Classically Liberal

The Little Engine That Couldn't

2012-02-02T04:56:00.002+01:00

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.

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.

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.

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. You might want to start with this series.

Marriage by the numbers.

2012-02-02T00:31:00.001+01:00

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.

What percentage of Americans have the legal right, even if they don't have the inclination, to enter a same-sex marriage?

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.

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.

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.

Monkey Sex Senator Refuses to Back Down

2012-01-28T05:37:00.002+01:00

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 absurd claims here.

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 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."

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.

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 And the Band Played On 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.

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.

Republican Blames Monkey Sex for AIDS

2012-01-27T00:12:00.003+01:00

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.

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.

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."

Interesting, but is it true? I looked at a list of the Broadway plays 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.

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: Torch Song Trilogy and Le Cage Aux Folles. Out of the rest I can see nine that have a character or two that is gay: Chorus Line (1), Rent (unsure of the number); Mamma Mia (1); Cabaret (1 plus 1 bisexual); Deathtrap (2); Billy Elliot (1 in the film but not sure about the play); Color Purple (1 in the film, unsure of the play); Kiss of the Spider Woman (1 in the film, unsure of the play); and Spring Awakening (2).

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.

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.

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.

I suspect Campfield is actually this stupid. I don't think anyone could play that dumb otherwise.

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.

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.

In that one sentence there are five factual claims. Here is how they pan out:

"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.

"...came from the homosexual community." As already noted, it didn't.

"...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.

"...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.

"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.

Out of his five factual claims regarding HIV and AIDS he is wrong on every single one of them.

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.

Radio Hosts Imply a Lot in Dumb Statement

2012-01-18T22:12:00.006+01:00

Two 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."

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.

According to Forbes, 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.

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.

TSA hassles flyer who was robbed by airport employees

2012-01-04T20:58:00.000+01:00

TSA Watch: MyFoxNY.com

Iowa and Ron Paul: How the Rockwell Strategy Harmed Ron Paul

2012-01-04T08:08:00.004+01:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will guess that a majority of the small number of delegates, 28, that Iowa sends to the Republican convention will support Romney.

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.

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.

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.

So, how did this strategy work out in Iowa?

It didn’t. Ron’s support, according to entrance polls came from the voters LEAST likely to find the bigoted views of Rockwell and Rothbard appealing.

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.]

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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Either Someone is Clueless or Very Funny

2011-12-30T12:29:00.002+01:00

As 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.

The State of the Race for the Republicans

2011-12-27T09:01:00.002+01:00

Here is my best guesses on the primary for God's Own Party (GOP).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is Called a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

2011-12-23T07:55:00.002+01:00

Cardinal Francis George Warns That Chicago Gay Pride Parade Might 'Morph Into Ku Klux Klan': MyFoxCHICAGO.com

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.

The change in the route has a Catholic priest upset because his church is on the route and he doesn't want gays around.

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.

Should Scientists Be Forced To State Their Theology?

2011-12-22T08:36:00.003+01:00

You would think that what is science, and what is religion, are two very different things. Facts are facts and faith is faith and, in my view, rarely do the two coincide. Nor should they. Gravity is true whether the scientist discussing it is a Jew, a Muslim, a rationalist, a Jehovah's Witness or a born-again revivalist.

But a Republican in New Hampshire wants to pass law requiring all scientists discussing evolution to reveal their political viewpoints and their personal beliefs about supernatural hocus-pocus and the like. Actually, the bill doesn't go quite that far. It only demands that a scientist state his religious views if he is an atheist.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Jerry Bergen says that it would:

"Require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

That is pretty much the whole legislation.

There are a couple of things I immediately notice about this badly crafted piece of theocratic insanity. First, evolution is always taught as a theory. Apparently the legislator, like many fundamentalists, is unaware of what the term "theory" means in science. In science a theory is "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principles or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." Science assumes that a theory is the best explanation for something that has not been disproved. In science the assumption is that all theories are potentially false, but that a theory is regarded as true if it the best explanation to stand up to scrutiny to date. In other words, there are lots of facts to back up the theory, and there is no good reason yet presented to dismiss it.

