Florida’s Disney law (and others) may please the base, but they’re devouring our freedom

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 62% of Americans, including a majority of both Democrats and Republicans, said they were less likely to vote for a candidate that goes after companies for their views.

The poll is relevant because of Ron DeSantis’s signing a law that removes Disney’s self-governing authority because of its opposition to Florida’s Don’t Say Gay law. Its results are irrelevant because DeSantis doesn’t care about those who disagree. The move plays well with the base, the only constituency he cares about. The point of the law is that if you disagree with him, you might be next.

In fairness, DeSantis didn’t act alone–both houses of the legislature voted to strip Disney’s self-governing power and sent the bill to DeSantis. In form, it isn’t like power-mad governors (including DeSantis) taking advantage of the Covid to legislate via executive order. But the results are the same–erosion of our freedom.

It’s part of a growing trend at all levels of American government to say how things will be, regardless of the pesky spirit and letter of the Constitution. The trend is currently driven by Republicans, but Democrats have been quick to apply the same equation to support their pet causes.

A new model for subverting the Constitution came with the Texas abortion law. That law allows the (currently) Constitutional right to abortion to remain technically legal, but giving everyone standing to sue anyone who has anything to do with anyone getting an abortion. Earlier this week, Oklahoma legislators doubled down on Texas approach, passing a bill that allows a $10,000 judgement against providers who perform abortions after six weeks.

California Governor Gavin Newsom saw the opportunity to boost his Presidential aspirations by sponsoring a bill in California to allow people to sue gun manufacturers for illegal firearms. If this model’s upheld, other states will find creative ways to use it to form society to the only proper model–the one they want.

None of this is about abortion or Disney or gun rights. It’s about politicians subverting nearly 250 years of governing principles to please their base and punish opponents. Ultimately, it’s about extending government control. Though both side oppose the other’s goals, they’re looking for use cases to borrow the other side’s tactics.

The Florida government’s actions are a brazen attempt to use its power to force a private entity to toe the line when it comes to thought and expression. It’s something North Korean President Kim Jung-un would do if he didn’t have the power to simply have you and your family killed.

If Florida can take punitive measures against Disney for its opposition to political actions, why can’t California or New York take similar actions against any entity that opposes their policies?

If you can sue people for getting an abortion, a right currently guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, why not allow people to sue anyone who helps people hear Joe Rogan be a supposed anti-vaxxer? Or anyone denying climate change? Or failing to stand when the National Anthem is played at a sporting event?

If school boards can ban books because they consider two gay characters to be porn, why can’t other school boards ban the Bible because Lot’s daughters got him drunk and raped him? If Florida can ban math books that are too woke, why can’t school boards in San Francisco ban history books that depict any part of American history as a positive?

If we’re supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we shouldn’t be trying to find ways around Constitutional freedoms. Our government shouldn’t be using its might against organizations that disagree with its political decisions. And as citizens, we need to be smarter than to cheer their efforts. They aren’t acting in our best interests.

This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. Republicans are doing most of the damage now, but as The Gavinator showed, Democrats will follow the same playbook when it suits their interests.

Meanwhile our freedoms–which include the right to offend and irritate people who don’t like our stances–are being chipped away. In our collective effort to demonize and own the other side, we don’t realize the damage that’s being done to everyone’s freedoms.

In defense of the ability to (infrequently) spank kids

I spanked my daughter exactly one time. She was probably four and she bit her cousin. So I spanked her little butt, sat her on our bed, and told her that if her eyes wandered from the spot on the wall in front of her, a spanking would be the least of her problems.

It was self-indulgent–something based on my anger, not what she needed to be a better person. It was wrong because of my motivation, not because of what I did.

If a guy named Rick Sargent has his way, what I did would be, in his words, a criminal offense. Because it’s science so there’s no possible argument against his stance. He created a preening, condescending lecture of a song to set parents right.

