pre-marital sex. I personally think it's foolish to wait until you're married to find out if your future spouse can satisfy your needs. I personally think it's a great idea to not only fuck before marriage, but actually live together! If you live together for a year without cheating or killing each other, you're probably going to have a long marriage.

Sarah Heath (later Palin) switched colleges 6 times in 5 years (in 3 states) before finally getting a bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism.

Pre-marital sex and shotgun wedding speculation aside, when Sarah Palin finally ran for Mayor of Wasilla, she used social issues (abortion, gun rights) in a non-partisan election, and received support from the state republican party in the form of attack ads against her opponent. These were novel things for politics in the small town.

Once in office, she immediately purged the city government of anyone who wasn't a firm supporter of her agenda. She even tried to push the city library to ban some books that offended her born-again sensibilities. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, refused to co-operate with the censorship, and was fired.
Sarah Palin as Mayor of Wasilla Alaska

She was also very good at pulling the levers of patronage to get a job. After a failed bid for lieutenant governor in 2002, Sarah campaigned for U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski, who was running for Governor of Alaska. Murkowski told her she had been short-listed as his replacement in the U.S. Senate. Murkowski, upon winning the governor's race and vacating his U.S. Senate seat, gave the job to his daughter instead. He gave Sarah a lucrative ($122,400/year in 2003 dollars) job as a "Public Member Commissioner" in the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (a state agency) as her reward for her hard work on his campaign.

And then there's the whole "Wasilla Hillbillies" incident. What kind of horrible person makes low-level (probably volunteer or low paid) staffers put extravagant purchases on their personal cards so Sarah and her family can go on a shopping spree? That horrible person would be Sarah Palin.
Wasilla Hillbillies Raiding Neiman Marcus

Then there's the crazy bullshit surrounding Trooper Gate. That whole damn thing demonstrates how absolutely fucked up that family really is.
Trooper Gate

I don't think those kids had a chance in hell to turn out normal. I'm really surprised Track wasn't accused of molesting his sisters, as Josh Duggar was. That's what happens when you're raised in a "no sex until you're married" family. Maybe his parents at least had the wisdom to tell him it was ok to rub one out periodically. If that happened, I suspect that's a bit of dad's wisdom (Shh... don't tell Mamma Grizzly).

I suspect Track Palin does have PTSD. As an Air Guard in the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Air Guard makes it sound like he flew a plane, but he didn't. He was one of the brave soldiers who was exposed, sticking their heads out the top of the armored fighting vehicles looking around for IEDs and ambushes.


I'm sure Track saw a lot of death and destruction during his deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what exactly he expected signing up for the army after 9/11. I suppose he was young and wanted to serve his country. I felt the same way when I joined the Clinton army as a field medic. If "don't ask don't tell" hadn't got me, I'd probably have been in the thick of that disaster as well.

I feel a huge amount of compassion for Track Palin. I sincerely hope he gets the help he needs. He certainly has the grit to get through terrible difficulties. If he can stop this self-destructive behavior, he will go on to do great things. The self-destructive behavior isn't all a result of PTSD, though it has certainly been magnified by PTSD. Track started misbehaving at least as early as 16 when he was arrested (with 3 other boys) for vandalizing 44 school buses. This after the group stole a bottle of vodka from a liquor store earlier that night. The buses tires were deflated, mirrors broken, and their engine block heaters were unplugged. The damage was so extensive that the school district had to close for a day awaiting repairs. The fact that he didn't end up with a permanent criminal record probably has something to do with the fact that "Momma Grizzly" was, at the time of he incident, mayor of the largest city in the borough served by the school district. Because he was a minor, his name was not released without his parent's consent, which obviously wouldn't be granted.

The cherry on top of this redneck sundae is how Gov. Palin used her son's shell shock (PTSD) to take a cheap political shot at President Obama. She claims POTUS doesn't "respect" or "know" what wounded warriors have done to protect America and "secure our freedoms".

If Track actually feels like the President is to blame for his PTSD, he's probably been misinformed by right wing propaganda. The only difference between right wing and left wing responses to veterans is which side is most eager to make more dead and wounded warriors. The left tries hard to avoid wars when possible, whereas the dominionist war-hawks on the right go out picking fights at every opportunity.

