Why AMPAC'S Million Muslim March is Actually a Great Idea

Lots of really loud yelling broke out on various cable news shows last week.  Not that that's unusual, but last week's subject of controversy was the Million Muslim March organized by AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) and planned for the twelfth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.  AMPAC is apparently chock full of Truthers and Anti-Semites.  A fringe, nut group.  In other words, they're like the Muslim equivalent of Occupy or Anonymous.

Conservatives are outraged.  I'm sure plenty of others are outraged too, but conservatives are less restrained by the shackles of political correctness, so they can be louder and get away with it.  And I understand the outrage.  But if AMPAC actually pulled this off, it would truly be fantastic.  No, really.  I realize this seems like madness (and most of the things I post on my blog are), but what I'm referring to is one of the silver linings of hate speech.

One adage that is often repeated in free speech arguments is that the first amendment doesn't protect speech we like, it protects speech we don't like.  I don't know who said that.  I also don't care, and don't feel like looking up.  But this is why even hateful ideas like the ones spewed forth by AMPAC nuts are protected.  And as infuriating as that can be, it is also comforting.  Because the advantage of letting extremists spew nonsense is that they marginalize themselves.  Silencing or censoring a nut can actually give him credibility, as he can claim he's being oppressed.  But if a nut is allowed to shout his wacky theories, people start seeing him for the loon that he is.  Nutty people ultimately will self destruct (See: Alex Jones), as long as we just let them.

It's important to keep in mind that the rest of us need to help nuts marginalize themselves.  The onus is on the sane among us to identify them, call them out when spout their lunacy, and expose their nuttiness to the world.  Since the number of people voicing opinions is ever increasing, we need convenient ways to identify the stupid and the screwy.  This way we can summarily ignore them.

There are several ways to identify nut groups already.  For example, any protester in America who burns the American flag can be dismissed as irrelevant.  Flag burners exercise their right to free speech by burning the symbol of their free speech.  This is probably not someone inclined to think things through rationally.  Also, anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask can be discounted.  Unless they were in "V for Vendetta."  Those people were just doing a job.  Guy Fawkes mask aficionados are frequently Occupiers and Anonymous members, two groups with more than their fair share of Truthers, False Flaggers, Anarchists, and Neo-Marxists.  None of these ideas is worth the time it takes to write this paragraph.

Like these two examples, the AMPAC march is a convenient mechanism for crazy identification.  Anyone who shows up will  be someone we can assume isn't worth including in a rational debate.  An attendee will not be the type of Muslim we should take seriously or expect any reasoned debate from.  Once we've identified them, we can disregard them and spend our time talking to those Muslims that aren't crazy.  And despite what some anti-Muslim extremists say, non-crazy Muslims do exist.  All someone needs to do is go have a beer in Turkey to see what I'm talking about.

A loon who spews hateful nonsense is offensive, but is also a labor saving device.  My making themselves readily identifiable, crazy people help the rest of us.  Those of us with brains and sanity can figure out who's not worth talking to.  Separating non-crazy Muslims from the crazy is worthwhile.  Non-Crazy Muslims want these nuts marginalized, because extremists make other Muslims look bad.

Sadly, though, the latest reports suggest that the turnout might be slightly less than a million (more like several dozen).  All of the outrage may have put a damper on the entire affair.  This isn't a good thing, I think.  I'd rather have all of the nutjobs out in the open.  Once I know who they are, I can make sure I don't waste my time on them.

Every State Needs Two Senators Because I Like Maple Syrup

Last week, I saw Bill Maher repeat one of his frequent pet peeves.  He dislikes the fact that even states with tiny populations have the same number of senators as huge ones like California.  This is an outgrowth of the filibuster debate.  Because so many of those tiny population states are red states, they can prevent Democrats from moving legislation through the Senate.  Never mind the fact that it wasn't too long ago that Republicans had a majority, but not a super majority, and were clamoring for filibuster reform.  He wants proportional representation in the Senate.  But he assumes that the only thing of value that a state has is the people there.  Some of the tiny population states provide valuable resources that the larger states could not live without.

One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup.  One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup.  I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits.  In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup.  And butter.  And bacon on the side.  Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.

The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont.  Vermont's population is approximately 600,000.  In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that.  Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million.  But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being.  Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.

Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont.  The large states would call all of the shots.  A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold.  Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup.  Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices.  Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated.  Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience.  Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup.  Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff.  Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined.  Making me even grouchier in the morning.

At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives.  Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes.  But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia.  Also known as tequila.  This would cause brawls in the streets.  Kind of like the brawls we see when people drink tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.

There is one other option, but it's problematic.  Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character.  But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice.  We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known.  Canada.  I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty.  And don't get me started about hockey (shudder).

This is all about principle for me.  I'm not a small state guy.  The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states.  I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state.  I'm taking this stand for the greater good.  Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate.  Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.

Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup.  The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended.  Ultimately, it's about justice.  Pancake justice.  And waffles, too, I guess.  Nah, to hell with that.  I hate Belgians.