In Canada right now, you can legally spank your kids. It’s in the Canadian Criminal Code, eh? But that could change as there’s a movement to remove language allowing corporal punishment from the code.

An article in something called Castanet.net quotes the World Health Organization saying that one in four adults worldwide were physically abused as kids. And one billion children were victims of “some type of violence” in the past year.

I was spanked as a kid. It wasn’t like Bender’s father kicking his ass for fun in The Breakfast Club. And if you gave me a choice between a spanking and some other punishment, a spanking sucks, but you go through it and go about your business. Taking away TV or your bike or something–that’s a long-term punishment. I was glad when my punishment was a spanking. (Unlike Sargent, who was rarely spanked and says he still has emotional scars from it.) (Sigh.)

The problem with laws like the ones Sargent requires is that there’s a large range of things that can be called “violence against children.” A swat on a diaper or even a belt across the butt isn’t the same as actual physical abuse–the kind where physical harm is evident and emotional harm is likely.

Personally, when my mind was right, I tried to take more of a coaching approach. (When it wasn’t right, there was a lot of yelling.) But when a two-year-old breaks free of your grip in the supermarket parking lot, a light smack on the diaper gets the message across in a way that reasoning can’t. They’re two. My son had a shirt at that age that said “I’m two years old and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

The article seems to lump spanking–something as innocuous as a swat on the Pamper with physical abuse. There’s a massive difference between that swat and kicking your kid’s ass. No reasonable parent advocates ass kicking.

And while some who advocate removing the clause from Section 43 call for offenders to receive resources, there’s danger of another reaction. The criminal code includes a statement that says, “When an offence is committed against a child, a court must treat this as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, which means that the crime is treated more seriously and can result in a more significant punishment.”

According to the article, sixty countries have banned corporal punishment. Certainly, there’s no shortage of people in this country who would like us to be number sixty-one.

In general, spanking shouldn’t be a go-to. It’s a one-and-done. And it’s too easy to do it out of anger, rather than in the little bastard’s precious little one’s best interests. But there are sometimes (two-year-old in the parking lot) when it’s an effective tool–again in the child’s self-interest. Criminalizing a swat on the butt will take resources away from real abuse and provide too many opportunities for over-zealous control freaks a chance to treat the crime more seriously and assess more significant punishment.

If you want to change spanking laws, it’s a free country. But leading with “and if you tell me you were smacked, and turned out fine, I’d like to remind you that’s not an argument, just your word against mine” isn’t the way to do it.

Please sign Kaepernick so we can dispense with the myth of his greatness

It’s a Thursday, so Colin Kaepernick is trending again because he may get a chance to show his greatness in the NFL. Success is a foregone conclusion because the dominant “wisdom” is that he was among the best quarterbacks in the league and in San Francisco 49ers history* when the league blackballed him for free speech. (*If you include all quarterbacks who were benched for Blaine Gabbert.)

In an upcoming episode of something called Race in America: A Candid Conversation, Las Vegas Raiders owner Mark Davis said he would be open to having Kaepernick on his team, marking the first time he played since 2016. Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll has also said Kaepernick deserves a chance.

For the record, in a free society, if Colin Kaepernick wants to sit, kneel, or stand on his head during the national anthem, he gets to do that. If you laughed when Leslie Nielsen fumbled his way through the song, your stance in opposing Kaepernick isn’t the strongest.

More to the point, Kaepernick initially sat, until a guy named Nate Boyer, a former NFL player and Green Beret suggested he kneel. Boyer says he was pretty upset that Kaepernick was sitting and said he wanted him to stand. Kneeling wound up being a compromise of sorts. The fact that he agreed to kneel proves that.

But it was never about what he actually did, it was always about the new American tribalism and proving the purity of peoples’ stances (or not).

And Kaepernick, who also wore socks that referred to police as pigs and said he didn’t vote in the 2016 election, became a lightning rod when he was called out by then-President Donald Trump.

