tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-237820412024-03-14T03:41:15.461+01:00Classically LiberalAn independent blog looking at things from a classically liberal perspective. We are independent of any group or organization, and only speak for ourselves, and intend to keep it that way.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2270125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-66405680549137880052012-04-21T04:33:00.000+02:002012-04-21T04:33:42.974+02:00Paranoid Parents and the Fear of Walking to School<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tywnirroPto/T5IcQVwo4xI/AAAAAAAADfg/umh2zz_3yko/s1600/Screen+shot+2012-04-20+at+7.32.07+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tywnirroPto/T5IcQVwo4xI/AAAAAAAADfg/umh2zz_3yko/s320/Screen+shot+2012-04-20+at+7.32.07+PM.png" width="286" /></a></div>
I was reading a CDC report today which, while it is a few years old, indicates a clear trend in this country: the rising paranoid delusions of parents concerning the risks to their children. The CDC report was about something that wasn't a controversy when I was young—walking to school.<br />
<br />
But that was before parents were spoon-fed fear-mongering media pieces that emphasized the exceptional while ignoring the ordinary. The CDC, in 2001 <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/kidswalk/then_and_now.htm">reported</a> that: "Thirty years ago, the sight of children walking or biking to school was common. In fact, nearly 90% of children who lived within a mile of school used active transportion (i.e., walking or bicycling) as their primary mode of travel. In recent years, the rate of active transport has declined dramatically." By 2005 the CDC reported, "Today, fewer than 15% of children and adolescents use active modes of transportation.<br />
<br />
The CDC tried to look at the excuses given by parents as to why they won't allow them their children to walk. The CDC though that a decrease in the number of schools, by about 1,000 nationally, might explain some of it. But, the change in school amounted to a decline of just a couple of percentage points. And the CDC found that "active transport to school has also significantly declined among children who still live than 1 or 2 miles from school." Even, when you compare only those living near the school, walking to school steeply dropped.<br />
<br />
Parents used weather as an excuse. But the CDC looked at weather patterns in four large cities in each of the four main regions of the country and found "some slight variations in weather patterns over the past 30 years. However, there is no distinct pattern to these changes over time. Therefore, it does not seem likely that changes in weather account for the decline in active transport."<br />
<br />
Next, they looked at crime, especially the fear of child abduction. They note that "rate of youth abduction is low in school areas." Only 4% of abductions take place near schools. Of course, most child abductions are custody disputes, one parent taking the child from the other parent. The abduction that everyone fears, the so-called "stranger danger" kind amounts to about 100 cases nationally per year, in comparison to 204,000 family abductions. There is another category which is called "nonfamily abduction" which is not considered the stereotypical "stranger danger" situation. But the Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that "Nonfamily abduction victims overall were particularly concentrated among the oldest groups, with 59 percent being 15-17 years old." They also note that the "stranger danger" prevention misses the fact that "the majority of non-family abductions (53 percent) are abducted by persons known to the child: 38 percent of nonfamily abducted children were abducted by a friend or long-term acquaintance, 5 percent by a neighbor, 6 percent by persons of authority, and 4 percent by a caretaker or babysitter." While the stereotypical kidnappings are the most dangerous they happen in extremely small numbers. CNN <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-24/justice/ctv.missing_1_child-abductions-erica-pratt-elizabeth-smart?_s=PM:LAW">reported</a> that the number of stereotypical kidnappings "are small and getting smaller."<br />
<br />
However, if you want to terrify parents speak in the broadest term possible: talk about 800,000 missing children per year. That will do it. Many of those are just kids who stayed at the mall too late, a large number are kids that another family took, usually in a custody dispute, some are children that parents literally threw out of their home. Conflate all these categories and you scare the bejesus out of someone. Who wants to do that? Anyone who has an incentive to over-emphasize risks. That would included media that want higher viewer ratings or want to sell newspapers; it would include child protective agencies that rely on tax funding often fueled by fear; it includes child protection charities that know a good scare increases donations, or it may be companies that sell parents fingerprinting, cell phone tracking devices, microchipping, etc.<br />
<br />
One final excuse for not allowing the children to walk to school was fear of traffic. The CDC found that "50% of children hit by cars near schools are hit by cars driven by parents of students." Of course, this ignores the risk of driving itself, yet traffic accidents, where a child is a passenger in the vehicle, is the <a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm">number one cause</a> of death for age groups 1-4, 5-14, and 15-24. Only infants under the age of 1 are more likely to die due to birth conditions, SIDS, prematurity, etc. Statistically a child is more at risk for each mile he is driven, than he is for each mile he walks.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-28289330103541124672012-04-12T05:55:00.005+02:002012-04-12T06:25:56.133+02:00America's worst DA stripped of law license.<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SgMunpo_48A/T4ZYhsCTDJI/AAAAAAAADeg/OwnTRy3OrrQ/s1600/garbage-can.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 206px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SgMunpo_48A/T4ZYhsCTDJI/AAAAAAAADeg/OwnTRy3OrrQ/s320/garbage-can.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5730364911655259282" /></a><br />We finally have some good news. In the past we reported on the vicious antics of Andrew Thomas, the former District Attorney of Maricopa County, AZ. Thomas was big allies with America's worst sheriff, Joe Arpaio. <div><br /></div><div>We have outlined how Thomas misused his powers in <a href="http://freestudents.blogspot.com/search?q=Andrew+Thomas">various article</a>s on this blog. After we reported on Thomas and his activities we suddenly found that someone was using government computers in Maricopa County to <a href="http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/taxpayer-funds-being-spent-to-track.html">monitor</a> our activities. What we didn't report was that we later learned that assistants to Thomas had traced the ownership of this blog under the pretense that this blogger was "potentially violent." All we had ever done was criticize him, never threaten him, as you can easily see by searching the blog yourself. It is precisely this sort of unethical use of his office that got Thomas into trouble.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thomas began using his office for political gain, in cooperation with Arpaio. County officials who were critical were arrested by Arpaio and Thomas would filed charges that they were corrupt. He did this to a top county supervisor. When a court threw out the judges as baseless Thomas and Arpaio then worked together to arrest the judge and claim he was corrupt. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thomas and two assistants were charged with various violations, and Arpaio is under federal investigation for his misuse of office.</div><div><br /></div><div>A three-member ethics panel of the Arizona State Bar said that Thomas wrongfully filed charges against political opponents. They said they knowing brought false charges against the judge who had ruled against them. The panel also said that evidence indicates that Arpaio conspired with Thomas in bring these false charges, but since Arpaio is not an attorney, they have no authority over him.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thomas gave a speech before Tea Party cranks where he compared himself to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Incredible.</div><div><br /></div><div>Good riddance to bad rubbish. </div><div><br /></div><div><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rfXoqxuKoo8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-11421504423956813492012-04-12T04:27:00.002+02:002012-04-12T05:55:03.617+02:00Commenting Still Screwed UPOur ability to approve comments is still screwed up. We shall try to resolve it. But the problem got more complicated as the company that we pay for that service is discontinuing to offer it.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-30650599300838768342012-04-12T04:16:00.002+02:002012-04-12T04:22:52.023+02:00ApologiesEver since Google took over blogspot things have been chaotic. They try to force everyone into having one account and thus passwords and things get constantly mixed. If you sign in for one "google service" somewhere you are suddenly in that mode permanently and have trouble accessing other accounts.<div><br /></div><div>We have repeatedly been told our password for this account is invalid. We go through recovery processes only to have it send us reset links to a blog that doesn't exist. After repeated tries it allows us to reset the password yet again. We write down the password and yet the next time we try to enter we are told it is invalid. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sorry, but Google really sucks. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-56581276618489453692012-03-10T00:52:00.003+01:002012-03-10T01:36:26.852+01:00A Caveat About the Election for Libertarians<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QLdkjkiAWNI/T1qh_-lb5cI/AAAAAAAADeU/MQzhoB6Sya8/s1600/ronpaul2_0.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 239px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QLdkjkiAWNI/T1qh_-lb5cI/AAAAAAAADeU/MQzhoB6Sya8/s320/ronpaul2_0.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5718060797404112322" /></a><br />I know a lot of libertarians are still gaga over Ron Paul—an affliction which I don't understand considering Ron's regular ultra-conservative pronouncements, his inconsistencies, and his close affiliations with some extremely unsavory groups and individuals. People shouldn't forget that he endorsed the so-called Constitution Party in the last election—and they are nothing but a crazy Right party filled with racists, bigots, anti-Semites and theocrats. They openly proclaim they want to impose "God's law" on America.<div><br /></div><div>But when Ron comes teetering out onto stage the saliva glands of some libertarians go into hyperdrive requiring many to attend his meetings with drool bibs securely attached to their Ron Paul shirts, as they wear their Ron Paul hates and cling to their Ron Paul action figure in the rumbled suit. </div><div><br /></div><div>I personally consider Ron a paleoconservative, little different in policy matters from the odious Pat Buchanan. And some prominent Ron Paul advocates had previously prostituted themselves on behalf of Pat Buchanan. I don't mind people pimping themselves out, but I do criticize their lack of taste. </div><div><br /></div><div>A lot of libertarian entertain the following utopian fantasy. In their dream Ron Paul will fight valiantly till the end, lose the Republican race, and then turn around and endorse Gary Johnson as the Libertarian Party candidate.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not so sure. The grapevine told me that Gary Johnson went to let Ron know he was running in the Republican primary. This was long before Ron had even indicated a desire to run and was hinting that he wouldn't. Remember Gary had previously supported Ron and was paying a courtesy call, which was not necessary. I'm told that when Gary finished the sentence about running that Paul glared at him and stood up and walked out on him. Gary himself has never said anything negative about Paul, other than that they have some disagreements. Yes, they do. Gary is a libertarian, Paul is paleoconservative and those are some disagreements. Gary has been nothing but a gentleman and spent time praising Paul during his campaign. Paul has pretended that Johnson didn't exist.</div><div><br /></div><div>While some libertarians think Paul is the messiah, I consider him a crafty politician who has held together a coalition of contradictory views by cleverly phrasing things so that both right-wing statists and conservative leaning libertarians hear what they want to hear. I fear his votes, for the most part, go to social conservatism and not to libertarianism, at least when those issue are up. And his votes on immigration and free trade also lean in the paleoconservative direction even while he spouts libertarian rhetoric. Libertarians have always got the words while paleoconservative got the votes—but that seems to be enough to buy off the libertarians.</div><div><br /></div><div>The dream vision says Ron will fight to the end and then endorse Gary and that Gary will win a few percentage points pushing the libertarian idea.</div><div><br /></div><div>I am not sure that Paul will not sabotage that vision. It is possible but I think it the least likely of four scenarios—though all are possible. Here are the possibilities.</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Ron runs till the end, drops out, and then announces he is running a Libertarian and wants the LP to dump Johnson in favor of himself. </div><div><br /></div><div>2. He may do this just prior to the LP nominating convention, thus not running to the end, and sucker punches Johnson at the very last second. I think the fund raising is just too damn good for Ron to want to put an end to the money bombs. And, under federal rules, his excess funds can be donated to any nonprofit of his choice and he happens to have a couple under his control. </div><div><br /></div><div>3. Ron may have it in mind that he can get the VP nomination with Romney. Even the media has noted Ron's lack of criticism of Romney, even while he was dumping on the other Republican candidates. Romney has to pick someone. He can't pick Huntsman, that would look too much like a Mormon take-over. Santorum is far too repulsive and I doubt he wants Gingrich. I don't think he will go for the Blanche or Jane Hudson of the GOP: Bachmann or Palin. But, in spite of his own theocratic tendencies Ron doesn't appeal to the Christian appeal—though he has tried.