If Governor Palin had a shred of compassion for Veterans and Wounded Warriors, she wouldn't be so damned eager to create more of them by supporting bullshit aggression. What's more horrifying to me is how Governor Palin doesn't see the inherent disconnect between her militant pro-life stance, and her burning desire to barbecue children on the playground (also known as a nuclear attack). No one who calls for nuclear attacks is "pro-life". We need to agree as a species that nuclear weapons are so violent and destructive that they cannot be used under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Barbecuing innocent children on the playground is not a military strategy, no matter what kind of political spin you put on it.

If you think I'm just being melodramatic about the "barbecuing children" thing, take a look at these pictures. These were done with a primitive atomic bomb in 1945. The hydrogen bombs we have now are WAY MORE POWERFUL. To illustrate the point, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (called Little Boy) had an explosive yield of 15 kilotons of TNT, instantly burning anything within 1 mile of ground zero, and causing over 100,000 deaths. Modern hydrogen bombs have explosive yields in hundreds of kilotons, and up into the megaton range. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated, by the Soviet Union, was Tsar Bomba, which had an explosive yield of 50 megatons. The fireball was 5 miles across, a town 34 miles away was destroyed, the heat at 62 miles could still cause third-degree burns. Tsar Bomba broke windows as at a distance of 560 miles. A bomb like that could kill tens of millions in a few seconds, with tens of millions more dying over the following months. Nuclear war is evil, and so is anyone who proposes to unleash it on humanity.

Charred body after nuclear bombing of Hiroshima

Little Girl Charred after bombing of Hiroshima

Child Charred by nuclear bomb

The LDS Child Shunning Gambit - Debunking Mormon Propaganda

As you may have heard, the LDS church decided to ratchet up it's hatred of "homosexuals" to a whole new level. This time, the "family friendly" church has decided to target the children of LGBT people. But don't worry, their propaganda machine is already hard at work justifying this travesty. Here is a link to the propaganda:

Mormon Propaganda
*Please note: I'm linking to the Internet Archive version of this lds.net story, just in case the propagandists ever decide to delete this story, or change it (as they did with the 4 very different versions of the "First Vision" (which aren't a "consistent story" as the apologists claim).

I'm going to try to be as gentle as possible, even though I am disgusted (though not surprised) by this new development. Believing Mormons, please understand that my criticisms are for the church alone, and not an attack on you personally. I realize for those living in a tight-knit Mormon community, this concept of "criticize the church but love the human beings who are members" may seem very confusing. Just remember how you managed to "hate the sin but love the sinner" for LGBT people. Maybe that's a bad example, considering how many of you voted to strip us of basic legal protections. You'll just have to trust me: Outside Deseret, the concept of loving a person despite their associations is VERY COMMON. Just think of your closest Catholic friend, and consider your criticisms of the Catholic church. If you felt compelled to voice those criticisms publicly because they were doing something you perceived as harmful to children, would you hope that Catholics could distinguish between criticism of the church and criticism of them as individuals?

On with the debunking: Please note, the "myths" below are from the apologist article linked above. This post is a refutation of his refutation.

Myth 1: These Changes Punish Children
The author claims that there is no punishment in these changes, only a requirement that children of LGBT parents wait until they are 18 to join the church. All other children are allowed to be baptized at 8 (10 years earlier), provided BOTH parents give their approval. The author admits to this approval requirement in the propaganda piece directly, and my own experience joining the church corroborates this policy. The author (who never gives his name), continues to add a legal dimension by claiming fear of "custodial interference".

Debunking Myth 1:
The "this is not a punishment" argument is basically an question of semantics. Let's set aside the punishment question for a moment and focus on parental approval and "custodial interference". If the church is really sticking to it's "both parents must approve" policy, the "custodial interference" question is not an issue. No judge is going to charge a parent with "custodial interference" if there is written approval from the other parent giving permission to join. If the church is truly concerned about this, they should probably keep the written permission in one of their massive record vaults for safe keeping.
The "author" closes this first myth by saying that all children are welcome at all church activities, including primary and sacrament meeting. Sure. But he's forgetting about the priesthood and the sacrament itself. For believing mormons, the sacrament and priesthood (for boys) are vital. Boys generally receive the lesser (Aaronic priesthood) at age 12. At 14 boys can bless the sacrament and do home-teaching. At 16, boys can also baptize and ordain others to lesser callings. I'm really not sure what girls do in their meetings. If my sitting in on Relief Society meetings was any indication, there would be a ton of talk of obedience, chastity, and modesty.
Now, back to the semantics of "punishment". It isn't a punishment aimed at the children. It is another attempt by the church to use their social control and peer pressure to marginalize LGBT people. They've figured out a way to get some kids to shun their parents in order to assimilate into the dominant culture. An added benefit to the church is it gives haters more social cover to hate families headed by LGBT people.  This may seem odd to anyone living outside Deseret, but any non-Mormons inside know it's diabolical and cunning. So, no. It's not a punishment for the children. It's social control with the goal of marginalizing LGBT parents. It's the same dance as always, they've just changed the tune a bit.