Running back Marshawn Lynch also sat, but for some reason, he didn’t get the publicity Kaepernick did. His career ran its natural course.

Kaepernick is often compared to Tim Tebow, both of whom accomplished some NFL success and wound up on the outside. Kaepernick is a far better quarterback than Tebow and was a key player in a 49ers Super Bowl team. Tebow was a member of a Broncos team that made the playoffs. Both were considered distractions at the time, but there’s really no comparison.

Kaepernick has also made it difficult for the NFL to sign him, initially insisting on being a starter, then holding a showcase, then changing the location at the last minute. He could’ve played in Canada to show his wares or signed as a backup and taken the reins when the starter got hurt, but he initially insisted on being the presumed starter.

Given the amount of time he spends trending on Twitter and the devotion of his defenders, he may be better off not playing.

It’s true that the NFL’s ownership group tends conservative, and not just politically. It’s also true that the league exists to make a lot of people a lot of money–and that they might make slightly more than they lose by letting Kaepernick back in. The league has recognized the money it receives because it highlights social justice issues, but also recognizes what it would lose if it didn’t. (We can talk about the sexual assaults and the Washington Commanders work environment another time.)

Kaepernick’s no innocent victim. And he’s not the first or last athlete to see his career path altered because of his stances. Mohammed Ali and Curt Flood come to mind. Kaepernick is neither one of those people.

He’s a savvy social media star who knows how to keep his name trending. Perhaps he’s working for a bigger cause, but he’s become a cult figure and his struggle has become more about him than about any cause.

Personally, at this point, I hope Davis signs him, if for no other reason than to finally put to rest the fiction that he’s an elite quarterback (again, he was benched for Blaine Gabbert).

In the history of 49er quarterbacks, he probably ranks behind Montana, Young, Brodie, and Tittle, in the same class as Frankie Albert and Jeff Garcia. He was good and exciting, but the league caught up with him.

For we are God’s masterpiece

Right now, at the behest of a human being–and with the help of a lot of other human beings, a very large, powerful country is committing brutal atrocities against a much smaller, less powerful country. Elsewhere, tribal violence has killed more than 150 people in Sudan. Somewhere right now a boss is reaming out an underling simply because they can–and the underling is struggling to hold it together.

There’s hunger, homelessness, human trafficking, and a lot of bad things that start with other letters. And that’s before you get to the little, petty things each of us do on a daily basis.

This past weekend, our pastor read out of Ephesians, and verse 10 jumped out: For we are God’s masterpiece… There’s more, but that’s the part that resonated.

I’m hardly a masterpiece. Though I’m not one of the world’s bigger assholes, some might argue the point. I’ve got my share of actions and moments I’d like to take back.

What if I lived believing that I was God’s masterpiece? What if that thought lodged itself in my head and refused to shake loose?

On one hand, I could become a bigger asshole because I’m God’s masterpiece and I can do whatever I want. If that’s how you live, your God stares back at you in the mirror when you brush your teeth each morning.

If God is perfect, though, the fact that he considers me his masterpiece is humbling. There are expectations that come with being a masterpiece. It means I’m part of a noble and humble tradition. It’s weighty and comes with obligations.

It means I need to live the role.

The worst of me comes when I’m afraid–when I need to protect what’s mine and make sure no one else takes it. It’s when I’m small and self-directed. The best of me comes when I’m not afraid, when I’m willing to take chances because I know someone has my back.

If I live as if I’m God’s masterpiece, it means I have to be intentional. It doesn’t mean I turn into a doormat, giving everyone their way because love demands I give into their will, doing as they want, the way they want, when they want. It means I include their needs as important as mine. It means sometimes they come first.

It means that I stop trying to micromanage my life and let God take me where He wants. That’s a difficult decision because God could decide He wants scary things for me. Devout Christians lose their jobs. They have chronic illnesses. They get cancer and die.

Even then, we are still his masterpiece and need to live like it.

Most of all, it means you are God’s masterpiece, too, and I need to treat you accordingly.