But the public tends to use theory very different. "I have a theory about 9/11," is not a statement of the best set of principles that explains 9/11. What most people mean, when they use "theory" is opinion. To them, every opinion is a theory. But in science every opinion is not a theory.

Now many of the less educated on the Religious Right tend to be confused between the two. They assume that if evolution is a "theory" then it is like an opinion, a statement of personal preferences. Thus the witch doctor who claims an illness is the result of a curse is put on par with a doctor who found the virus causing the problem. Hence, their creationist nonsense is put on par with the science of evolution.

What this Republican is doing is trying to force the schools to teach the idea that evolution is merely an opinion, that is using theory in the common, unscientific sense of the word.

But, while many see this bill as aimed at the scientists who explain evolution, it seems more broadly written than that. Broad legislation is almost always bad legislation. This law would demand the "theorist" to state his political and ideological views and whether or not he is an atheist. But who is the theorist? Is it the author of a science book? If so, how do they force scientists, most of whom will not be living in New Hampshire, to submit to a state mandated Inquisition regarding their beliefs?

Who will determine what the theorists really believes? Would theorists have to report all changes in their beliefs every time they change their mind? I just don't see how this bill could possibly be enforced against scientists.

But, I do see the bill as being broader than that. Wouldn't the theorist also include the teacher doing the theorizing in class? I think so. This would do something we haven't done in a long time—force every teacher to publicly reveal their beliefs on politics, ideology, and god. And what do you think will happen to the teachers who would be forced to reveal they are atheists? If you don't think the fundamentalist fanatics would demand a lynching then you are mistaken.

If a teacher voluntarily tells their students they are atheists the Religious Right routinely demands the teacher be fired. They march on school board meetings, petition, shriek loudly, wail shrilly, and whine about the mere presence of a non-fundamentalist is a violation of their religious freedom. So, atheist teachers who reveal their rational thoughts on the topic, are subject to all sorts of harassment from the fanatics. Now, they appear to want to force each atheist to out himself if he or she is to teach evolution. I'm sorry but this is an invitation to a witch burning.

Of course, none of this is relevant to whether the scientific theory in question is a valid one or not. Germ theory is the most plausible explanation regardless of the beliefs of the theorist. And, whether the Jesus-addled Republicans like it or not, evolution is the most plausible explanation for how life as we know it came to be. And no witch hunt for atheists is going to disprove the theory of evolution, and without that, it will still remain the most logical, scientific explanation.

Be it demons causing disease, or creationism, those are not scientific theories. They confuse opinion with theory.

More importantly, their faith statements can not be theories. The hallmark of a scientific theory is that it can be disproved. But their faith statements are outside science. The idea that there is a god somewhere is not something the scientist can disprove. This is why logic puts the burden of proof, not upon the denier, but upon the person making the affirmative assertion. If the creationist kooks want to replace evolutionary theory with faith-based assertions, they have first show why evolution is deficient and why their faith-based claims are a better explanation. They don't do that. Instead they want to pass laws to force people to publicly disclose their private beliefs.

By the way, if this law were to be enacted, ask yourself what kind of powers a government would need in order to enforce it. What you will realize is that this is not a law that "small government" people would enact. It is Big Brother at work.

Republican Sex Scandal of the Day

2011-12-21T09:13:00.003+01:00

Daniel Lucas was a candidate for state representative in Colorado. More precisely he was a failed candidate. A long-time Republican, Lucas lost to the incumbent by almost a two-t0-one margin.

Lucas told a local paper that he's an "open book" and said that he were stranded on a isalnd he would want, "water, food, and a girlfriend."

Perhaps he might adjust that wish to food, water and the pizza delivery boy.

Mr. Lucas is appearing in court in February. The pizza delivery boy says he delivered the pizza but Lucas was acting weird. He was paid for the pizza and then asked if he could get some extra Parmesan cheese. The delivery boy went to the car and got the items. When he returned he found Lucas on his knees. The former Republican politician asked suggested an exchange of money for oral sex on the young man. Lucas denies it all. He says they had friendly banter and that in one comment the delivery boy intimated Lucas was gay so Lucas claims he "began acting gay." Yep, gay guys always are on their knees in front of pizza delivery boys.