Myth 2: Treats LGBT People Worse than Other Sinners
The author claims that, because of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling (nationwide marriage equality), the church was forced to reclassify "same sex relationships" as "apostasy" as opposed to the previous classifications of "adultery" and "fornication". I seriously doubt the courts have any concern for the church's internal classification for breaking their internal rules. That's sort of the point of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (see the Concerns of Virginia Baptists in the link).

Debunking Myth 2:
The "reclassification thing" may seem like a digression, and I believe it is purposeful. They wanted to lodge the words "apostate", "sin", "fornicate", "adultery", "homosexual" as many times as possible in the mind of the reader before moving on to a vacuous finish: "we're treating them the same as the children of polygamists and apostates". Do you see that? It's subtle. They made it APPEAR as though the government forced them to reclassify this "sin" (which is nonsense), then repeatedly associated the words (apostate, fornicate, adultery, sin) with "homosexual", then claimed that the new policy is in line with the treatment of other apostates and polygamists. If the Obvergefell ruling actually did force some kind of reclassification, I'd expect churches nationwide to be raising a stink about it. But they aren't. They are worrying about liability insurance (another red herring). This would have been on the cover of Ensign magazine if it were true. I suspect it was never mentioned.

Myth 3: Violates the Church’s 2nd Article of Faith
The LDS church doesn't believe in "original sin" (2nd article of faith). I've always considered that to be one of it's more (rare) progressive beliefs. My father was a racist, sexist man who loved to drink. I always took comfort in the thought that his "sins" would not transfer to me.
The original criticism of the new policy is that punishing children for the supposed "sins" of their parents violates the 2nd article of faith (not believing in original sin).

Debunking Myth 3:
The author claims he's already debunked this, which is false (see Debunking Myth 1). He claims this new policy is to "protect children" from a "variety of repercussions" by making them wait until they are 18 to join. I may be short sighted here, but the only repercussions I can think of would be social repercussions arising from treatment by members. Since they don't get into specifics, I'm just going to assume that this is Mormon-speak for "we know you're not going to ask questions".

Myth 4: Requires Children to Reject Parents
The author claims that this change doesn't require children to reject their parents. I suppose this may be TECHNICALLY true. In very specific circumstances, it is possible that a child could still love an accept their LGBT parent, despite belonging to a church that teaches that Mommy is an abomination. I suspect in places like Utah and Idaho, such circumstances are quite rare. So, it may be TECHNICALLY true, in the reality of Deseret it's usually going to be untrue. Children are going to be pressured to reject their LGBT parents. It may or may not work. It all depends on the relationships inside the family.
I do have one nit to pick. I admit, I could be wrong, as it's been nearly 30 years since I was baptized (and over 10 since I left the church in disgust). My biological parents were certainly not "good Mormon folk". My father was racist, sexist, and an alcoholic. My biological mother, at the time of my baptism, was known to be doing drugs and turning tricks. Needless to say, I lived with my aunt, who raised me. I don't recall any situation where I was asked to disavow the actions or lifestyle of my parents, or even the supposed "sins" of my aunt (whom I now call Mom). These were never an issue for my own baptism, or those of any of my sisters. I was also never asked to disavow anything when I received the Aaronic priesthood, or moved up into any callings. My biological parents gave their permission, and I got dunked. This whole thing appears to be completely new. I really don't think any other "main stream" Christian churches require children to tell the church about their parent's "sins", and certainly non that require the children to "affirm" that they don't agree with those "sins" after telling them. That seems to cross the line into cult behavior.

Myth 5: Places Newborn Children in State of Apostasy
This one is basically just Deseret News propagandists throwing poop at their competitors over at the Salt Lake Tribune. I am, however, grateful for the clue as to the identity of the author of this steaming pile. This is getting tedious. Why am I still writing about all this nonsense I left over a decade ago?