All of those things listed at the top–they happen when people are small and afraid. When they need to protect or get what’s theirs. When their god stares back at them in the mirror as they brush their teeth.

What would the world be like if we all tried to live as if we were God’s masterpiece?

It’s hard enough to manage for small periods, but if life is a process, the goal should be to get better at it over time. The shower yourself with grace so you have so much you can’t help but extend it to others.

That’s a world I’d like to live in.

Or help create, even if a tiny bit at a time.

Is a coach kneeling in prayer on the 50-yard-line establishing a state religion?

The question before the Supreme Court seems simple on the face of it: is the first amendment’s establishment clause violated if a public high school football coach starts praying alone on the 50-yard-line and students join him? What if he gives a short inspirational message as part of the affair?

The answer may not be so simple, as the establishment clause and free exercise clause may oppose each other in this case.

Joseph Kennedy was a football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington who was asked by the district to stop praying on the 50-yard-line after games in 2015. The school tried to find a solution in which Kennedy could pray privately before or after the game, but not with other students in the middle of the field. An AP story on the case said that Kennedy also led prayers in the locker room before the games, continuing a school tradition. Kennedy stopped leading the prayers in the locker room and on the field, but wanted to continue praying on the field himself.

The school district said “Uhhh, no,” and suspended Kennedy, placing him on administrative leave. He didn’t reapply for his position when his contract ended later that year. One player, an atheist, complained, saying if he didn’t participate in the mid-field prayer, he was afraid he’d lose playing time. An ESPN article quotes Kennedy as saying that two players “adamantly objected” to the prayers and that he made them team captains.

The Court heard arguments out the case this week, having agreed to take the case up after initially choosing not to hear the case in 2019.

Richard Katskee, a lawyer for the school district said that employees are allowed to pray by themselves even when students can see, but that Kennedy’s actions pressured students to participate and created a safety issue. Katskee seemed to be talking hypothetically, and did not indicate that, anyone said they’d actually lost playing time or standing for not participating.

Rachel Laser, CEO of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State repeated the fears about playing time, adding that “It is a slippery slope to religion being used to discriminate and exclude.”

Rev. Meghan Dowling, pastor of the Bremerton United Methodist Church, accused Kennedy of using “his power as a school official to coerce students in public at a public high school to pray.” (Full disclosure: I am currently a practicing Methodist.)

Beyond Rev. Dowling, no one seems to actually be accusing Kennedy of coercing students. Based on his statement, he actually made two students who opposed him captains. The one who filed the complaint said that he feared he could lose playing time–he didn’t actually say he did.

There is not statement in the Constitution saying that there’s a separation of church and state. The First Amendment has an establishment clause and a free exercise clause. In total, it reads “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In this case, the clauses seem to contradict each other. If either stood alone, there would be no conflict. In kneeling at midfield without encouraging students to join him, Kennedy was, in my opinion, exercising his rights under the free exercise clause. He’s certainly not establishing a state religion, though he could use his power to do what Rev. Dowling asserted.

But no one is accusing him of that. They’re arguing that he could do that, or that some students might fear that he could do that. And while he didn’t take the school district up on their compromises, he stopped leading prayer in the locker room and after the games.

So this case comes down to whether his free exercise right is trumped by the potential for violation of the establishment clause against players who don’t share his beliefs.

Had Kennedy implied or even hinted that team standing would be influenced by participation, this would be a clear case where the students’ rights should be elevated over his. But that didn’t happen.

The school district opposed Kennedy–which makes sense if you’re trying to avoid being sued. The district also has a vested interest in avoiding not just a violation of the students’ rights, but even the appearance of a violation.

But Kennedy went out of his way to accommodate students who objected. If nothing else, this makes him a decent role model. It also means that the judgements against him were based on what he might do, rather than what he did do.