The delivery boy says that he backed out of the door immediately and that Lucas tried to grab his arm to prevent him leaving. Lucas may already have started working on a defense when police arrived after the delivery boy complained.

Lucas "appeared nervous and his train of though was not linear, as he bounced between several topics." (Hmm, this sounds like the majority of the GOP presidential candidates.) Lucas claimed his mother wanted the extra condiments for the pizza but when police asked to speak to her they were told she wasn't even there. Lucas did tell police he had "probably done something inappropriate that he should not have done." Lucas later changed his story claiming that the delivery boy had come on to him and that he must have done something to the pizza and that he (Lucas) was keeping it for DNA evidence. Lucas then told police he "won't do it again" and was willing to drop the whole thing. I bet he would.

Now, to be clear, assuming the delivery boy is competent, and I assume he is, then Mr. Lucas did nothing that ought to be a crime. He made a monetary offer for sexual favors. I don't think that should be a criminal offense. But once again the Republicans are proving the difficulty that comes with being the party of "morality" and "family values." The hypocrisy is so obvious that each case will be noticed. If the GOP would just get behind a live-and-let-live philosophy, stop pretending they speak for God, and chuck the fundamentalists out into the street, things would be much better.

Another Video Catches Cop in Routine Lies

2011-12-18T08:14:00.004+01:00

Seattle police were raked over the coals by a U.S. Justice Department which found a pattern of excessive force. In spite of that two officers pull this little routine.

According to the police officers two men came to a stop sign and failed to stop, so the police pulled them over. The police report claimed the men almost hit pedestrians crossing the road. But the video shows otherwise. The two Hispanic men stopped at the sign in a full stop and there were NO pedestrians.

Police not only pull the men over on these false charges but immediately begin manhandling them and shouting abusively at them. An attorney says it appears the cops were intentionally trying to bait the men into getting physical so they would have an excuse to rough them up.

Once again a video tape has shown that cops do lie about the people they pull over. They manufacture false accusations against innocent people and get off on being violent and aggressive.

This will continue until we take a zero tolerance policy with police. First, any penalty that applies to private citizens for violating the law ought to be doubled for police officers. They should be held to a higher standard if they are going to be the enforcers of the law. Second, all damages should be paid by the officers and not by the taxpayers—even if this means they lose their homes and doughnut collection. Finally, we have to abolish all laws that are being used by the police to harass individuals videotaping the officers. If we are going to have any law on the matter I would prefer one that says all individuals with cell phone cameras are required to capture all arrests and police incidents they witness and offer the recordings to prosecutors. Now, I wouldn't do that, but if there is only a choice between making such recordings illegal, and making them mandatory, we'd be better off with them being mandatory.

The Continuing Saga of Family-Values Republicans

2011-12-16T22:45:00.003+01:00

Another conservative "family values" Republican can kiss his career good bye, though apparently he would be rather kissing men anyways.

Greg Davis, is the right-wing mayor of Southaven, Mississippi. He was a Republican candidate for Congress in 2008. He is married, has kids, and ran on anti-gay platform.

But Davis has a problem. He is under investigation for using city credit cards improperly. Apparently we are talking significant amounts of money as Davis has already had to pay the city back $96,000 so far, and it another $170,000 are in dispute.

As part of the investigation receipts for expenditures were required. One of the receipts got the attention of the media. It was from a store in Toronto, Canada named Priape. To be precise, the store is a porn shop, but only with gay porn. Well, with the receipts in public there wasn't much Davis could do. He told a press conference, "I think that it is important that I discuss the struggles I have had over the last few years when I came to the realization that I am gay."

Bishop Reminds God what God is Supposed to Believe

2011-12-16T21:17:00.004+01:00

I am always amazed that any human being pretends to speak for God. I am most amazed when those that have covered-up child abuse for decades pretend to do so. And, to make it worse, pretend they have some moral authority to do it. Anyone who claims to be a "man of God" is a fraud, a liar, and probably after your wallet or your obedience. Certainly, many who have claimed it within Catholicism were also after your kids.