Myth 6: Church is Depriving Itself of LGBT Members
The criticism of this new policy is that it is keeping talented and gifted LGBT people from joining the church. The author goes into a long, convoluted rant about behavior, sin, and "twisted sense of reality" leading to the myth. He then goes on to compare LGBT people to alcoholics, and essentially says the solution is simple: stop being LGBT so you can have the "blessings of the church".
It's actually hilarious to be lectured on my "twisted sense of reality" by a guy who makes a living churning our reality twisting propaganda for an organization who's doctrinal claims have been widely discredited by ARCHAEOLOGY. At the end of the day, the criticism of the policy is correct: the church is robbing itself of talented LGBT people. But I have some news for you: Changing this policy won't change that. The rigidity and control of the church is inimical to the indomitable spirit that gives us LGBT people such talents and gifts. The control and rigidity kills the gifts. We're better off without the church.

Myth 7: This Hurts Me Personally
This guy is really irritating me now. He's building a straw man (straw man logical fallacy), then labeling it an appeal to emotion logical fallacy (argumentum ad passiones), and dismissing it. The problem is, his straw man didn't include the ACTUAL ARGUMENT which would be made by the person making the argument. The author makes it out like this is some sort of cry-baby tactic to end the conversation. That is a complete mischaracterization. This is the BEGINNING of the conversation, not the end. It usually starts with, "This effects (or hurts) me personally because....", and then the conversation can happen. When I would discuss the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with people who were against same-sex marriage, I would point out the tax implications of me getting health insurance through my partner's employer sponsored health plan. Or, I'd discuss the fact that, upon his death, I'd be taxed on everything inherited from my partner (married people get an exemption up to a certain amount). Or, I'd discuss inheritance, or hospital visitation, or any number of other issues. It would never be a crybaby tactic to stop the conversation. It was always a way of showing them that the issue was a lot more complicated than they were led to believe. That's what these propagandists do, they make people think these issues are simple. In the process, they dehumanize the subjects in the mind of the reader, and give cover to any kind of awful treatment meted out to the newly dehumanized subject.

Myth 8: The Church Lost and Should Move On
The criticism is pretty self explanatory. The response from the author is to say "popular opinion doesn't dictate church decisions" (he apparently isn't aware of 1890 [ending polygamy] or 1978 [black men gain the priesthood]). He then throws out the red-herring of the church being sued by same-sex couples seeking to be married by bishops or be married in the temple. This is a red-herring specifically because the Obergefell ruling specifically lays out the religious exemption:
"Finally, it must be emphasized 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. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered"
I admit, there could be a bit more reassurance in there, but I suspect the necessary reassurances can be found in statutes. I'm not an attorney. If this were some sort of loop hole left open on purpose, a flood of litigation would have followed. That doesn't appear to have happened. Keep in mind, anyone can go to court for any reason. That doesn't mean the case has merit.
The author claims that reclassifying same-sex relationships as "apostasy" provides the church some form of legal protection. It looks like another red-herring. How exactly does this classification give legal protection above the broad protections already provided in the First Amendment and the RFRA?

Myth 9: These Changes are Eternal Doctrine
I actually don't care. This matters as much to me as the specific odor of leprechaun flatulence, and it's just as real.

This Could Lead to a Great Exodus
The article is called "9 Myths", but somehow they managed to end up with 10. Oh well. I just love it when Mormons quote the bible, as they claim it is "not translated correctly" (not seeming to know that many segments of their "perfectly translated" book have segments of the bible lifted, with King James only mistranslations included). The author quotes 1 Timothy 4:41 to claim that Paul prophesied an exodus. There's a problem though. There's a fair amount of evidence that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudepigraphical (falsely attributed to Paul). The evidence does seem to suggest that the Pastoral Espistles were written sometime in the 2nd century AD (long after Paul's ~60 AD execution in Rome).