The students are Constitutionally free to pray if they want (or not). Joseph Kennedy doesn’t lose that right because he’s coaching them–especially after he stopped leading the prayers. To find against him based on what people like him might do seems like overreach.

And while the district has an interest in protecting its students rights, it should also protect its workers’ rights. If he were found to have discriminated against a student based on their not praying, that’s clearly actionable.

Because that hasn’t happened–and because kneeling in voluntary prayer after a football game isn’t establishing a state religion–the court would be well served in finding for Kennedy.

In defense of purple America

The problem isn’t California. Or Florida. It’s California and Florida and the growing trend to one-party rule.

As recently covered, Florida recently passed its Don’t Say Gay law that makes the mere mention of sexual orientation in schools open districts up to legal action. In Texas, if someone has an abortion, anyone can sue them for at least $10,000–along with anyone who helped make that abortion happen (chaaaa-ching!).

Not wanting to be left out, California is pursuing legislation that would apply the same laws to guns. This is the state that keeps finding ways to release people from prisons and jails and keeps scratching its head because crime is high.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the same party controls the governor’s mansion and the legislature in 38 of 50 states. After the next gubernatorial elections, that number may increase to 40.

In the states often cited as the biggest problems (California, New York, Texas, and Florida), the disparity is huge. In California, Democrats control 92 out of 120 state legislative seats, along with all 8 statewide executive positions. In New York, the state Assembly, which was light blue when I worked there in the late 80s, features only 43 Republicans (out of 150). The Senate, which was Republican as recently as 2018, is more than two-thirds Democrat. In Florida, out of 160 total legislators, Republicans hold 102. In Texas, the total’s 103 Republicans out of 181.

And though Republicans have gotten the lion’s share of attention when it comes to gerrymandering, it’s an equal opportunity temptation–one that neither party can pass up. (We have to do it; they’re doing it.)

The current Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, was Mayor of San Francisco when homeless people pooped so often on the streets that an app was created to track it. The current Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, seemed to want to govern as a moderate for about 15 minutes and has gone full Trump since then. When the pandemic started, he was fine letting localities determine the level of protection needed. By this year, he’s taunting school kids for wearing mask. (So much for freedom.)

When a party owns a state, there’s no need to rein in the most extreme members. When the opposition doesn’t qualify (or barely qualifies) as a minority party, you don’t have to moderate anything. The result has been a race to the extremes, resulting in Gavin Newsom being more concerned about what’s happening in Florida than the fact that LA’s Metro doesn’t keep homeless people from living, pooping, peeing, shooting up, and pleasuring themselves on Metro trains. (They don’t have to pay, either, as Metro doesn’t enforce code of conduct violations.)

Were there a viable Republican party that could cause Newsom and legislators to maybe lose their jobs, that probably wouldn’t be a problem. Were there a viable Democratic party in Texas or Florida, they probably wouldn’t be racing each other on new ways to subvert the Constitution in the name of purity. They wouldn’t get away with it because they’d lose power.

Then again, all of these states used Covid as an excuse to cede legislative power to the governor–a reasonable thing to do at the time. But it’s been two years, and no one’s trying to create rules for the next time it happens. As recently as February 28, nearly half the states were still under states of emergency for Covid. That number is currently 14. Two of those (Nevada and Washington) have no end date to their states of emergency. According to the Wall Street Journal, Newsom issued 561 executive orders during his state of emergency.

In spite of his overwhelming power, Newsom implied that everyone who wanted him recalled was a Trump-follower or white supremacist. It even looked like he might lose his job–until the alternative (talk host Larry Elder) became apparent. Early polls aside, Newsom was never in real danger. And Andrew Cuomo, who was driven out of the governor’s mansion in New York eight months ago, could regain his position if he were to run as an Independent. And there’s no viable option opposing them (except Kathy Hochul in New York, who was Cuomo’s lieutenant governor).

You can argue that we have single-party states because that’s what the voters want. But we also have them because the parties in power have little interest in letting their power diminish, let alone go away. On the contrary, single-party rule seems to the goal of both parties and their most rabid followers.

