Wednesday, May 27, 2009

General Fischer's Military

Recently Bryan Fischer declared that ‘[t]he U.S. military exists for one purpose: to protect the security of the American people from foreign threats,’ before arguing that the presence of homosexuals in said military undermines that purpose. Bryan’s rationale for this claim is that ‘the presence of openly gay soldiers affects unit cohesion and morale and thus interferes with mission capability.’

[Editors' Note: Bryan has neither served in the military nor undertaken any military 'missions.']

Forgetting that heterosexual and lesbian women also serve in the military, Fischer then spends a curious two paragraphs discussing gay men ‘ogling’ their fellow soldiers in the shower before exploring ‘anything goes’ tomfoolery in the barracks. Evidently Bryan believes that hetero and homosexual men are unable to coexist in the same space without having sex.

But Bryan’s argument runs contrary to evidence. In April 2009, Lt. Dan Choi was fired from the Army for informing his superiors that he's gay. Choi, who is a West Point graduate and is fluent in Arabic, was also open about his sexuality with his immediate subordinates, who formed a platoon under his command. His orientation had no effect on his work in the army.

Of his platoon, Choi remarks, they ‘know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.’ He then states, ‘I have never, ever done anything homosexual while on duty and I never engaged in heterosexual conduct while on duty because the army is not about sexual anything.’

And that’s exactly the point. The army isn’t about sex; it’s about protecting the security of the United States. Choi speaks Arabic and was trained as an officer at one of the most elite military academies in the world. Firing him for being gay, something that matters more to Bryan Fischer than to Choi’s fellow soldiers, weakens the military and further drains it of much needed skill and leadership at a crucial moment in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We remain curious as to how Bryan Fischer claims to support the troops while working simutaneously to thin their ranks of talent at a time when it's needed the most.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Science According to Bryan

Last week the scientific community welcomed with enthusiasm the realization that a 47 million year old fossil, Ida, likely represents another puzzle piece in the evolutionary chain linking modern primates to our distant relatives.

As he is prone to do when evidence contradicts his Genesis-based view of Earth's history, Bryan has whipped himself into a frenzy over this latest find. He declares that the fossil is 'hardly a missing link' while characterizing the scientists behind the claim as dishonest, 'slobbering,' and 'ga-ga.'

He concludes by stating, 'We'll be happy to let obtuse Darwinist [sic] cling to their fairy tales, their bedtime stories, and their dreams. We'll stick with hard science, thank you very much.'

Um, Bryan? You're not a scientist. You're a defrocked minister with a qualification in Bible studies. And it's a bit rich that a man who believes in a literal account of Genesis is lecturing the scientific community about fairy tales, bedtime stories, and hard science.

Bryan offers a weak rebuttal by recycling the tired, inaccurate, and, in any event, non sequitur claim that there exist no transitional fossils to support evolution.

The reality is that scientists have discovered a number of transitional fossils; this is exceptional given that conditions, ranging from the location of the animal’s death to the type of soil at that site, were rarely ideal for the fossilization process to occur. This combined with the rate at which organisms decay after death suggests that it’s truly extraordinary we have any fossils at all.

But even if transitional fossils didn’t exist, this wouldn’t disprove the theory of evolution, which is overwhelmingly supported by examining DNA and comparing the geographic distribution of animal and plant species on Earth.

We won’t delve further into the minutiae of the transitional fossil record, but readers can view an expert scientific deconstruction of Bryan’s ill-informed views here.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Taking the Pro-Hate Stance

In April, in a great stride for civil rights and a humiliating blow to hatemongering fundamentalists, the Hate Crimes Prevention Bill passed the House and was sent on to the Senate. It was a Pyrrhic victory of sorts, as it came too late for Duanna Johnson, Angie Zapata and many others.

Like a high school gym teacher lecturing about that not-so-fresh-feeling, Bryan Fischer can’t seem to let the much-contested bill finally reach maturity without some unhelpful, unnecessary, and embarrassingly inaccurate commentary.

He claims that when “Democrats voted down a proposed amendment that would exclude pedophilia from the list of ‘sexual orientations’”, the bill became a vehicle for the protection of pedophiles. In fact, he says that it “has become widely known as ‘The Pedophile Protection Act.’”