John Nienstedt plays at being an "archbishop," a rank within Christianity unobtained by Jesus during his life time which, I guess, makes Nienstedt his superior.

Nienstedt, who wears the funny little outfits that the Vatican thinks makes them look pretty, has issued a "marriage prayer" for Catholics. His whole purpose of the prayer is not as a prayer at all but to push his own political agenda on Catholics, most of whom actually know the Church has no moral capital left to spend.

Prayers, in my opinion, are not actually meant for some god. They are meant for the person praying. They give the supplicant a false sense of being in control, it is an assurance they are "doing something," even when they are just talking. None of it makes sense to me, even if I were to accept the premise that there is a magic man in the sky. The Christian concept of prayer contradicts basic Christian theology.

First, the supplicant can not, according to the nonsense theologians vomit out, tell God anything he doesn't already know. You can't tell God what you need, or what terrible thing needs righting. He already knows. And, you sure as hell can't manipulate God and force him to act in ways that he doesn't want. So, you can't tell him anything he allegedly doesn't know, and you can't get him to do anything he doesn't already want to do.

And since he knows all this before you get down on your knees (Please note I do not recommend allowing children to be on their knees in front of priests or even archbishops), and since he already knows what he's going to do, then your entire prayer is an exercise in futility.

Of course, it does appear that a lot of believers actually do think that they can use prayer to manipulate God into acting in new ways. They can get him to change his mind by harassing him with whinny supplications, especially if they throw the right combination of words at him. In the Nienstedt's "prayer" the right combination is "We make our prayer through Jesus Christ, who is Lord forever and ever. Amen."

The problem with that is that a god who is all-knowing would already know his final decision. And since he would know instantly, you can't even call this a decision. There is no process of mulling things over. He doesn't have to say: "Let me research that and get back to you." He already knows all the relevant facts and has made a decision instantly. And he did that an eternity ago, already setting the course of action as to what would happen.

In fact, I pity the Christian God. He can't learn anything. He can't discover new ideas or even change his mind. Everything is now an eternity old for him. He's already made all the decisions he will ever make and set into motion all the actions he decided upon. He makes no effort to do anything. There can be no sense of accomplishment as it takes no effort for him. Spewing out universes, for him, is like stepping on an ant—something we do with little thought and no effort. His entire existence is a pretty boring one. Me, I'd be thrilled with exploring the universe, but I don't pretend to know everything already. I would be learning new things constantly. He just has the same old stale information, knows the answers to every riddle, can't find something new and can't change his mind. God goes for eternity without the wonder of surprise. That's the drawback of perfect knowledge.

If God could change his mind, then what he previously "knew" regarding his action would be wrong. He would lack perfect knowledge. And if he lacks perfect knowledge, then like us, he could make mistakes. Which, might explain Nienstedt and the Vatican—big mistakes made by an imperfect God who didn't know what was the right way to go.

Nienstadt's entire prayer is directed against the right of gay couples to have legal marriage contracts. In Nienstadt's prayer there are "holy marriages and holy families," that would be anyone who fucks to have babies and for no other reason. And that excludes gay couples because they don't procreate together and the ONLY justification for an orgasm, in Catholic theology, is to make babies. Otherwise sex is evil and disgusting. And if there are "holy marriages and holy families" then there are unholy marriages and unholy families—and if you think Catholic theology ONLY means gay couples in that "unholy" category, you are in for a surprise.

In the so-called New Testament, Paul told the Corinthians that he wished they were all celibate. In truth, the Vatican has never given up the idea that a sexual, loving relationships is second best. Celibacy, like what priests are supposed to obtain, is superior. Paul said that marrying was only preferable to burning. To quote the book, From Sacrament to Contract, "Augustine regarded marriage as less virtuous than virginity and chastity and sexual intercourse as per se sinful. But marriage, as a creation of God, had its own inherited goods, which at least mitigated the sinfulness of sex." Marriage was a suboptimal choice left for those who couldn't resist the temptations of sex. So, Vatican, how did that work out for you?