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Ron could just let his true colors out and once again endorse the Constitution Party.</div><div><br /></div><div>I think it less likely that Ron will graciously endorse Gary Johnson. I don't get that vibe from Ron. All you have to do is ask him a question he wants to avoid—and there are plenty of them—and you'll see how he glares at you and responds. While, I wouldn't care if he endorses Gary or not, I'm not expecting it. Nor am I confident that we want to attract a large number of the fringe right types that are rallying around Ron. But then, the LP seems riddled with them as is, so I'm not sure it would do any additional harm. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think the sad thing is that Gary Johnson, while clearly the best candidate in this round, is in the unenviable position of having to run as a Libertarian Party candidate. He would be the best candidate the LP has ever offered, perhaps with the exception of Ed Clark, but he is far too good for the vehicle he will be driving. The LP ceased to be a party of principle long ago. It sadly runs neocons and conservatives (like Wayne Root), racists and bigots and crazed conspiracy mongers. The party simple is so desperate for any help that it exercises poor judgment in who it allows into positions of influence. When Birthers, Truthers, and Birchers are welcomed with open arms, then the party has become a political toilet and needs a good flushing. Gary Johnson would just give them more credibility than they possibly deserve. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-47946936700593327022012-03-06T07:33:00.005+01:002012-03-06T08:57:10.090+01:00God's Own Party Run Amok<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJOOznhgYCE/T1XBf1XvUvI/AAAAAAAADeI/Yp986vx5X98/s1600/jimmy-swaggart-caught.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 149px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJOOznhgYCE/T1XBf1XvUvI/AAAAAAAADeI/Yp986vx5X98/s320/jimmy-swaggart-caught.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5716688054663467762" /></a><br />South Carolina is one of those bizarre Bible-belt states. Normally it is as bat-shit crazy as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas but it can get nutty. Of course, this is most likely the case with God's Own Party (GOP).<div><br /></div><div>The Lauren County Republican Party has decided to try to get candidates to sign morality pledges straight out of some back-woods tent revival, absent the handling of rattlesnakes. Their pledge was adopted unanimously by the local Republicans who, given the demographics of the country,probably couldn't unanimously spell unanimously. The county has a median family income well below normal. Unemployment is officially over 11%, and 1 in 7 are officially living below the poverty line. Next consider the ability of locals to complete high school. Compare this graph of US <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16">dropout</a> rates to the rates in <a href="http://www.scyoungadults.org/county/yac02_edu.asp?COUNTYID=30">Laurens</a> County. </div><div><br /></div><div>If we look at the rates for the same years we find that the local yokels in Laurens are far more unlikely to be graduate high school—which means prime hunting territory for the GOP, maybe. You will see that almost 37% of Laurens students, who should have graduated during the 1994-1996 period, dropped out of high school instead. That is just over three times the national average during the same period. One out of ten white males, ages 25-34, didn't even go to high school and have less than a 9th grade education.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of those who did complete high school 42.5% took the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the year 2000. The average Verbal score in Laurens was 466; it was 505 for the <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883611.html">United States </a>as a whole for the same year. The average Math score in Laurens was 436 while the US averaged 514. The county is poorer than the average county in South Carolina and has a <a href="http://www.city-data.com/county/Laurens_County-SC.html">higher</a> suicide rate than the state. More people die in the county than are born there and two-thirds of "adherents" there are Southern Baptists.</div><div><br /></div><div>And, apparently, the local GOP has confused their political party with a Southern Baptist Church. The local GOP executive committee, or 13 of the 20 members, held a secret meeting which lasted 30 minutes and then unanimously <a href="http://www.clintonchronicle.com/latest_news/doc4f510610f0e05550131047.txt">adopted</a> a resolution which stated what kind of Republicans they felt should be allowed to run for office. They said that they didn't think any candidate should be allowed who was contrary to the state Republican Party platform. But here is how the local newspaper listed the qualifications "consistent" with the Republican Party:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.</div><div><br /></div><div>You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would ALLOW for civil unions of people of the same sex.</div><div><br /></div><div>You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.</div></blockquote><div></div><div><br /></div><div>The local paper was surprised and contacted the State Chairman of the Republican Party, Chad Connelly. Connelly seemed supportive. He said that technically the party can't stop someone from running for office but that the GOP has to be able to vet candidates to see if they "recognize our core values." Core values? The County resolution says that all candidates must present themselves to the Holy Inquisition for questioning, that is a committee from the GOP, "within 24 hours of the closing of the file period," to see if the candidate is qualified. Connelly said this is important "now that the Republican Party is in such a dominant position in state politics and government." </div><div><br /></div><div>Apparently the purported, though rarely lived-up-to, morality lectures of your typical fundamentalist sect is now the core values of the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater warned what would happen if these religious kooks and preachers got their hands on the Republican Party, but he own party ignored him. </div><div><br /></div><div>Here is a county, dominated by Republicans, that can't even educate its own young people up to the pathetic levels of the rest of the country. When your school system is below average, and when you consider how bad is the actual average, then you have a real problem on your hands. But Republicans are pushing abstinence not education, and theology not science. These are people who think there is only one book, the Bible, and just as long as you can figure out what the verses say, you are educated. But, at least you would think they would worry about the poverty rates and the high-than-average unemployment in the country. </div><div><br /></div><div>No, what inspires this Republican Party outfit isn't the horrible way they run their schools or the problems endemic in their county—what worries them is what someone might look at in their free time or whether or not they love someone of the same gender. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is party that has their head so far stuck up their own ass, that the mistake the shit they are looking at for brains. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sure, they might get the so-typical fake Southern Baptist wannbe politician who parades his high-haired clueless wife and butt-ugly children before them. Then he'll sneak out to the local rest stop to expose himself to some undercover cop. He'll swear by the Bible that he doesn't look at porn but will beat his children abusively, and later blame the fondling on too much booze. They will promise they don't love another man, and then for good measure try to prove how much they hate immigrants, gays and Muslims. They'll push their moralistic candidates who will get caught in some scandal. </div><div><br /></div><div>But that's okay. He'll stand in the pulpit with Hollywood-style tears flowing down his cheeks. His numb-faced wife, clutching her Bible will stand silently and dutifully beside him, one step back, with her confused looking children at her side while he cries out, "I have sinned." He'll beg for forgiveness and the congregation, or is it the party, will yell, "Thank you, Jesus," and wave their hands in the air so God can see them. Everybody will have a good cry, pray a little, sing a little, and then return to their poverty stricken homes while the repentant sinner calls his secretary to tell her which hotel he rented for them.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-40638378872738311952012-03-02T23:14:00.006+01:002012-03-03T04:10:53.171+01:00Charles Koch and His Threat to Libertarianism<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ATO0FI_kioQ/T1FMB9JlssI/AAAAAAAADd8/sGsNLI4Mvso/s1600/s-KOCH-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 260px; height: 190px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ATO0FI_kioQ/T1FMB9JlssI/AAAAAAAADd8/sGsNLI4Mvso/s320/s-KOCH-large.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5715432998588232386" /></a>This blog has previously defended Charles and David Koch from false allegations. There have simply been half truths told about them. This doesn't mean they are perfect individuals. In fact, they are currently up to something I consider very loathsome. And for that reason we give notice that we shall never bother to defend the Koch brothers again—even when we think the attack is unfair. We will not spread malicious and false accusations, we just won't defend these two men.<div><br /></div><div>Now, to be fair, I think the main issue is Charles Koch, but David is going along with him in this endeavor so I include both of them in my libertarian version of a fatwa—which just means I think people should have nothing to do with these men.</div><div><br /></div><div>Many years ago Charles Koch asked Ed Crane what sort organization was needed in the libertarian movement. Crane said a think tank that tackled hard policy questions was important. From that the Cato Institute was born. Charles, some years ago, had a hissy fit about something and took his toys and ran. But he remained a shareholder, as did his brother.</div><div><br /></div><div>There were four shareholders: including the Kochs there was Ed Crane and Bill Niskanen, who recently died. Niskanen's shares went to his wife but Charles Koch has filed a lawsuit in Kansas, far from Cato's main offices, to redistribute Niskanen's shares to all existing stock holders, instead of to his widow, which would effectively mean a hostile takeover of Cato by Koch.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cato is the largest and most effective libertarian organization in the world. After Charles had his hissy fit and went crying to Kansas, Ed Crane built Cato into a world class orgnization. Charles, who has actually done little but throw his money around, now wants to muscle in and take over Cato. Let me be clear, while I think the Kochs have libertarian sentiments, over conservative ones, they simply don't give a fuck about whole areas of human liberty. Koch is the ultimate "me-libertarian" who views liberty as something important to white, old rich dudes and doesn't care about others. He wouldn't deny other their freedom, he just doesn't care when it is denied to them, except on some academic level which has no real impact. Koch funds groups that help him, and doesn't care whether they help liberty in general. If the issue impacts Koch it gets funding. They throw a lot of money at conservative causes, not libertarian ones. Koch has been rather miserly with donations to genuine libertarian groups and quite generous to anti-liberty conservatives.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, let us assume for the sake of argument, that Koch is entirely in the right. What will his lawsuit accomplish? It will mean the effective destruction of Cato. This old fart from Kansas is willing to decimate the most influential libertarian organization in the world because he has a point to prove. This is the height of irrational greed. It is greed because Koch has had it in for Crane for years for whatever slight he felt and is doing this to feel good. It is irrational because he will destroy something he claims to value in order to seek that vengeance. </div><div><br /></div><div>The end result of Koch's action will be to harm libertarianism in a significant way. I don't give a fuck about his motivation, I know what the result will be. And anyone willing to inflict that much damage on libertarians, for any reason, is not an ally, but an enemy, and a very dangerous one at that. So, libertarian friends, if you "liked" Koch Industries on Facebook, you might want to unlike them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Libertarianism is strong, but endangered. There is a concerted effort to take the libertarian revival and turn it into something other than libertarian. We see it from the so-called paleolibertarians, that gaggle of bigoted, anarcho-fundamentalists who distort and twist the idea of Ludwig von Mises to try and bolster their right-wing agenda. We see it from conservatives who have flooded libertarianism pushing neoconservative foreign policies and social conservatism, while pretending they are actually libertarian. Certainly Koch has done a lot to fund these latter fakes. Now Charles Koch has gone on the offensive, and offensive describes his actions in every sense of the word. He is now actively working to destroy the most effective libertarian organization in the world. As I see it, that makes him the most potent enemy to libertarianism around. He is trying to do what many far left, and far right, groupls would love to do—take the Cato Institute out of the game. Charles Koch—you suck. </div><div><br /></div><div>Please note: We are having trouble accessing the comments moderation feature at this time. It may take a few days to fix. We are not ignoring comments, we just can't reach them.