[Note to Bryan: “widely known” is not the same as “between you, your economic dependents, and some guy you cornered at the supermarket the other day who couldn’t wait to pay for his six-pack and get the hell out of there”. In slightly wider circles--such as Wikipedia--the bill is known as The Matthew Shepard Act.]

Of course no one voted to “exclude pedophilia.” That would equivalent to someone standing up at a gathering of conservationists and stridently demanding that cockroaches be taken off the Endangered Species List. They don’t have to be removed because they were never on the list.

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It’s a crime. Gay sex is not a crime. Putting them in the same category implies association in order to prove guilt.

Bryan goes on to say that hate crime legislation is fundamentally misguided because “it violates the fundamental principle of American justice that we all are equal before the law” and “penalize[s] thought, not behavior”. To the former, the editors point out that this is yet another sad and silly attempt to cast the gay rights movement as the big bad bullies tormenting the virtuous underdogs. This is not the case. Even as civil liberties are expanded and the country seems, slowly and with great effort, to be turning away from the violent and hateful aspects of its history, people like Bryan Fischer remain powerful and influential, and people like Rodney Whitaker are not. And if Bryan was murdered for being white, Christian and hetero, it would be a hate crime and would rightly be prosecuted as such under the so-(rarely) called "Pedophile Protection Act".

To the latter point, we argue that, much like laws against premeditated murder, it penalizes reified thought. Think your hate all you want, Bryan, no one will prosecute you. Act on it in the brutal and specialized manner that characterizes hate crimes, and damn straight you’ll pay for it.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Bryan's War on Bears

Bryan Fischer has declared ‘open season’ on Alaskan bears, claiming that they ‘are emerging from their dens and once again strolling through Anchorage neighborhoods, mauling children and literally going from driveway to driveway rooting through garbage cans.’

He then suggests that in a ‘biblical worldview perspective, predatory animals that endanger livestock and humans can and should be removed wherever necessary’ before noting that ‘[t]he folks in Anchorage, Alaska are probably about ready for a return to biblical values.’

Naturally Bryan’s ‘Bible-based’ perspective is replete with inconsistency, in this case directly contradicting the story of the prophet Elijah, who upon being taunted for baldness by two youths, cursed them, inducing a vicious mauling which resulted in their bodies being ripped into 42 pieces.

We quote 2 Kings 2 23-4, ‘as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.’

Far be it from us to question God for His use of she-bears to undertake a little dirty work, but the bears do appear to have a purpose here that precludes their extermination. And while we concede that Alaskans did elect a Governor who writhes on the floor in religious fits and speaks better Parseltongue than Harry Potter, we hardly think they’ve a desire to ‘return to the biblical values’ of Elijah.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Bryan and the Nazis


Among Bryan Fischer’s more curious hobbies is a fondness for recreating homoerotic concentration camp fantasies and emailing them to his distribution list. We’re not sure how, or even if, this dovetails with his objective ‘to make Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family,’ but Bryan's bizarre fascination with all-things-gay never ceases to entertain.

In a recent newsletter, Bryan shamelessly conflates homosexuality with fascism while peddling a laughably outlandish version of history in the process. He declares that there exists a ‘strain of fascism in the homosexual movement’ and that ‘[m]any Nazi prison camps were run by homosexuals.’

Are you joking, Bryan? The primary ambition of the Nazi Party was to secure and expand the social and political power of the ‘Master Race.’ As you're wont to note, gay men and women do not reproduce in their relationships; how would they contribute to the grand Nazi plan?

Bryan’s claim fails to withstand even the most basic scrutiny.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians were arrested under the Nazi regime. Lesbian and gay members of the Nazi party were systematically purged and murdered, and tens of thousands more perished in concentration camps.

Bryan’s purposive dishonesty demonstrates a disgraceful contempt for the life and memory of those murdered at the hands of the Nazis.