In the ideal Catholic world everyone would be celibate, which would sort of bring about the end of the world. But before the last celibate Catholic died a lonely death, we would all be sexless, souless people. Imagine that the perfect world is one where all men are like priests and all women are like nuns: angry, drunken, frustrated, hateful, dried-out hypocrites. At least in this world the "children" would be safe because their wouldn't be any. No kids for nuns to smack around, none for priests to offer a little extra communion wine to, in exchange for a quicky in the confessional. What an awful world it would be. Now, I happen to favor celibacy for Christians. I can't think of a faster way for their religion to die out.

The so-called Shakers tried this model. They relied on other people having children that they could adopt, in order to stay in existence. But since adoption by religious groups was banned they have dwindled down to three celibate members in one location. Otherwise the religion has totally died out.

But, back to this Nienstedt fellow. His prayer includes the supplicant saying: "Grant to us all the gift of courage to proclaim and defend your plan for marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship of loving trust, compassion, and generosity, open to the conception of children." (See, that last bit about conception is necessary since any sex without it is from the pits of hell, demonic and evil.)

But, what gets me is that the supplicants are telling God what his "plan for marriage" is, as if God didn't already know what he planned, and know it before Nienstedt even started running around in red dresses.

If they want to play dress-up, chant, swing stinking incense around, and pretend to manipulate the creator of the universe, that is their right. They can even imagine that they are doing so on behalf of magic men in the sky. But they are insisting that their religious delusions be the foundation of secular law. Now, given that I can't think of an institution with more sexual pathologies and problems than the Catholic Church, I really think they should mind their own fucking business. Before they start interfering in the loving relationships between adult same-sex couples, maybe they ought to stop lying about their priests raping kids. Maybe they should tell their frustrated nuns to ratchet things down a bit, put the rulers down, and leave the kid's knuckles alone. Maybe they should worry about the beam in their own eye before bitching about the splinters in the eyes of others.

What Kind of Teacher Does This to a Child?

2011-12-16T12:44:00.000+01:00

Thank you, Christopher Hitchens: You Are Already Missed

2011-12-16T06:18:00.004+01:00

I am deeply saddened to write that Christopher Hitchens has died. His was a voice that the world needed and we are poorer because of his death. He died as he lived: a rationalist.

Who Would Jesus Assault?

2011-12-14T02:25:00.003+01:00

Some religious right folks in Mississippi started a group they called The Savior Unit. They call themselves a "tactical search team that is faith based. Our purpose is to promote Christ." They say they detain "offenders who are danger to society." I'm not sure how they define offenders, but I would guess rather broadly.

The Savior Unit came to the attention of police who got a call about a home invasion. Apparently these "faith based" thugs, dressing in military outfits and bullet-proof vests smashed in the door of a home and dragged out three people for a beating, including a 70-year-old man. After promoting Christ by assaulting people the police caught them and prevented them from further witnessing in said manner, which no doubt some Christian group will say is violating their religious freedom.

The Savior Unit was primarily made up of adolescent males who would retreat to the woods to learn about guns and God.

The leader of this para-military religion band of kooks was 32-year-old Michael Schaffran. Like so many on the religious Right, Schaffran seeks to protect society from people like himself. If they were out to get "offenders who are a danger to society" they might take notice that Schaffran has felony convictions for theft, forgery and aggravated assault. Yes, who would Jesus assault?

Schaffran's mother claims her son "was keeping them [the other paramilitary members] out of trouble, on a good path," and mentioned how he took one of the other invaders to church as evidence.

The mother, in what is clearly a faith-based claim, said her son heard screaming and went to rescue a woman. Odd that he just happened to be in a bullet-proof vest when walking innocently by this house. Odder still is that the woman claims they grabbed her and forced her to the ground. And even odder yet is that the two Savior Unit members ran for the woods, their tails between their legs, when the police arrived. Heroes usually don't flee. But, the virtue of faith is believing something in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

Sadly, the religious Right has a tendency to want to use force to save people who don't think they need saving, except perhaps from the religious Right.