</div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-64695626578716808192012-03-01T06:04:00.009+01:002012-03-11T10:48:08.283+01:00That Selfish, Greedy Ayn Rand Does It Again.<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VXBn1Knz-I4/T08OOCYq_MI/AAAAAAAADdw/iEsGACQU3nU/s1600/sacrifice.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 248px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VXBn1Knz-I4/T08OOCYq_MI/AAAAAAAADdw/iEsGACQU3nU/s320/sacrifice.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5714802086477757634" /></span></a><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span style=" color: rgb(83, 83, 83); font-family:Georgia;">We all know what an evil woman Ayn Rand was—all we have to do is read the Internet. AlterNet gives us a two-minute hate period on Rand almost every day. They are obsessed with her. She may be no Emmanuel Goldstein, she was worse. Goldstein was a fictional character, Rand was real, and like Goldstein, her birth name, Rosenbaum, is sufficiently Jewish to give others additional reasons to hate her.<br /><br />Rand wrote a screed to what she called individualism: <i>The Fountainhead</i>. In that novel her character tells a courtroom that the “mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought.” She also claimed, “No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.”<br /><br />Greed and selfishness exudes from every line. Recently, I discovered some lost passages from this speech, sections just as evil as the rest of it. They were perhaps a bit too redundant and edited out for that reason. But Randaphobes everywhere pay heed to the evil she expressed:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(83, 83, 83); font-family:Georgia;"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=" color: rgb(83, 83, 83); font-family:Georgia;font-size:100%;"><i></i></span></p><blockquote><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;">I am myself; you are yourself; we are two distinct persons, equal persons. What you are, I am. You are a man, and so am I. God created both, and made us separate beings. I am not by nature bound to you, or you to me. Nature does not make your existence depend upon me, or mine to depend upon yours. I cannot walk upon your legs, or you upon mine. I cannot breathe for you, or you for me; I must breathe for myself, and you for yourself. We are distinct persons, and are each equally provided with faculties necessary to our individual existence.</span></i></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:100%;">The sentiments are so clearly Randian in nature I’m surprised they sat unobserved for so long. But, now is the time to expose her and her selfish creed of individual rights. So let me make it clear, here and now….<br /><br />Wait a second.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:100%;">…Oh, dear, this doesn’t look good. Hold on why I clarify something.<br /><br />Damn, Google sent me down the wrong path. That quote sounds pretty much vintage Rand—with her awful creed that no man should live for the sake of others. But, apparently someone else wrote it. Of course, that doesn’t make it any less selfish or greedy. No matter who says it, the morality that church and state have been telling us for centuries damns these ideas as rank immorality. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><span lang="EN-AU"><o:p> </o:p></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ">Anyway, it’s unlikely you heard of the author, unless you went to one of those greedy schools where education isn’t free.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The author was some old guy, from the days of the Robber Barons. So what else do you expect?</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:100%;">His name was Frederick Douglass and this <a href="http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/02/i-am-your-fellow-man-but-not-your-slave.htm">little tirade</a> about being selfish was in a letter he wrote to Thomas Auld. Auld and Douglass had a difference of opinion. Douglas felt he should be allowed to live for his own sake. Auld felt Douglass should be required to live for the sake of others—in particular for Auld, who legally owned Mr. Douglass, and from whom Douglass escaped to freedom in the North.<br /><br />Pardon my confusion. They just sounded so much alike. Who knew that Frederick Douglas was so selfish and greedy? Serving others as one's prime purpose in life, is so enriching the blacks of the American South must have been blessed and truly joyous—not a day didn't go by when they didn't live for the sake of others, putting their selfish, egotistical desires last, right up until those horrid Abolitionists got their way and destroyed one of the institution of American life totally dedicated to the service of others. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU" style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><b>Please note: We are having trouble accessing the comments moderation feature at this time. It may take a few days to fix. We are not ignoring comments, we just can't reach them. Accusing of us refusing to post comments, which we can't access at this time, is neither far nor helpful. We will post comments as soon as we can reach them. It is a computer problem. We can't even post this comment in the comment section ourself. Please pay attention.</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-AU"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:100%;"><b><br /></b></span></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-20427408246593320432012-02-28T22:56:00.005+01:002012-03-06T23:28:15.318+01:00Woman Calls Cops on Scam—They Kill Her Dog Instead<iframe frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://eplayer.clipsyndicate.com/embed/iframe?pl_id=13637&page_count=6&windows=1&tags=default&rel=3&aspect_ratio=16x9&show_title=0&va_id=3302886&pf_id=1297&auto_start=0&auto_next=0&volume=8" width="425" height="330"></iframe><div><br /></div><div>The cops are already making excuses for this thug. Here a woman calls the police to tell them that there is an online scam. They say they will send a police officer to talk to her. She tells them she won't be home and to call first so she can be there. They ignore her.</div><div><br /></div><div>The officer goes to the home, when she is away, and then jumps over her fence ignoring the trespassing signs and warnings that there is a guard dog. When the 11-year-old dog appears he shots it to death.</div><div><br /></div><div>Police routinely kill dogs. This is not an anomaly. This blog has warned about it repeatedly. I think of the woman who opened her door to a police officer who was lost and asking for directions—yea, they aren't so bright these days. Her dog in the house was barking. She was in the doorway and the dog couldn't get out. The officer pulled his gun and shot her dog inside the house. And, like this officer will, he got away with it. Cops cover for their own. </div><div><br /></div><div>This is why I argue there are no good cops. The bad cops have allies who lie for them in statements, who destroy evidence on their behalf, and who will exonerate them if they are caught. It is very, very rare that a police member will be disciplined in any way that hurts them. The typical response is "paid leave" while a case is investigated. People in the private sector call paid leave a vacation. Of course, the adrenaline junkies in the police force, who get their kicks throwing around their authority, may actually find that a punishment. </div><div><br /></div><div>What is particularly upsetting is that the good officers know of cops doing things that are criminal. They rarely turn them in. Cops don't generally arrest cops unless the case is very severe and the evidence hard to hide. </div><div><br /></div><div>This woman, and her children, have learned that one should never call the police for help, unless it is absolutely necessary. My advice remains:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Never call the police unless you are convinced that the risk of their presences is lower than the risk of their not being present.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. If you see the police in pursuit of someone, go in a different direction. Offer them no assistance and stay as far away from them as possible.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. Teach your children that the police are NOT their friends. The days of Sheriff Andy Griffith are long gone. The police are not there to protect you or your family, they are there to enforce the law and given the over-legislation of the day, chances are you are a criminal.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Teach your children to never speak to an officer unless a parent is present. Cops regularly arrest children for things that rational people don't see a crimes.</div><div><br /></div><div>5. If your school has a "resource officer" demand that they be removed. Many parents deeply regret the presence of police in the schools when their kids end up in jail for something that shouldn't matter. Kids have been arrested for accidentally bringing butter knifes to school, or for drawing a gun. Kids have been arrested for hugging, small children were handcuffed for crying. Kids were arrested for playing a game where they smacked other kids on the butt and ran. Kids have been arrested for asking a teacher for a hug—and we aren't talking high school boys after a teacher but small children. </div><div><br /></div><div>6. If you are in a safe position, and see the police in action, and can videotape their activities, then you may save an innocent person from going to jail. Cops don't like this, however, and have arrested people for videotaping them acting illegally. But these tapes have regularly saved people from being railroaded into jail by lying officers, swearing under oath in court. The one greatest help to the innocent has been video which proves the testimony of police officers was perjured.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-46553821120918065872012-02-26T19:46:00.002+01:002012-02-26T20:36:43.297+01:00Separation of Church and State Makes Santorum Vomit<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iDP4qrA8hvg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><div><br /></div><div>Above is John Kennedy speaking about separation of church and state. Let us remember the context of the day. Fundamentalists were scurrying about telling voters that Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican and would impose Catholic doctrine through public policy. In this speech Kennedy was speaking to Southern Baptist leaders. But, this was before fundamentalists got a taste of political power and realized they might be able to oppress others in their name of their religion. And that was an entirely different matter.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, when Kennedy spoke, the idea of separation of church and state was the consensus. There was no "Religious Right" intent on imposing theocratic laws. Santorum said: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." He said that this very idea would make most people "throw up." </div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps, it is time to remind fundamentalists that just because Santorum repeats their hateful slogans, that doesn't make him one of them. He is a Catholic and his doctrines are Catholic. He believes that Protestantism is a false church and that Baptists are heretics. Mr. Santorum's religious views are a radical Catholicism unlike that of most Catholics. Yes, a few fanatics (Jennifer Morse comes to mind) are as extreme as Santorum, but most Catholics don't want the law to reflect church doctrine. </div><div><br /></div><div>Santorum has claimed that Satan has America in its grips—Satan! Pretty soon he'll be saying that libertarians are demon possessed and should be exorcised. He claims that mainline Protestantism isn't even part of "the world of Christianity as I see it." Some people thought that would alienate fundamentalists, but they hate mainline Protestantism as much as Santorum does. When Santorum rags on mainline Protestants and attacks gay people the fundamentalists think he sounds like them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Simply put, fundamentalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs around. They are less educated and less informed than the general population. Many of them simply don't know that Santorum is a hated Roman Catholic. They pick up a bit of news here and there and hear him spewing his hateful messages and they shout, "Amen, brother." But, they don't really see him as a "brother" in Christ at all; at least they wouldn't if they knew he was Catholic. Then he would be part of the Great Whore of Babylon—the Vatican. </div><div><br /></div><div>The media has made much of Romney being a member of the Mormon cult. His sect membership is unusual. After all, less than one in a hundred people attend a Mormon church. And, contrary to Mormon PR material, the sect is not growing but stagnant, even in spite of among Mormon woman. But Santorum's Catholicism is not unusual. About a quarter of all Americans have some affiliation with Catholicism. Of course, most Catholics have enough common sense that they don't take all Catholic doctrine seriously—Santorum is not one them.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, while Romney's membership in the Mormon cult is widely touted to ignorant fundamentalists, Santorum's rabid Catholicism is more hidden. Romney's religion is in their face, Santorum's is not discussed. His views are talked about but not so much his Catholicism. This is allowing fundamentalists to compare a candidate that sounds as hateful as they do, to a candidate they know is "not a Christian." Truth be told, a huge percentage of fundamentalists would also say Santorum is no Christian, if they focused on his Catholicism.</div><div><br /></div><div>The way the media has covered the religious debate in God's Own Party (GOP) plays to Santorum's advantage. Now, I don't think it much matters if the Republicans win or the Democrats win. They both are in a race to see which disgusts me most. But, I do know most media employees tend to be Democrats and would rather see Obama win than any Republican. Given that I don't believe the bulk of independent voters will support someone as noxious as Santorum, media coverage of the GOP is helping Obama.