But whether there existed gay Nazis is an entirely irrelevant debate. It’s absurd and illogical for Bryan to claim that there is some intrinsic link between homosexuality and fascism. Countless tyrannical and murderous leaders are and were heterosexual; was being straight the impetus for Stalin’s purges? And who would blame sexuality for Mao’s 'Great Leap Forward' or Slobodan Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia?

Certainly no one with a shred of intellectual integrity.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Bryan the Meddler

Bryan Fischer is notorious for making grand pronouncements and vast generalizations of dubious validity. Virtually every fact or statistic that spews from his lips is sullied with bias and agenda. This truism notwithstanding, occasionally Fischer makes a declaration so inexplicably absurd that it makes one wonder whether he might need his head checked.

Last week Bryan declared that liberals are more repressive than conservatives and that ‘the basic instinct of the conservative is to be left alone, while the basic instinct of the liberal is to meddle.’

The editors concede that, upon a time, classical conservatives embraced a ‘live and let live’ attitude. But how can Fischer don this mantle when the sole purpose of the Idaho Values Alliance is to meddle in the affairs of others? How can Fischer possess ‘an instinct … to be left alone’ while simultaneously shoving his snout into some aspect of the life of virtually every Idahoan?

At any given stage Bryan has championed restrictive legislation or policies affecting a range of individuals including: pregnant women, children seeking immunizations, children attending public schools, teenagers in need of candid sex education, individuals seeking contraception, individuals engaging in sex, students and teachers who expect science to be taught in science class, individuals who exercise their First Amendment rights, judges who discharge their duties with requisite probity, couples seeking divorce, and even those who, according to Fischer, use the wrong toilet at Boise State University.

To produce an exhaustive list of Fischer’s meddling would be a Sisyphean task; indeed we remain skeptical that it can be achieved at all.

Instead we pose the question, when doesn’t Bryan meddle?

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Bryan's State is Friendlier than Yours!

Bryan Fischer recently reaffirmed his mission to ‘make Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family’ by citing a study which places Idaho among the ‘top ten’ most ‘free’ states in the US.

[Editors’ Note: Anytime Bryan Fischer uses a word like ‘freedom,’ it's generally safe to assume he means something akin to the exact opposite.]

Bryan then takes to task non-free states, declaring them bastions of ‘bondage’ while issuing a dire warning to his followers: ‘if you think it’s bad here [in Idaho], imagine what it would be like to be stuck’ elsewhere.

He then provides a list of these horrid, anti-freedom states. Such as they’re characterized, one might expect these places to resemble Pol Pot’s Cambodia, the Ayatollah’s Iran, or perhaps even North Korea. Indeed, nothing good has ever come from the biggest anti-freedom states on the list, which are: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, California, Washington, and Hawaii.

But the worst offender of all, a place Fischer describes as ‘the least free state in the union,’ is New York. That's right, New York. And we couldn’t agree more. After all, everyone knows that New York is a veritable bastion of fascism. Those rumors about New York City being the financial capital of the world and the engine that drives the global economy are just liberal media propaganda. It’s actually quite a nasty, totalitarian place.

The IVC would like all its readers to consider themselves warned, and to plan travel accordingly.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Christ's Contempt and Fischer's Lies

You know who Jesus hated? Pregnant women and indigent children. And in keeping with Christ’s disdain for the poor and pregnant, Bryan Fischer recently renewed his whining about the federal re-authorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which extends health benefits to 11 million uninsured poor children and pregnant women.

In a patent lie, Fischer writes that the ‘budget-busting SCHIP bill … raises taxes mostly on the poor ... by $32 billon.’ Actually Bryan, the increased costs of SCHIP have been offset by an increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco. We’re not sure how this equates to increasing the tax burden of America’s poor. We’re even more confused that you purport to be an advocate for the poor while working simultaneously to deny them health coverage. And heaven forbid chain smokers contribute to rising health care costs on a consumption basis.

Let us also ignore the facts that SCHIP saves money by reducing the numbers of uninsured seeking care in Emergency Rooms and that SCHIP provides an economically competitive alternative to private insurance while offering a greater range of benefits.

We can imagine Bryan writhing in antipathy at the thought of 11 million dirty whelps receiving free immunizations. After all, happy, well-insured children who are healthy enough to attend school have nothing to do with making Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family.