In the meantime, the political noise machine makes a lot of money pointing at the excess of the states ruled by the other side, pointing to them as the threat against our country’s freedoms without bothering to look at the excessed on their own side.

Until single-party rule is diminished, our political fault lines will became deeper and more precarious.

Why I believe in Satan

Since we returned from New Orleans, I’ve had a fibro flare. Then I got my booster shot and that set off about four days of Moderna hangover. And that set off another fibro flare. Then I went on a business trip and came home with a cold that’s currently in day ten, though I feel a lot better than I did a week ago. And the fibro is still hanging around.

Oh, and my right big toe is acting up, which might be gout. (If it was, it went away since I wrote this.)

And the cat’s been peeing on the rug, so I had to take her to the vet–it’s about a half-hour ride, during which she screeched like she’s being tortured, poop in the back seat, and stunk up the car to high heaven.

And I had a dentist appointment that I scheduled, then cancelled for a business trip. And then the business trip fell through.

And at work, there seems to be a great disturbance in the force that’s causing people to be unnecessarily angry, add seemingly infinite unnecessary steps, or both. (Which has made me unnecessarily testy, as well.) And suddenly being able to successfully cut data from one spreadsheet and paste it to another is something that strains Excel to the extent of its ability to function.

When I wake up in the morning most days, I want nothing more than a day in bed with nothing required of me except napping on demand.

For most people I don’t think Satan shows up as a temptress. I don’t know that there’s a legion of demons waiting to torture us. I’m pretty sure he won’t offer us a million dollars in return for our soul.

Temptress? Not so much.

I’m not even sure Satan is a being. Satan is the force that keeps us away from God. He’s that nagging voice in your head that tells you you aren’t good enough–and one day everyone’s gonna find out. He’s the one who tells you you’re gradually sinking in quicksand and there’s no way out.

I’m not even sure Satan exists outside the cumulative weight of our shadowy worst selves. But I know he exists, if only within us.

If God is love–and I believe He is–then Satan is whatever stands in the way of our receiving that love. It could be the scowling old lady whose disapproval you can feel across the church. It could be the former friend whose voice you hear when you start kicking your own ass. It could be the guy in the mirror who stares at you in disgust as you wait for the shower to warm up.

I don’t know if he engineers the shit show or if he just sits back to wait for it, then fills your head with recrimination. But all that stuff exists, even in the most self-assured of us.

If the Bible’s to be believed, you can tell Satan to depart and he will. But it’s never been quite that neat for me. Satan exists inside me. Sometimes I can tell him to shut his mouth and it works. Sometimes, he’s the headwind I struggle to move forward against. And sometimes I’m just too damn tired to do anything but give into him.

But he’s there. And he exists for everyone.

And if my belief system is right, after we die, we can exist in an environment that’s free of whatever Satan happens to be.

So we got that goin for us. Which is nice.

More to the point, we have to continue. Tomorrow will come and eventually, the litany of shit will end. If you can persevere and keep your humanity about you, then you will have survived with grace.

Don’t Say Gay goes well beyond not teaching sex to 5-year-olds

The law’s vagueness opens school districts up to legal action for mere discussion of family structures. That’s why people and companies are pushing back.

For the record, I think it’s a good idea to not teach sex to kids from kindergarten through third grade, as the Don’t Say Gay law prohibits in Florida. The vast majority of people would agree with that, as proven by the fact that in the vast majority of classrooms, it’s not happening.

If that’s all the law did, I’d say it’s a solution in search of a problem, but whatever. Instead, it’s structure and vagueness opens school districts up to potential lawsuits for the mere mention of sexual orientation or gender identity. And with activist parents looking for opportunities to a$$ert their parent right$, school districts are rightly concerned.

The law’s preamble says it aims to prohibit “classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or a specified manner.” Later, the it says “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation may not occur.” Discussion or instruction, depending on how you interpret the law, may not occur “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance to state standards.”