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, from an entirely practical viewpoint, I won't vote. My vote will make zero difference in outcome, but then neither will your own. The best outcome, as I see it, would be neither party having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. Given that the Republicans are more likely to win control of the House, than the Senate, then Obama winning the White House would do the least harm to liberty and individual rights.</div><div><br /></div><div>This wouldn't be because Obama much cares for either. But a Republican House is likely to stymie his efforts. So, I'd prefer to see the GOP win the House and Obama win the White House. In that case, a Santorum candidacy would be optimal. Republicans in the House turn into Big Government evangelists the moment a Republican is in the White House. As for the Senate, I'd like to see it as evenly divided as possible. </div><div><br /></div><div>If I were a Republican seeking political power then I would not want Santorum even in the race. Every time he opens his mouth he alienates independent voters. But, I'm not a Republican. As far as I'm concerned the only decent Republican running was Gary Johnson and he dropped out to run as a Libertarian. If I were to force myself to vote I'd vote for Gary, if he were the LP candidate—maybe. I have little confidence that the LP will give Gary a decent running mate and are more likely to inflict a conservative like Wayne Root, or some ideologue with little understanding of reality. That the LP continues to allow open racists to hold positions in the party, men like David Macko, is just too much for me to stomach. </div><div><br /></div><div>We need a party that represents the mushy-libertarian middle of American politics. But the Democrats are held hostage by greedy unions, the Republicans are held hostage by religious crazies, and the LP is held hostage by idiots. </div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-44591593509988493882012-02-21T07:16:00.003+01:002012-02-21T07:33:46.424+01:00Faked Scandal Against Warming Skeptics Backfires Badly.<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YLsXZF6HPCY/T0M6qDaSrrI/AAAAAAAADdk/ecvQzKHE6c4/s1600/gleick.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YLsXZF6HPCY/T0M6qDaSrrI/AAAAAAAADdk/ecvQzKHE6c4/s320/gleick.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5711473246580420274" /></a><p class="MsoNormal">In the middle of the month a set of documents made the rounds of the media claiming to expose “climate change deniers” at the Heartland Institute. Most of the set of documents were rather innocuous memos for the Heartland Board, and really of no significance. But attached was a “strategy” memo that supposedly outlines plans by Heartland to prevent the teaching of “science” in government schools. <!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Heartland immediately said that the board documents appeared genuine but that they had to verify them against the original but also said the “strategy” document was fraudulent. This immediately raised the specter of “climategate” when hundreds of emails by warming activist-scientists discussed matters such as preventing scholarly papers refuting their theories from being published. Those emails were later confirmed to be genuine, even though they blustered at the start that they might be fakes. But, what struck me during that scandal was how often defenders of warming alarmism said the issue isn’t so much the validity of the emails in question, but the issue that they were stolen.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The best theory at the time was the theft of those emails was more an individual stumbling upon an open access online that allowed them to access them. They didn’t engage in deception to obtain them, though you might question whether going through an unlocked door online is an ethical problem. I’m not sure myself and am open on that question. <!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yet, I’ve not seen any discussion by the alarmists about the deception used to obtain these documents. When “theft” was the issue during climategate, and content wasn’t, they have now reversed course, ignore the theft and concentrate on content. Unfortunately for them, the content they concentrate on was the one fraudulent document.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I will shortly go into how we know the piece is fraudulent, as it gives us clues to the perpetrator of the deception. And, now we have even more evidence as to who is the guilty party as well. <!--[endif]--></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Earlier, Ross Kaminsky, a Senior Fellow at Heartland, posted a blog article at American Spectator, which suggested that the likely culprit was warming activist Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute—not the libertarian Pacific Research Institute—bit an environmentalist group instead. After Kaminsky named Gleick as the likely culprit Gleick issued a statement through Huffington Post confessing his role in this escapade.<br /><br />Gleick has closed comments to his confession and said, “I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials.” Convenient. I will get to Gleick’s confession in a moment. First, we need to see what indicated the strategy document was a fraud and then we can see how Gleick appears to be lying about what he claims happened and his role. Don’t misunderstand; I think he is the guilty culprit. I just think the evidence shows he has only confessed part of his deceptive practices and is hiding the rest. But, in order to show that, we must first understand the indications this strategy memo was a fraud.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Some of the documents were genuine board notes. How were those obtained? Someone called the Heartland Institute and claimed to be a particular board member. He claimed that he did not receive the email with the PDF document for the board and would this employee resend it to a new email address. That was done and then the email address was deleted.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">All the original documents were the more innocuous material and were no “smoking gun.” All were created in PDF format and emailed to board members. The real documents were created originally as PDF documents. The so-called memo was a paper document that was then scanned and turned into a PDF document. The memo was the only one with no author listed, and it was produced well after the other documents and only shortly before it was sent to an environmentalist website which immediately announced it to the media, without checking if the document were legitimate.<br /><br />But they are electronic tags in PDF documents. And the tags in the original, real documents show they were produced at the Heartland offices January 25<sup>th</sup>. The fraudulent memo was created on February 13<sup>th</sup> and produced via an Epson printer. And the tags show in which time zone the document is produced. The real ones are in Central Standard Time while the fraudulent one is in Pacific Standard Time; Gleick’s office is in California.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The memo not only concocts a fake strategy but also makes claims that can be verified to be false. For instance, it tries to demonize the Koch brothers by claiming they donated $200,000 in 2011 to Heartland. In fact, the Koch Foundation donated $25,000 for a health care project and nothing else. In addition, in 2010 they gave nothing to Heartland. Surely a Heartland memo wouldn’t fake donations figures for the Board to see, especially since they would see the full budget and know this figured was faked.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In his <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/heartland-institute-documents_b_1289669.html">admission</a> Gleick claims that, “at the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” He says that to “confirm” this document “I solicited and received additional materials directly from Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” In other words, Gleick was the one who fraudulently pretended to be a board member in order to get the board documents. He then forwarded “anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”<br /><br />So, he combined genuine, innocuous Board notes with a memo he claims he anonymously received, or so he claims. Yet, he had zero evidence that the memo was genuine. And strangely, when Heartland thought they were sending material to a Board member they did NOT include this memo. That should have been a red flag that the memo was not part of the Board packet and was not genuine.<br /><br />Here is my theory. I think Gleick contacted Heartland as he said. He got the Board packet and then concocted a “strategy memo” to go along with it. He scanned the document into PDF format. The real documents were already in PDF format and sent to the fake email account he set up and then deleted.<br /><br />I suspect he did not realize that the PDF tags existed and would reveal the location of the forger. Once that evidence came out, he realized that the investigation into the fraud was narrowing down in his direction. Then, when Kaminsky publicly stated that the believed Gleick was the culprit, he had to confess. The problem he faced was that the “memo” was not a stolen document but a forged one. And, while committing fraud to obtain the documents were a problem, the forgery was even more of a problem. He had to find some way to explain how a fraudulent PDF file was produced via what we have to assume was his Epson printer.<br /><br />That was when he concocted the story that the memo was mailed to him anonymously. Nothing on the memo indicated it was genuine and a cursory reading of it indicated it was not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whether your like them or not, the warming skeptics, don’t describe their position as anti-science, quite the contrary. Anyone wish to bet that Gleick doesn’t have the original envelope anymore? I suspect that he made no effort to discover the source of this piece of paper because he knew the source. He wrote it. After fraudulently obtaining the Board documents he went through them and found no smoking gun, as he had hoped. But with the genuine documents he thought he could slip a bogus document into the mix and cause trouble for people he hated. That is when I suspect he forged the “memo” and the rest is history.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i>New York Times</i> writer, Andrew Revkin, himself an alarmist on warming issues, <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/">called</a> Gleick an “aggressive critic” of skeptics. He writes that Gleick’s “admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. Revkin also notes that Gleick’s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“acts of deception… will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.” He says this means Gleick “has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>True enough.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’m wondering how many of the sites that published the original memo as genuine are at least cautioning readers that the indications it was faked are overwhelming, and letting them know a prominent warming alarmist used deception to concoct a scandal that ended up backfiring on himself instead? I suspect the answer is:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not many.<br /><br />The Climategate leaks made the alarmists look bad. And then a scandal comes along to make the skeptics look bad, but when the truth comes it, it too bit the alarmists in the ass. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p> <!--EndFragment-->Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-7790140683035786262012-02-20T12:47:00.003+01:002012-02-20T13:14:27.001+01:00The Mind-Boggling Standards of Modern Catholicism<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrQ1gCDD8lQ/T0I5GLVAB8I/AAAAAAAADdY/e5t6lQOuMZI/s1600/pope.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 246px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrQ1gCDD8lQ/T0I5GLVAB8I/AAAAAAAADdY/e5t6lQOuMZI/s320/pope.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5711190055742080962" /></a><br />Steav Bates-Congdon was hired the St. Gabriel Catholic Church of Charlotte, NC in 2004 as music director. Everyone knew he was gay, including the parish. More importantly, they all knew that he had been in a 23 year relationship with his partner Bill, who was also active in the church in upaid positions. <div><br /></div><div>No one in the church was under the illusion that Steav and Bill were anything but a long-term, committed couple. For eight years he served on staff.</div><div><br /></div><div>After 23 years together Bill and Steav decided to go to New York and get married, and they went to Mexico for honeymoon. When they returned to Charlotte Steav stopped by the church and was given a note by the pastor, Frank O'Rourke. It read: "Employees of St. Garbriel... are expected to live with in the moral tradition of the Church. ...Your civil marriage stands in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, therefore ending your employement with us."