Conclusion
For me, this is all pretty academic. I left the church over 10 years ago, and I left Utah shortly thereafter. I still have family in Utah, but not many hard core LDS family. Those who are hard-core have stopped talking to me over political disagreements (one about the existence of a SCOTUS ruling on flag burning), or slowly drifted away. My Mom is the only LDS family I have in Utah, and she's really upset by this. I know she was hoping I could provide some comfort when she called the other day. We're close, and I love my Mom dearly. The trouble is, when it comes to the church, I honestly don't care anymore. It's kind of like watching a wild teenager pull one crazy stunt after another. You eventually stop being surprised by the next foolish nonsense. That's my relationship with the LDS church. I watch as they toss out foolish nonsense from the echo chamber of Deseret. I pity the people who've never really questioned the church and it's propaganda. My life was a rolling disaster when I was in that church. It only took a few years out of it before things started getting better for me. I no longer give every waking moment to my job, family, and the church. Now I have time to pursue my own interests. I'm thankful that my Mormon upbringing gave me a strong work ethic, but the emotional baggage that came along for the ride was not worth the cost of admission. It nearly cost my life a few times. It's not worth it. For any LGBT person reading this, I beg you, get out while you're alive. You can live a happy life outside that oppressive cult. Pack your bags and get out. If you family isn't supportive, leave. Leave Deseret if you have to. There's a whole world out there. Explore it. Enjoy it. Live YOUR life. It just might be your life you save.

The Way to Poverty

I read this article about rapid rehousing for homeless families:
Rapid Rehousing - NPR

I have a few questions. By the way, these questions have nothing to do with the race of the subjects of the article. The reporter on the story is in Washington D.C., and in D.C. black is the largest "racial" demographic. I use quotations around "racial" because I recognize that it is entirely a human, rather than biological construct. The D.C. homeless population is also massively disproportionately skewed toward being black. Still, I suspect the reporter could have found a white family to include in the report if she had tried.

So, here are my questions:

1. Why do so many poor people still have more children when they can't afford to care for the children they already have? In this article, Jordan McClellan already had 2 kids 8 years ago, and she got pregnant again. Why? I know what you're going to say: "Things happen, Frank". Yes, things happen. 2 kids already happened. So, she should have been very careful about sex. And when she found out she was pregnant, she should have made the abort or adopt decision immediately. When she got pregnant (again) Plan B was available to adults WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION (starting in 2007). There was NO excuse for adding another child into that cycle of poverty. My sister did the same thing. She already had one child she couldn't afford (with an "I don't believe in condoms" catholic idiot, btw), and she had another child with another no condoms catholic idiot.
2. In the article, the D.C. Director of Health and Human Services is quoted in a way that makes it seem like she has disdain for the idea that parents on welfare should be required to work. Is that me reading more into it, or does she honestly feel that sitting on the couch and popping out babies is an economically viable option for some people? She later pays lip service to the idea of providing job training and education, but there is no mention of any programs to help homeless parents learn marketable job skills, life skills, or get a useful education. Is this all lip service, or do these programs exist?
3. The article mentions that Jordan finally received a housing voucher, where she will be required to pay up 30% of her income toward her rent. The way it's phrased, it almost seems like the reporter thinks 30% is too high. If that is true, why? Affordable housing in urban areas is a struggle for the vast majority of people. At least this family gets a break.
4. Why does Mrs. McClellan have satellite television? The picture in the article shows Mrs. McClellan standing on her balcony next to a satellite dish. The picture shows 3 balconies, and only 2 of them have the dish. That means it probably isn't included in the rent (which would be crazy). I'm sorry. But if you can't afford to feed your children, why are you spending your money on satellite television? Why aren't you saving that money?

I'm all for helping families escape the poverty trap, provided that they are willing to meet me half way. It's sort of like saving a drowning man. You throw him a life buoy, which lands right next to this poor drowning fellow. Then you watch in horror as he continues to despair and flail around in the water as though you had done nothing. So, you jump in to save this poor idiot (thinking he must be mentally slow or something), and you discover he has massive lead weights tied to his feet, pulling him down into the depths.

When you are prepared, children are wonderful and joyous. But when you are already poor, having children is like jumping into the ocean with lead weights tied to your feet.

Oh, and one more thing. Some of you will say I'm a hateful bigot for wanting to take away another person's reproductive freedom. That's where you're wrong. You're absolutely free to reproduce and have as many children as you and your preacher want. Just keep in mind: when it comes time to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide medical care for your oversized quiver, go beg your church and family to pay the bill. DON'T YOU DARE come and demand that I pay higher taxes to pay for your irresponsible behavior. You've made your bed, now sleep in it.

But if you're willing to accept that poor people shouldn't breed themselves deeper into poverty, I'm absolutely willing to help.