The law’s vagueness creates a minefield for school districts and teachers. If Heather has two mommies and she discusses her family structure in second grade and Sarah asks her why she has two mommies and no daddy, based on the preamble, that discussion violates the law. Accordingly, parents have three options, including suing the school district no sooner than 37 days after their concern is raised but, in their opinion, not addressed.

In the worst case, Heather may discuss her two mommies, which gets back to Sarah’s parents who demand that Heather be kept from ever mentioning her family structure (lest Sarah magically turn lesbian). Five weeks and change later, they ask what’s been done to keep Heather’s mouth shut. If they aren’t satisfied with the answer, there’s any number of attorneys whole gladly defend their parental rights in court.

Given the wording of the law, that’s not a ridiculous scenario. If I’m a risk analyst, trying to keep the school district out of court, my guidanceis that teachers need to eliminate any discussion of Heather’s family structure to prevent lawsuits. And if I’m the school superintendent, while I think telling Heather to shut her stupid mouth is bad educationally, part of my job is keeping the school district from paying out massive judgements.

Meanwhile, what about Heather? The law’s vagueness could make the mere mention of the two people bringing her up illegal. That’s a lovely message to send a seven-year-old.

And while the law specifically prohibits discussion or instruction through third grade, it adds the clause “in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance to state standards.” Those state standards don’t exist right now–they aren’t required until next year.

What about parents who believe that sex education should occur solely at home? For them, there is no appropriate age. If Moose says he thinks RuPaul is hot in study hall, the law’s construction makes that potentially actionable, too. For that matter, if Jughead says he has the hots for that girl in iCarly, that‘s also actionable. (And don’t think someone won’t file that lawsuit to make a point.)

If all this law did was prohibit teachers from promoting sex to kindergarteners, I’d like to see some instances of that happening before signing on. Why make a law for a problem that doesn’t exist?

But this law does far more than that. It’s vagueness makes any discussion of sex, even among students, potentially actionable.

That’s why people and companies are pushing back. It’s not because they want to allow kindergarten teachers to groom their students. It’s a neat trick, though, for the law’s supporters to frame it that way.

Read more:

— Text of the bill
— Miami Herald analysis
— NBC analysis

RIP, Mad Bomber. He opened my eyes to the way football should be played.

Daryle Lamonica died yesterday.

That might not mean anything to you, but he was one of my first favorite football players. They called him The Mad Bomber, because he loved the vertical passing game–going long. He was the AFL’s most valuable player in 1967 and 1969, though by 1973, he’d given way to Ken Stabler as the Oakland Raiders’ starting quarterback.

Though the AFL stopped existing at the end of the 1969 season, I was an AFL guy. I’ve always liked football played vertically–and under Lamonica, the Raiders were good at it. Throwing to Warren Wells and, briefly, Cliff Branch, Lamonica’s penchant for the long pass made every play a potential must-see. To a kid, it seemed like Lamonica and guys like him could generate a score any time from anyplace on the field.

The Jets weren’t typically very good then, but the Raiders were, and they were often featured on the NBC double-header game or Monday Night Football (which they owned back then). And my love for the passing game blossomed.

Football in the mid-70s became a dreary affair as the long game of the AFL gave way to offenses where you ran the ball or threw to your running backs. By 1975, Lamonica and the vertical game he represented had largely faded from view.

The league recognized the need for offense and opened the game up by the late 70s, but by then, Lamonica had moved on from football.

Earlier this year, I thought about a buying a Lamonica jersey or a Dan Fouts jersey before decided on a Bert Jones jersey. All were strong-armed quarterbacks who could make football far more imaginative than three yards and a cloud of dust. (I chose Jones.)

Pounding the rock (running the ball) may be bad-ass, but there’s little that’s more exciting than a bomb that hits a fast receiver in stride, on his way to touchdown to change the face of the game.