</div><div><br /></div><div>Look at the situation more closely. The Catholic Church, which pretends they invented marriage, knew Steav and Bill were a couple in a long-term relationship. That was also contrary to the teachings of the church. They ignored it. Only when the men made a deep commitment to one another did the church act. Steav and Bill apparently were free to fornicate homosexually all they wanted and were in good standing with the church, but the moment they made a marriage commitment they were chucked out. Apparently the sex and such was alright, what offends Catholicism is commitment and love. </div><div><br /></div><div>I am also baffled that this music director was so easily fired while priests, many of whom were rapists in the literal sense of the word, continued to operate as employees of the church. Not only that, but this church did its best to hide said priests from the law and to cover-up their crimes. That, apparently was not in "direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church" since very such priests were fired. The tactic of the church was to move them to another parish so they could start all over again. </div><div><br /></div><div>If this O'Rourke fellow only discovered that Steav was gay at this time, I could understand him being consistent and firing the man. But he actually knew quite well that Steav and Bill were a couple for some years. </div><div><br /></div><div>More bizarrely, O'Rourke was informed of the marriage months before it took place. He was told last June and told Steav "Congratulations, I'm very happy for you. But I can't you give you my blessing." Steav said he didn't expect him to do so. At no time did the priest indicate that Steav would lose his job if he married. Steav says had them been told this would imperil his employment the ceremoney would have been postponed until he retired. But the priest apparently didn't have the decency to tell him that a loving commitment would be enough to get him fired. And, why would Steav assume it would get him fired? After all, the church knew of the relationship and they knew Bill. </div><div><br /></div><div>The only reason for the firing was the marriage, not the relationship. Of course, this is a sect that thinks no one in the "Holy Family" had sex their entire lives. Yes, Mary, Joseph and Jesus were all supposed to be virgins. This is the ideal family. It is a sect that long thought virgins were more moral than others, that marriage with normal sexual relations was morally inferior to chastity. In their pantheon of womanly virtue chaste nuns come first, widows who have ceased having sex are second, in a distant third are married women who have normal, healthy sexual relations with their husbands. At the bottom are women who have any other kind of sex. This is really screwed up thinking. </div><div><br /></div><div>The Catholic view of sex is literally perverse and unnatural. It goes against actual human nature. Yet they promote the unnatural state of life-long chastity as the moral ideal. That really has to warp people. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-53346211658988501842012-02-16T23:22:00.007+01:002012-02-17T00:01:01.961+01:00Conservatives Shouldn't Drink and Drive Gay<div style="text-align: center;"><br /></div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kvEusTKS-_o/Tz2Kjepx1yI/AAAAAAAADdM/nbEdW9kpwjU/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-02-16%2Bat%2B2.59.27%2BPM.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uUdpKvSjwO4/Tz2E59z5jtI/AAAAAAAADdA/0DDTNMObLbQ/s1600/Berry.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uUdpKvSjwO4/Tz2E59z5jtI/AAAAAAAADdA/0DDTNMObLbQ/s200/Berry.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5709866033955311314" /></a>Houston police have an incident report ID 32377, regarding an "INCIDENT INVOLVING A PROMINENT CITIZEN." The prominent citizen in question was Right-wing radio pundit Michael Berry, a fixture in the Houston area.<div><br /></div><div>Berry goes into fairly typical right-wing rants on his show, including those which demand that some groups of Americans have their right curtailed for the betterment of society. Various sources in the Houston area say that Berry has gone into anti-gay rants on his show, but I will continue to to attempt to pursue that. I prefer firm facts and will report more if I can find it.</div><div><br /></div><div>What we do know, from the police report, which I have in front of me, is that Michael Berry, was leaving a bar and hit a car while pulling out. The car belonged to the bouncer for the bar. This took place on the 2400 block of Converse. The bouncer saw an SUV back into his car. The bouncer, with a flashlight in hand, walked up to the car and got a good look at his face. He also got the vehicle's license place. The driver looked at the bouncer and fled the scene. Police ran the plate and it belongs to Berry. So the plate confirms Berry's car was there, the bouncer say Berry there and security video confirms his presences inside the gay club as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>The bouncer said the driver had just left the gay club minutes before and security tape from within the club confirms that ultra-conservative Berry was inside the gay venue. Berry is refusing to say anything about the incident. The bouncer thinks that Berry is being silent because, "If you're going to stand up and say anti-gay things and be conservative and be Mr. Good Guy, and then when something happens that points you out and puts you in a place with the exact business that you aim to shut down, it kind of makes it seem like I need this to go away and I need it to go away quickly." Berry continues to refuse to speak to the incident. He would not only have to explain his visit to his right-wing listeners, but also to his wife. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now this blog doesn't know how gay Mr. Berry may or may not be, but the evidence at least shows he can't drive straight. In case you have doubts about the club, here is one of their flyers. Berry knew exactly where he was going.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kvEusTKS-_o/Tz2Kjepx1yI/AAAAAAAADdM/nbEdW9kpwjU/s320/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-02-16%2Bat%2B2.59.27%2BPM.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5709872244704007970" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 244px; height: 320px; " /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-31605372903480351302012-02-14T12:26:00.004+01:002012-02-14T13:20:48.303+01:00Sad numbers prove Religious Right wrong.<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yberR2Puq_U/TzpRhcuSVPI/AAAAAAAADc0/aZvudN7gIoQ/s1600/hiv-aids-630.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 173px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yberR2Puq_U/TzpRhcuSVPI/AAAAAAAADc0/aZvudN7gIoQ/s320/hiv-aids-630.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5708965112733390066" /></a><br />Sadly, one of the dominant features of the Religious Right today is their unabashed tendency to lie to the public in order to promote their own agenda. Even when the facts are documented and easily discoverable, or even pointed out to them, they deny them and continue with their lies. When falsehoods are repeated, even when evidence proves them false, then the issue is honesty, not error.<div><br /></div><div>You may remember the Republican state senator from Tennessee, Stacey Campfield, who went into<a href="http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2012/01/republican-blames-monkey-sex-for-aids.html"> a little rant</a> about how only gays get AIDS and that they caught it from having sex with a monkey and infected the heterosexual community. This was all invented by his hateful, little mind. In fact, none of that is true. He also said that it is almost impossible for heterosexuals to contract the disease. Here are some <a href="http://www.thenewage.co.za/43206-1018-53-Half_of_HIV_infected_are_young_women">sad statistics</a> from the good people at the South African Institute of Race Relations.</div><div><br /></div><div>The population of South Africa is just under 50 million, but the round figure will do. The United States, in comparison is about 311.6 million. South Africa has approximately 5.58 million HIV infections while the significantly larger <a href="http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm">United States</a> has 1.1 million cases. The population of the US is 6.2 times larger than that of South Africa, yet their HIV infection rate is 5 times larger. </div><div><br /></div><div>Who is it that suffers from HIV in South Africa? As is often the case, it is mostly women and children. The SAIRR says that 53% of the cases in South Africa are among women ages 15 t0 49. Now, you have to understand that HIV infection as a result of sexual contact between women is extremely difficult. It isn't impossible, but it is very, very unlikely. These women contracted the disease from men, and not from gay men. About 8% of all victims are children under the age of 14 years old. The vast majority of them were born infected because their mothers were infected. </div><div><br /></div><div>Only about 0.6% of all <a href="http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm#">HIV cases</a> are in North America (Canada, the US, and Mexico combined). In Western Europe the infection rate is close around 0.2%. These are the parts of the world where the gay community was hit hardest—and they are also the parts of the world with some of the lowest infection rates around. There are an estimated 34 million people, world-wide, with HIV—and about 67% of those cases are in Subsaharan Africa. In the West the total number of infections is about 2.1 million, a fraction of those cases. And while South and South-East Asia has relatively low infection rates they account for 4 million cases, more than double those in Europe and North America.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, not even all those 1.1 million cases in America are among gay men. Of the 1.1 million Americans with HIV about 300,000 are women. Again, they caught the disease by heterosexual contact (66%) or sharing infected needles (32%) during drug use. That leaves around 800,000 men with HIV infections. It is estimate that 488,000 men contracted HIV through gay sex. Another 80,000 might have, but were also injection drug users which is a more potent means of infection. About 232,000 were men who contracted the disease either through needle usage or heterosexual sex. So, even in the United States, where HIV hit the gay community early on, most of the infections are among heterosexuals, not homosexuals. </div><div><br /></div><div>And, in those areas of the world with higher infections rates than our own, the overwhelming majority of cases are due to heterosexual infections. In those countries infections among heterosexuals is significantly higher than in the United States. Given that most the worlds infections are in those countries, and given that a significantly higher percentage of them are among heterosexuals, this means that the percentage of HIV infection caused through homosexual contact, worldwide, is relatively small—far smaller than it is the United States.</div><div><br /></div><div>These are all sad numbers. It really shouldn't matter who is infected, or how they are infected. HIV remains a crisis for the world and is killing millions of people. What is sadder is how the Religious Right distorts the numbers to try to convince the public that hating homosexuals is somehow a rational thing because of the tiny percentages of HIV cases in the US, the majority of whom are heterosexuals. </div><div><br /></div><div>What is really awful, if you pause to think about it, is that the disinformation that these religious kooks spread about HIV actually gives people a false perception of the risks. And, if they buy into the "hate the homosexual" message that these fanatics are pushing, and assume that most HIV victims are "evil gays" then the response to this crisis will be far less than what it should be. If these Christians come to believe that most HIV victims are gay men, and are thus less inclined to want to help end the crisis, the people who suffer as a result will be overwhelmingly heterosexual. </div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-90570990870931110572012-02-09T07:52:00.002+01:002012-02-09T08:13:59.024+01:00Beware, diabetes cause police brutality.<embed src="http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/player/embed/425x240/138896774.swf" width="425" height="240" allowfullscreen="true"></embed><br /><br />Watch his video. Now here is the full story behind this scene.<br /><br />Adam Green started going into a diabetic shock while driving. Police pull him over. He is first ordered to stay in the car but also ordered to get out the car. A Highway Patrol gang member approaches the car with his gun already drawn. The gang member kicks the car window and four of his fellow gang members pull the unresponsive man from the car. He is unresponsive because he is in a diabetic shock. <br /><br />They pile on the man and begin kicking and beating him while yelling "Stop resisting." Trust me, these thugs will always yell "Stop resisting" because they routinely lie that people are resisting arrest, as an excuse for their thuggery. But Mr. Green was unable to resist. Watch these thugs get their jollies kicking a man who can't move. One kicks him in the ribs. Another criminal in blue kicks him in the face. <br /><br />You will see them searching through his pockets when one of the officers says, "He's got insulin." You hear one of the mentioning medical and saying the man is semi-conscious. The officer is very concerned if any of the officers, who beat the unresponsive man, were hurt. The officer says: "Let's get medical out here. He's a diabetic. Probably in a shock, semi-conscious." Don't you think this thugs should have tried to determine this BEFORE they beat the shit out of a sick man who did not "resist" and had didn't act violent? Then after they got the adrenalin kicks they laugh about it and the lead thug says, "I could have probably taken him by myself." <br /><br />Between the city of Henderson, NV, who thugs in blue were involved, and the Highway Patrol, Green was paid almost $300,000 in compensation for the assault on him for the crime of diabetic shock. According to the successful lawsuit one of the officers told Green they were sorry for beating him up. Greene sufferece from bruises, abrasions and broken ribs inflicted by violent police officers to a man who had done nothing more than go into diabetic shock, as the video proves. <br /><br />The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes that in 2008, Dr. Ryan Rich was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and was on medication for it when he crashed. Police pulled him from his car and saw he was confused and disoriented, a result of the medicine or of a seizure. They used their Taser on him five times and killed him. Count officials said the police attack on Dr. Ryan was justified. <br /><br />But the adrenalin high that violent police officers work for is clear in the voices at the end. You hear the exhilaration and joy from a gang attack on a semi-conscious diabetic. There is is relief, laughter and pleasure. <br /><br />As far as anyone can tell all of the violent offenders in blue remain with the police department and none of them suffered any penalties for their violent assault on a sick man. That is typical of how police are treated—they are the only criminal gang that is above the law—they know it, and they act like they know it. Beware, that being in close proximity to a police officer is dangerous to your well being.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-86954383632013326002012-02-02T04:56:00.002+01:002012-02-02T05:09:43.431+01:00The Little Engine That Couldn't<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zmu--kA-9VU/TyoJiV6nreI/AAAAAAAADco/EdDUZ3YnFCo/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-02-01%2Bat%2B7.56.03%2BPM.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 252px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Zmu--kA-9VU/TyoJiV6nreI/AAAAAAAADco/EdDUZ3YnFCo/s400/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-02-01%2Bat%2B7.56.03%2BPM.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5704382363621371362" /></a><br /><br />One of the mosquitoes flying around the libertarian movement, making annoying buzzing noises, is an odd outfit run by Stefan Molyneux. Molyneux considers himself something of a guru, perhaps even a messiah, who seems intent on building a personal cult around himself and his bizarre theories. I've listened to the man and his logic is sincerely sophmoric, his historical foundations are virtually, and his psychological theories are actually destructive. He is a messiah in search of a cult to follow him—the L. Ron Hubbard of extremist libertarianism. <br /><br />This does not mean libertarianism per se is extreme. That really depends on the temperament of the individual. But it does mean that his theories are rather extreme, irrationally grounded, and sound more like religious dogma than logical conclusions. <br /><br />One of his major claims is that his site is the largest philosophical discussion on the net. Not even close. Actually it fails on two counts. First, what he spews out is hardly coherent philosophy. It's more corny, amateurish narcissism than anything else. But, even if we stretch philosophy so broad as to include his discussions, he is pretty low on the totem pole when it comes to readers. The above shows traffic ratings comparing Molyneux to two genuinely libertarian sites—the Cato Institute and Reason magazine. If you look at the very bottom of the graph you will periodically see a very tiny blue line. That blue line is Molyneux's website on its better days. Meanwhile note that Cato and Reason are hovering well above his scarce appearances on the scale. <br /><br />The most thorough site taking on this clay-footed messiah is FDR Liberated, which exposes the cultish wackiness of Molyneux. You can find that at www.fdrliberated.com. <a href="http://www.fdrliberated.com/?p=3802">You might want to start with this series.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-39284805369389928722012-02-02T00:31:00.001+01:002012-02-02T00:33:50.306+01:00Marriage by the numbers.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The 2010 census says the US population was 308,746,000. Of course, it has changed a bit since then but for my purposes is good enough.</span><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">What percentage of Americans have the legal right, even if they don't have the inclination, to enter a same-sex marriage?</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">As of now, citizens in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont have that right. Republicans are attempting to reimpose regulations in New Hampshire and Iowa to strip away that right. But it doesn't appear to me they will succeed.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">According to the Census the population in those states amount to 33,774,000. That is about 11% of all Americans have this right as of now.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">It is expected that the Washington state Senate will pass a marriage equality bill in the next few hours. The House will follow and the total should rise to 40,499,000 or 13% of the population. There is a very good chance that Maryland will also support marriage equality in the next few weeks, though not as good as in Washington, where it appears to be a done-deal. If Maryland joins in granting marriage freedom to same-sex couples the number of Americans with this right will grow to 46,273,000 or 15% of the population. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-32710492447152979742012-01-28T05:37:00.003+01:002012-03-01T07:27:54.924+01:00Monkey Sex Senator Refuses to Back Down<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF"><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1418751262001&playerID=30293795001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvb_goE~,F9_uH99XfPXpb21G2aH9Zf8u0hXDiJAM&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true"><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com"><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashvars="videoId=1418751262001&playerID=30293795001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAABvb_goE~,F9_uH99XfPXpb21G2aH9Zf8u0hXDiJAM&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br /><br />The Republican state Senator, Stacey Campfield, is not backing down from his insane claims about AIDS. Campfield said that a gay pilot had sex with a monkey and then infected men and that the gay community spread AIDS to everyone else. We dissected Campfield's<a href="http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2012/01/republican-blames-monkey-sex-for-aids.html"> absurd claims</a> here. <div><br /></div><div>He said it is "virtually, if not completely impossible to contract AIDS outside of blood transfusions through heterosexual sex. It's virtually impossible." Now, he tries to claim that comment was taken out of context and that he was referring to risks and, "The odds of a regular man getting it from a regular woman are very low." </div><div><br /></div><div>First, notice something there. He implies that men contract the disease from women, not that men can infect women. Any individual can contract the disease from any other individual. It is not spread by gay men or women, it is spread by men and women, gay and straight. It is spread by human beings. I guess we could we could add "sexist" to a description to Campfield. It is not just gay men he's bigoted against. By the way, Mr. Campfield is a conservative Republican in his mid 40s who has never been married. Given the past history of raging anti-gay conservatives that is not a good sign for him. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the interview Campfield claims that the facts continue to back him up. No, they don't. He's just making that up. He claims that the book <i>And the Band Played On</i> supports the claim that a pilot got HIV from having sex with monkeys. The book says no such thing. Note that the Senator makes no attempt to quote the book. He can't. He is taking half facts from dozens of places and combining them according to his own personal bigotry and theories. No one has ever claimed that sex with a monkey started AIDS.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also pay attention to his use of "regular" man. He was asked what he meant by "regular" and he said "someone who is not from Africa, someone who is not a homosexual, someone who is not an IV drug user, someone who is not sleeping with someone who is one of those things." Okay. So, by regular he means white straight Americans and everyone else is not regular. Apparently marrying someone from Africa also means you are not "regular." Does this sound a tad bit racist? This man is walking stereotype of the Southern redneck, conservative Republican with firm opinions totally unrelated to the facts. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-6091857423955591852012-01-27T00:12:00.004+01:002012-03-01T07:33:47.871+01:00Republican Blames Monkey Sex for AIDS<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DOujsuKogl0/TyHfo1wp5NI/AAAAAAAADcc/qLrlJ_-NlCc/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-01-26%2Bat%2B3.19.35%2BPM.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 305px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DOujsuKogl0/TyHfo1wp5NI/AAAAAAAADcc/qLrlJ_-NlCc/s320/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-01-26%2Bat%2B3.19.35%2BPM.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5702084495946671314" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;">A Republican in Tennessee's legislature, State Senator Stacey Campfield, wants to make it a crime for any school official to mention the existence of gay people. The law would literally mandate that only heterosexuality be discussed, all comments otherwise would be a crime. He recently gave an interview which shows you how warped he is mentally.</span><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">On the bullying of gay kids, he says the problem is that "sexually confused children" are "pushed into a lifestyle" that is not "appropriate" or the "norm." They don't know how to get out of it and so they kill themselves. See, its the people who support them that are to blame, not the people who harass them or bully them. Gay kids killing themselves, after years of bullying, are doing so because other people made them gay, not because of bullying? Amazing logic. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Campfield, who is often incoherent, has very strange ideas indeed. For instance: "Homosexuals represent about 2 to 3 percent of the population yet you look at television and plays and theaters, it's 50 percent of the theaters, probably more than that, 50 percent of the theaters based on something about homosexuality." </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Interesting, but is it true? I looked at <a href="http://www.playbill.com/celebritybuzz/article/75222-Long-Runs-on-Broadway">a list of the Broadway plays</a> that have had more than 800 performances. This is the heart of "liberal" New York City, so surely this 50% or more trend should show up there.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">I don't know every play listed but I do know the majority of the them. There are 162 theatrical productions that fit this category. Out of those I only see two with gay themes: <i>Torch Song Trilogy</i> and <i>Le Cage Aux Folles</i>. Out of the rest I can see nine that have a character or two that is gay: <i>Chorus Line</i> (1), <i>Rent</i> (unsure of the number); <i>Mamma Mia</i> (1); <i>Cabaret</i> (1 plus 1 bisexual); <i>Deathtrap</i> (2); <i>Billy Elliot</i> (1 in the film but not sure about the play);<i> Color Purple</i> (1 in the film, unsure of the play); <i>Kiss of the Spider Woman</i> (1 in the film, unsure of the play); and <i>Spring Awakening</i> (2). </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">This is so far off 50% as to be laughable. If you add up all the characters in the shows and see how many of them are gay, the reality is that gay characters are under-represented, the complete opposite of what Campfield is claiming. Television pickings are just as sparse, if you consider all the shows and all the characters. Feel free to do your own count, I don't think it will dramatically differ from mine and you might remember a character or two that I didn't. But I doubt any analysis will show numbers approaching 50% let alone exceeding it.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">When Campfield gets to discussing AIDS he is even more bizarre. First, let's look at some facts. Only a tiny percentage of all AIDS cases are in North America and Europe. I believe about 10% of the total number of cases are in Western nations. AIDS seems to have originated in Africa and the vast majority of the cases are among heterosexuals. AIDS appears to have been first introduced into the gay community in the West. As a sexually transmitted disease gay men are most likely to infect gay men. So, while a majority of the cases in the West are in the gay community, the majority of all cases in the world are among heterosexuals and the ratio of difference remains very significant. The disease is primarily heterosexually spread and originated in the heterosexual community.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Campfield, has it the complete opposite, and worse. He said, "Most people realize AIDS came from the homosexual community—it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall." He went on to say that "AIDS through heterosexual sex" is "very rarely" possible. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">I suspect Campfield is actually this stupid. I don't think anyone could play that dumb otherwise. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Fact, heterosexual sex can transmit AIDS, and most cases are actually transmitted that way. Second, there is no evidence that sex with monkeys was ever involved with AIDS. It is believed that the first cases go back to the 1930s and that the actual origin had to do with someone killing a monkey for food. Infected blood from the monkey entered the individuals body through cuts or scratches that were open. Campfield takes smidgens of facts and twists them beyond recognition to fit his bigoted agenda. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">As for the pilot that is quite different from what Campfield says as well. There was no pilot. What he is referring to is a flight attendant who was believed by Randy Shilts to be a source of HIV infection in the United States. He didn't have sex with monkeys and then with men. But, even this flight attendant was not patient zero. It is believed in scientific circles that HIV was transmitted to Haiti from Africa and then to the United States. There are documented cases of people with HIV prior to the case with the flight attendant, so the likelihood that he spread it is small. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">In that one sentence there are five factual claims. Here is how they pan out:</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"Most people realize...." Actually, I doubt most think this. And we need to be clear on "most people" in what location. I doubt most people in the world think of AIDS this way. Certainly most educated people do not think this. In Campfield's circles I have no doubt this is widely believed along with a world-wide flood, virgin births and other absurdities.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"...came from the homosexual community." As already noted, it didn't. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"...one guy screwing a monkey..." No sex with a monkey has been discovered to be connected to AIDS. It was from killing a monkey for food.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"...then having sex with men..." Nothing indicates the hunter who killed the monkey had sex with men and it is unlikely he did. The disease spread heterosexually from that point until some years later when homosexuals were infected.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">"It was an airline pilot." No. it was a hunter. And he's thinking of the flight attendant who was once thought to spread HIV in the US, not the first case in the world. So even the back-up claim of confusing a pilot with a flight attendant won't save him. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Out of his five factual claims regarding HIV and AIDS he is wrong on every single one of them. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">What we see here is that fear-mongers are not good sources for factual information. Hysterics tend to exaggerate and lie or completely misunderstand facts. Campfield is a hysteric pushing his own religious agenda. To do that he has to claim the absurd.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-42989120557964552612012-01-18T22:12:00.006+01:002012-01-19T00:01:03.757+01:00Radio Hosts Imply a Lot in Dumb StatementTwo radio talk show morons, John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou claim that gay men run Hollywood and like to cast women with bodies "that remind them of 14-year-old boys." Kobylt said that "Gay guys control the fashion industry and the casting industry and the whole Hollywood look." Because of this they cast women who look like boys. He said: "I don't need to do any research or any proof that it's gay guys who control the entire casting industry" because of his "fact" that all Hollywood does is promote women who look like boys. He implied that real "guys like curves." <div><br /></div><div>Apparently these experts are talking out their lower extremities. If the claim is that gay casting agents cast women who look like young boys—pandering to a rather nasty stereotype about gay men—then surely the highest paid women in Hollywood would reflect that. Do they? I looked up the top 10 paid actresses in Hollywood. And below is a collection of photos of them. A picture is worth a 1,000 words and in this case the pictures reveal whether or not these women look like 14-year-old boys. You be the judge. </div><div><br /></div><div>According to <i><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2011/07/05/hollywoods-highest-paid-actresses/">Forbes</a></i>, the 10 top paid actresses in Hollywood are as follows: Angelina Jolie, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Aniston, Reese Witherspoon, Julia Roberts, Kristen Stewart, Katherine Heigl, Cameron Diaz, Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-klT_XqBqYNU/Txc-w6HtqHI/AAAAAAAADcA/QivZoGPknM0/s1600/1.%2BAngelina_Jolie_008.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 247px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-klT_XqBqYNU/Txc-w6HtqHI/AAAAAAAADcA/QivZoGPknM0/s320/1.%2BAngelina_Jolie_008.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092863416903794" /></a><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wufX42lwm4c/Txc-wZt-04I/AAAAAAAADb4/lBNovsymHwU/s1600/2.%2BSarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 202px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wufX42lwm4c/Txc-wZt-04I/AAAAAAAADb4/lBNovsymHwU/s320/2.%2BSarah-Jessica-Parker.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092854719042434" /></a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h6jr82BEFJg/Txc-wL6G5lI/AAAAAAAADbo/u-uY7RagzTE/s1600/3%252C%2Bjennifer-aniston-5.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 196px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h6jr82BEFJg/Txc-wL6G5lI/AAAAAAAADbo/u-uY7RagzTE/s320/3%252C%2Bjennifer-aniston-5.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092851011806802" /></a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4RKks5SQb74/Txc-wObaXAI/AAAAAAAADbc/a18wC-n41qI/s1600/4.%2BReese-Witherspoon-Zac-Posen-Golden-Globes.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 246px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4RKks5SQb74/Txc-wObaXAI/AAAAAAAADbc/a18wC-n41qI/s320/4.%2BReese-Witherspoon-Zac-Posen-Golden-Globes.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092851688365058" /></a><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5ncQjaUnog/Txc-v64LZbI/AAAAAAAADbU/jjocbmVsch8/s1600/5%2Bjulia%2Broberts.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 246px; height: 320px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h5ncQjaUnog/Txc-v64LZbI/AAAAAAAADbU/jjocbmVsch8/s320/5%2Bjulia%2Broberts.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092846440310194" /></a><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_0LKK-OM7o8/Txc-GxUtprI/AAAAAAAADbE/8DJN0Kpur24/s1600/6%2Bkristen%2Bstewart.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 245px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_0LKK-OM7o8/Txc-GxUtprI/AAAAAAAADbE/8DJN0Kpur24/s320/6%2Bkristen%2Bstewart.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092139501004466" /></a><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hC1rSEdnpcY/Txc-GD2gcbI/AAAAAAAADa8/Jm9jT3vTj-s/s1600/7%2BKatherine%2BHeigl.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hC1rSEdnpcY/Txc-GD2gcbI/AAAAAAAADa8/Jm9jT3vTj-s/s320/7%2BKatherine%2BHeigl.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092127294714290" /></a><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T7TDIaBIjnM/Txc-GF3tyZI/AAAAAAAADao/keSa_Yy9fDg/s1600/8%2Bcameron-diaz-gray-graceful-01.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 234px; height: 320px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T7TDIaBIjnM/Txc-GF3tyZI/AAAAAAAADao/keSa_Yy9fDg/s320/8%2Bcameron-diaz-gray-graceful-01.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092127836653970" /></a><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItEa7XxBuLQ/Txc-F_mBDII/AAAAAAAADag/Y0Rft-NqtHQ/s1600/9%2BSandra-Bullock-Red-Dresses-at-the-2011-Oscar1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 209px; height: 320px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ItEa7XxBuLQ/Txc-F_mBDII/AAAAAAAADag/Y0Rft-NqtHQ/s320/9%2BSandra-Bullock-Red-Dresses-at-the-2011-Oscar1.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092126151806082" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TtB9dKYb3Bc/Txc-FrVI0fI/AAAAAAAADaU/aUErNMcirCY/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-01-18%2Bat%2B1.44.08%2BPM.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="text-align: left;display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; cursor: pointer; width: 149px; height: 320px; " src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TtB9dKYb3Bc/Txc-FrVI0fI/AAAAAAAADaU/aUErNMcirCY/s320/Screen%2Bshot%2B2012-01-18%2Bat%2B1.44.08%2BPM.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699092120712303090" /></a></div>In all honesty, do you think these women look like 14-year-old boys? I would suggest that if these two hosts look at Jennifer Anniston or Sandra Bullock and confuse them with young boys then they are the ones who ought to be doing a mental inventory. Now, I couldn't think of any 14-year-old male celebrities so I tried Google image search. I thought someone should remind these two talk show imbeciles what a 14-year-old boy looks like. The first "celebrity" to show up in my search was a British diver named Thomas Daley. Would you really get him confused with any of the women above? Daley is now 17 but the photo is from earlier, when he was 14. I just don't see the resemblance.<div><br /><div><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F6HrsxfkTio/TxdCjb3yX-I/AAAAAAAADcQ/Zzubfla6GXI/s1600/daley.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 256px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F6HrsxfkTio/TxdCjb3yX-I/AAAAAAAADcQ/Zzubfla6GXI/s320/daley.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5699097030005252066" /></a></div><div><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-931842834339907242012-01-04T20:58:00.000+01:002012-01-04T20:59:47.213+01:00TSA hassles flyer who was robbed by airport employees<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="640" height="520" data="http://www.myfoxny.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11212"><param value="http://www.myfoxny.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11212" name="movie"><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ewnyw%2Fnews%2Finvestigative%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3D091117%2Dtsa%2Dwatch%3Bloc%3Dsite%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D941865085158497200%3Frand%3D0%2E18791111977770925&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxny%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D131031850&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxny%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2009%2F11%2F17%2Ftsawatch%5Ftmb0000%5F20091117201135%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxny%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Finvestigative%2F091117%2Dtsa%2Dwatch&category=news&title=tsawatch&oacct=foximfoximwnyw,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia&headline=TSA%20Watch" name="FlashVars"><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"></object><p style="width:640px"><a href="http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/investigative/091117-tsa-watch">TSA Watch: MyFoxNY.com</a></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-15161697337245415512012-01-04T08:08:00.004+01:002012-01-04T13:05:08.248+01:00Iowa and Ron Paul: How the Rockwell Strategy Harmed Ron Paul<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--bIl_0UXghI/TwP74uxA_BI/AAAAAAAADaI/O7LTQCE5u5o/s1600/img_1224_ron-paul-global-fiat-currency-will-be-derailed-by-free-markets-and-nationalism-12.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--bIl_0UXghI/TwP74uxA_BI/AAAAAAAADaI/O7LTQCE5u5o/s400/img_1224_ron-paul-global-fiat-currency-will-be-derailed-by-free-markets-and-nationalism-12.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5693671305971301394" /></a><br />Let’s look at Iowa and what it may mean. First, Santorum obviously pulled up at the last second. This is not particularly surprising. Santorum is one of the most fanatical of the Religious Right candidates. The rural counties in Iowa are filled with Religious Right types. Remember this is a process that put Pat Robertson into first place in the Republican caucus before and favored Mike Huckabee. So, religious kooks like Santorum do have an edge in Iowa.<br /><br />The religious voters are a firm percentage of the vote. Romney had little chance with them as his Mormonism counts strongly against him. Next to gays, these people certainly hate Mormons. Ron Paul did his level best to secure their vote, but failed. He put a religious extremist in charge of his Iowa campaign, who actively courted the most extreme fundamentalists in the state, but it didn’t work. At the last minute, the Religious Right voters fled to Santorum, not to Ron Paul.<br /><br />In spite of this, we should remember that the difference in votes between Santorum and Romney is insignificant. Both have 25% of the vote and with Romney winning by only 8 votes.<br /><br />The other thing to remember is that these votes don’t mean a lot. There are almost 1200 precincts and each of them will elect delegates to go to the 99 local country conventions. At those conventions delegates will be elected to district conventions, which will then elect delegates to the state convention who elect the delegates to the national convention. At no stage are delegates required to vote for any particular candidate. They are free to vote for any candidate they want. Long-term. a lot can change before the state convention and delegates are free to vote for whomever they wish. Circumstance between now and then can easily sway delegates. This is why I argue the Iowa caucus doesn’t actually mean a whole lot. And Iowa has a poor record picking winners in the national election.<br /><br />I will guess that a majority of the small number of delegates, 28, that Iowa sends to the Republican convention will support Romney.<br /><br />From where Ron Paul gain his support? Voters did NOT support Ron Paul because of his paleolibertarian leanings. The views expressed in his newsletters were NOT the main reason people supported Paul. In addition Ron Paul’s attempts to appeal to religious conservatives failed.<br /><br />The so-called paleolibertarian strategy, which was concocted by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, was an attempt to appeal to the ugliest aspects of the Right. It promoted a moralistic view, intolerance of gays, racism, conspiracy paranoia and religious-based politics. Rothbard and Rockwell were the main forces behind the ugly parts of Ron’s newsletters. And, I simply cannot accept, based on my knowledge of the newsletters, that Ron was unaware of it. In fact, some of those very elements made their way into later campaigns.<br /><br />Rothbard and Rockwell hated what they called “modal libertarians,” those who promoted social tolerance, social freedom and didn’t like the bigotry they were spewing. Ron tried to appeal to social conservatives with his emphasis on abortion and his attempts to win over fundamentalist Christians.<br /><br />So, how did this strategy work out in Iowa?<br /><br />It didn’t. Ron’s support, according to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/ia">entrance polls</a> came from the voters LEAST likely to find the bigoted views of Rockwell and Rothbard appealing.<br /><br />First, the most socially liberal age group in the Republican Party is those under the age of 29. Ron Paul won an overwhelming plurality of young voters. He had 48% support in that age group, more than double the closest rival. Santorum won the age groups of 30 to 64, those Republicans most likely to have come to the GOP during the take-over of the party by evangelicals. The oldest voters, those most likely to be old line Republicans, went for Romney. [Please note that entrance poll data is being updated constantly and that the percentages are changing. What is stated here may be slightly off when the final numbers are accumulated.]<br /><br />Breaking this down further you see that Paul got 50% of the votes of those 17-24 years of age, 45% of those 25 to 29 and 34% of those 30 to 39. In each age group this is a plurality. Young voters, who tend to be socially liberal, voted for Paul.<br /><br />Paul also attracted non-typical Republicans. Of caucus virgins, voters who never attended a previous caucus, Paul won a plurality with 33%. Both Republicans and independent voters could attend the caucus. Republican voters overwhelmingly rejected Paul. Paul only received 14% of Republican votes, but he got 43% of the votes cast by independents. .