Lamonica’s passing caused me to think about him for the first time in months, but it also elicited some selfish sadness. I never knew him, but he made a game I was learning to love a lot more fun and he helped me understand how I enjoy it best.

But the real sadness came from the passing of another personal icon of my youth. It comes with the times. Our heroes move on to other things, they age and one day we look at them and say “how did that guy get that old, that fast,” all while ignoring or own passage of time.

And then they move on to the next thing and we’re left with memories and one more reminder of our own mortality.

Daryle Lamonica’s passing is just one more reminder that time as we know it isn’t infinite. That we have a fixed number of days–and that the soon we use them as valuable finite resources, the better off everyone is.

And finally, he’s a reminder that you don’t have to be perfect to be exciting. And that nothing lights up a football game like a a deep post pattern thrown by a guy who can get the ball farther than almost everyone can run.

Disney isn’t grooming your kids to be raped

The fact that adults working in children’s entertainment are intentionally forcing their sexual agendas on children should be infuriating and frightening to us all.

That’s a quote about Disney in an article a screed in the Federalist about the Happiest Company on Earth. It points out that Lightyear, a Buzz Lightyear origin story, includes a girl ranger who kisses another girl ranger. Onward includes a female cop who says she has a girlfriend, though the girlfriend isn’t seen on screen. Finding Dory and Toy Story 4 both have same-sex couples “in the background strolling down the street, sitting close to each other, and hugging a child.” Yikes! Next thing you know, they’ll show a gay couple doing yardwork together. Will the horrors never end?

To be fair, the entertainment industry is typically unfriendly to conservative viewpoints, to the point where conservatives tend not to reveal themselves in Hollywood. Karey Burke, president of Disney’s General Entertainment content said she wants more inclusive characters in Disney content, as part of a Disney “Reimagine Tomorrow” campaign that promises half of all regular and recurring characters across the Disney universe will come from underrepresented groups.

None of that means that Disney is, as many are accusing, grooming children. That’s a loaded word which primarily means that you’re preparing children for sweet, sweet love. In other words, a de facto quota system in Disney content is the same as pedophilia.

If you want to have more inclusive characters in your content, God bless you. If you want half of them to not be straight white folks, it’s a free country. If, as the straight white dude in me fears, most the bad people wind up being straight white dudes (it hasn’t actually happened), that would be a kick in the face of the diversity Disney claims to be supporting.

None if that equates to pedophilia.

I have gay and lesbian friends, coworkers, and relatives. I’ve talked with them, celebrated with them, been to their houses. None of them has shown a desire to have sex with a child.

None of Disney’s contentshows someone wanting to have sex with a child. None of the same-sex couples strolling along the street or sitting close to each other are expressing a desire to have sex with children.

Conversely, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, a vocal culture warrior, has been accused of paying a 17-year-old for sex. That’s not pedophilia, but it’s a hell of a lot closer than anything Disney is doing.

Disney and other corporate entities aren’t forcing a sexual agenda on anyone. That’s the people who oppose them–the ones who want every couple to be heterosexual and who want parents to be able to sue school districts for any mention of non-heterosexual couples (like if a second-grader asks a gay teacher if he’s really married to a man).

The danger of legislation like Don’t Say Gay is that it’s occurring as forces on the right make political points on conspiracy theories that Mickey Mouse might want to screw their six-year-old and they’re the only people stopping it.

Conflating homosexuality with pedophilia is a massive insult to gays and lesbians who routinely go out of their way to care for and about children, from teachers and cops, to the cool aunt who takes the kids to the monster trucks. It’s bigotry of the first order. It’s low-grade incitement to violence.

Quite frankly, I’d rather trust my children with my gay and lesbian friends and relatives than with people who insinuate that everyone who doesn’t schtupp the opposite sex is a pedophile.

In a free society, something these folks claim to believe in, you get to schtupp whatever consenting adult you want. You shouldn’t be called out as a potential child molester for doing so.