<br /><br />Republican voters went strongly for the candidates who were most consistently attempting to use religion as the foundation for law. I define those candidates as Santorum, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann. Between them they received 59% of the Republican votes. The candidates who were perceived as the less religious candidates, in terms of imposing religious values through the law, received 41% of the Republican vote. The GOP is still controlled by the Religious Right.<br /><br />Among independent voters at the caucus a very different story is told. The theocratic wing of the GOP only got 36% of the support. Candidates not perceived as theocrats—Paul, Romney, and Huntsman—received 64% of the votes.<br /><br />Voters who self identified as “very conservative” rejected Paul; only 15% of them supported him, about the same percentage as went to Romney. The theocrats received 70% of the “very conservative” vote. For those who identified as “somewhat conservative” Paul’s support increased to 21%. The theocrats received 47% of this group. Voters who identified as moderates or liberals went to Paul. Forty percent of them supported Ron Paul and 35% went for Romney with 3% for Huntsman. Only 22% of these voters supported one of the theocratic candidates.<br /><br />When it comes to the evangelical voters Ron Paul only received 18% of the vote. The plurality of the evangelicals went to Santorum. The theocratic wing won 66% of the evangelical vote. Romney, Paul and Huntsman received 33% of the evangelical vote. Among non-evangelicals Paul did better; support was 8 points higher. The non-evangelicals preferred Romney and Paul, giving them 64% of the votes.<br /><br />Ron Paul also jumped into this campaign with a renewed opposition to abortion. He has been more strongly in favor of federal regulation of abortion than any time in his past. But he didn’t gain much because of it. Only 13% of Republicans said abortion was the most important issue. Of these voters, only 7% supported Ron Paul. His support came from people concerned about the budget deficit not abortion.<br /><br />Look at each group where Paul did well and you see a consistent pattern. They were not the kind of bigoted voters that Lew Rockwell was trying to appeal to with this paleolibertarian strategy. Ron’s support came from voters who were most like the libertarians that Rockwell has consistently slandered.<br /><br />The very kind of voters that Rockwell would dismiss as “hippies”—the young, independents, liberals and moderates—were the people who made up the majority of Ron Paul's supporters. The people that Rockwell tried to appeal to were far more likely to vote for Santorum.<br /><br />The flaw in the paleolibertarian strategy was that the people they tried to win over like big government. They are not libertarians. The very kind of people that Rockwell and Rothbard attacked in those newsletters, and in other places, were the ones willing to vote for Ron Paul.<br /><br />If Ron Paul had sounded more like Gary Johnson, I suggest he would have done better, perhaps enough to win. The publicity about his hateful newsletters lost him a lot of support. He was polling better a few days ago. By trying to appeal to the bigoted vote that Rockwell cherished, Ron Paul lost votes in Iowa.<br /><br />What about the future for Paul? Can he leave behind the newsletter baggage. He can, but he won’t. To effectively leave behind the ugly images of racism and bigotry Paul would have to name the author of his newsletters. He has refused to do that. And he is not likely to throw Rockwell under the bus. Without doing that the newsletter will always be a ghost from his past that will haunt him.<br /><br />Paul would also need to more consciously abandon paleo strategy that he has been following. He would need to reduced his anti-abortion rhetoric—which didn’t help him—and stop trying to appeal to the Religious nutters on the Right. They rejected him as well. He needs to ratchet up his appeal to young voters, independent voters and to moderates and liberals. In other words, he needs to the do the complete opposite of what Rockwell and Rothbard laid out in their grand paleolibertarian scheme. Paul can strengthen his position by cutting his ties to Rockwell, admitting he was behind the ugly newsletters, and consciously gooing after the voters who have proven most receptive to his message—and that isn't the Religious Right.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-67545581073737211022011-12-30T12:29:00.002+01:002011-12-30T12:36:47.911+01:00Either Someone is Clueless or Very FunnyAs many of you would know, Rick Santorum, due to his vicious theocratic tendencies was the butt of a joke. Writer Dan Savage promised to create a definition of Santorum and propel it to the top of the Google search pages. He created a page called spreadingsantorum.com where the name is defined as: "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex." The site gets more hits through Google than Santorum's own website so it sits first in the ranking when Santorum is entered into the search engine. Given that, check out the Philadelphia Daily News with there recent headline regarding the frothy mixture himself. This is funny.<br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fPy_je6LucE/Tv2iH-9OBaI/AAAAAAAADZ8/jdWkKVh8aC4/s1600/Screen%2Bshot%2B2011-12-30%2Bat%2B3.29.09%2BAM.png" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 263px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fPy_je6LucE/Tv2iH-9OBaI/AAAAAAAADZ8/jdWkKVh8aC4/s400/Screen%2Bshot%2B2011-12-30%2Bat%2B3.29.09%2BAM.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5691883762108728738" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-83640014243201834632011-12-27T09:01:00.002+01:002011-12-27T09:02:58.666+01:00The State of the Race for the Republicans<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NLuIepJHTbY/Tvl7pendeZI/AAAAAAAADZw/0M5TzjbHeqY/s1600/republican-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 233px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NLuIepJHTbY/Tvl7pendeZI/AAAAAAAADZw/0M5TzjbHeqY/s320/republican-large.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5690715556682758546" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;">Here is my best guesses on the primary for God's Own Party (GOP).</span><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Iowa is Ron Paul's best chance. It is the smallest primary which means one doesn't need wide support just fanatical support and the Paul supporters are fanatical, if they are anything. I think it will Romney or Paul but that Paul may see a last minute drop in support. While Iowa is first it is actually one of the less important races because of the small number of voters involved.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Remember that if Iowa was important then Huckabee should have been the GOP candidate in 2008, McCain, the ultimate winner, was tied in 3rd place with Fred Thompson behind Huckabee and Romney. In 1996 Dole was only slightly ahead of bigot Pat Buchanan, whose views most closely match Paul's views. Buchanan's vote then is similar to what Paul is polling now. In 1988 Iowa picked Dole, then Pat Robertson with the ultimate winner, George H.W. Bush coming in third. In 1980 they picked Bush over Reagan. Since 1980, the final winner had opposition in 5 of the elections, with no opposition in 3. Iowa Republicans only picked the ultimate nominee twice, picking a loser three times. I don't think Iowa means much in picking the winner, but it could bust a loser.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">If Ron Paul and Romney take the first two places, with Gingrich in 3rd place, it can hurt him. I don't think it will help Paul much, but I think it can hurt Gingrich significantly.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">New Hampshire is the first real primary, but also one of the smallest and thus one of the easies to campaign in. A lot of candidates put an emphasis hoping to start a stampede in their favor. New Hampshire picked McCain in 08. In 2004 Bush was really running uncontested. In 2000 NH picked McCain over Bush thus picking a loser. In 1996 they picked Pat Buchanan, whose campaign went nowhere. In 1992 Bush won over the very weak Buchanan. in 1988, Bush won over Dole. In 1984 Reagan was unopposed and Reagan won in 1980. In the significant contested races NH picked the final candidate twice. While more important than Iowa is still a relative unimportant race in my opinion. I think Romney will win New Hampshire.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">South Carolina is the first of the bigger states with a primary. I think the race there will be between Gingrich and Romney. Both offend evangelicals because of their religion. Gingrich is part of the "anti-Christ" Catholic Church and Romney is part of the Mormon "cult." At this point Gingrich has to win. If he loses both Iowa and New Hampshire the perception will be that the parade is moving past him. That will reduce his vote in South Carolina. If Paul picks up in the polls because a perception that he is stronger than he is, he could take away enough points from Gingrich that Romney could come in first. By this time it will be apparent that Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum are going nowhere. Their support will be dropping quickly. Ron Paul should in third place in South Carolina sending the message to Republicans that the choice is Romney or Gingrich.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Next up is Florida, where Gingrich has a lead at this time, Romney is in second and Ron Paul is a very distant third. With Paul's vote totals seeming to fall, in New Hampshire and South Carolina, he should see them falling even more in Florida. Gingrich is posed to win Florida which will give his campaign some life again. If Romney comes closer to Gingrich than currently expected the lose will not hurt him much. At this point I think the race will clearly be between Romney and Gingrich. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Next up the Nevada caucus. Another small state but one where Romney is leading with Gingrich not far behind. Paul is a distant third there. If he picks up it will probably be an Gingrich's expense. Both Gingrich and Paul attract the more rabid conservatives in the GOP. So Paul is more likely to hurt Gingrich than hurt Romney. A Romney win here is likely giving a slight boost to his campaign over Gingrich.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The Maine caucus is next. It is a small state, which often means Paul's fanatical followers have an edge. But the Maine caucus is not relevant. The attendees nominate delegates and those delegates only go to a convention in May where they will vote on a presidential candidate. Exactly who will get those votes is not clear until May so this will have little impact on how the race is perceived, helping to push one candidate or the other.</div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">The Colorado Republican caucus is still relatively small. Gingrich is ahead at this time. But by February 7th, a lot of can happen. If Romney was doing better than originally anticipated he could move into a closer race. Ron Paul won't be significant here. I think the race is going to still be pretty close by this time. The race is going to be clearly a race between Romney and Gingrich. Ron Paul's followers will be screaming that the "Insiders," "Establishment," "Bankers" or whichever conspiracy theory they lean toward were responsible for Paul's clear demise in the election. Why? Because the Texas Messiah himself can do no wrong in their eyes. </div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; ">Closer to February I will reconsider the race. At this point I would guess that Romney will be the ultimate candidate but there is too much that can happen before then. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23782041.post-78391739527769918382011-12-23T07:55:00.002+01:002011-12-23T07:58:57.386+01:00This is Called a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="480" height="400" data="http://www.myfoxchicago.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11212"><param value="http://www.myfoxchicago.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=11212" name="movie"><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ewfld%2Fnews%2Fmetro%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3Dcardinal%2Dfrancis%2Dgeorge%2Dcompares%2Dchicago%2Dgay%2Dlesbian%2Dpride%2Dparade%2Dku%2Dklux%2Dklan%2D20111221%3Bloc%3Dembed%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D150594225618988300%3Frand%3D0%2E893260300224823&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxchicago%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D136563444&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxchicago%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2011%2F12%2F21%2Fcardinal%2Dgays%2Dchicago%2Dkkk%2Dk%5Ftmb0001%5F20111221211710%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxchicago%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fmetro%2Fcardinal%2Dfrancis%2Dgeorge%2Dcompares%2Dchicago%2Dgay%2Dlesbian%2Dpride%2Dparade%2Dku%2Dklux%2Dklan%2D20111221&category=metro&title=cardinal%2Dgays%2Dchicago%2Dkkk%2Dk%2Emov&oacct=foximfoximwfld,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia&headline=Cardinal%20Francis%20George%20Warns%20That%20Chicago%20Gay%20Pride%20Parade%20Might%20%27Morph%20Into%20Ku%20Klux%20Klan%27" name="FlashVars"><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"></object><p style="width:480px"><a href="http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/cardinal-francis-george-compares-chicago-gay-lesbian-pride-parade-ku-klux-klan-20111221">Cardinal Francis George Warns That Chicago Gay Pride Parade Might 'Morph Into Ku Klux Klan': MyFoxCHICAGO.com</a></p><p style="width:480px">The controversy is simple. The gay parade in Chicago is too big for the old route. So the city had it extended and moved slightly to make it easier for floats to turn some corners along the way.</p><p style="width:480px">The change in the route has a Catholic priest upset because his church is on the route and he doesn't want gays around. </p><p style="width:480px">So the Archbishop (a totally unbiblical position) weighs in and then arbitrarily compares gays to the Ku Klux Klan and says he doesn't want gays protesting the church. Well, maybe if he didn't compare them to the Klan such demonstrations would be far less likely. I can't see how he couldn't think that such comments would encourage the very thing he claims he doesn't want.</p><p style="width:480px"><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0