Big Government Scares More Americans

2011-12-13T01:09:00.004+01:00

Gallup just released a poll asking Americans who they fear most: big government, big business or big labor. Government terrifies more Americans than the other two combined, by a two-to-one margin.

Sorry, Occupy Wall Street but fear of big business has been declining, not increasing. Sorry, conservatives, its not the unions that scare people but government.

Now, I should note that the main threat that unions and big business pose to Americans is that they have access to big government. Each of the other two "threats" gain their powers primarily because of their access to political power. And big labor, these days, is heavily about government. The unions don't represent most workers anymore, except when it comes to government workers. Unions are now cartels for bureaucrats. The New York Times wrote: "For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees." In fact, there were 500,000 more unionized government employees that unionized private employees.

Considering that the unions used to represent the taxpaying workers of the country, it is interesting to see they now primarily represent the tax consuming bureaucrats of the country. Without big government union memberships would be half what they are. Today, union officials are heavily reliant on the people who want to tax working people even more to sustain the programs that most people don't want.

And this just isn't libertarians concerned about big government. More Democrats now say they fear big government than fear big business. Gallup says that the numbers of Democrats concerned about big government was high during the Bush years and dropped after Obama took office but has been increasing. In other words, Democrats who lost their fear of government after Bush was out of office, have regained that fear with Obama in power. After Obama took office only 32% of Democrats said they were more worried about big government. After three years of Obama that number has risen to 48%. This means that the numbers of Democrats concerned about overreaching government has increased by 50% while a Democrat has been in office. And it doesn't have far to go, just 8 points, until it reaches the levels of concern under George Bush.

Among key independent voters more of them are concerning about Obama's big government than were actually afraid of it under Bush. In 2006, 60% of independents said they worried about big government more. It declines slightly by 2009, to 59%, but has since risen to 64%

The reality is, that most Americans are not in tune with Obama's attempts to centralize power in Washington. Yet, he does well in head to head polls against Republican contenders. The reason for that is simple—people don't like the Republicans either.

The Republicans who have staked their future on moralistic platitudes, religion and gay hating (Bachmann, Santorum and Perry) are doing poorly in the polls. The candidates who are doing better have emphasized other issues, even if they share the small-minded prejudices that now run the Republican Party.

What neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats, get is that voters don't like either one of them. The landslide for Obama wasn't the public embracing his elitist views about centralized power, preferably in himself. It was a vote against two terms of Bush. And, when November comes around, and asshole Republicans are swept into office, it won't be voters suddenly embracing the Republican's theocratic tendencies. It will be disgust at the first term of Obama rule.

The number of voters who identify as Republican or Democrat are diminishing. More and more are saying they are independent. And this voting group shows mushy libertarian sentiments that neither party represents. The one candidate who comes closest to that sentiment is Gov. Gary Johnson, but the Republicans and the media have worked together to make sure Johnson is excluded from the debates. Even when he's qualified the rules were changed in order to disqualify him again. Big government Republicans (which is most of them in Washington), and big government Democrats (ditto) are allies not enemies and they will close ranks on the likes of Johnson precisely because his values do resonate with a large percentage of voters, especially the growing body of independents.

Where, oh where have the hurricanes gone?

2011-12-03T01:25:00.003+01:00

Remember hurricane Katrina? The moment that big one hit the U.S. the doomsayers in the global warming movement said it was all about global warming. Well known alarmist Kevin Trenberth warned: "Computer models also suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes." Trenberth, who was the main editor on hurricanes for the IPCC, wanted opponents of his theory left unpublished. He knew in his heart that hurricanes were increasing in frequency and intensity. Now, he did admit that this was true "even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test."

Trenberth wrote in Science, that during 2004 "an unprecedented four hurricanes hit Florida... Some scientists say that this increase is related to global warming; others say it is not." "Thus, although variability is large, trends associated with human influences are evident in the environment in which hurricanes form, and our physical understanding suggests that the intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing, even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test. Model results suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes."

Time Magazine ran a story headlined "Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?" Ross Belbspan, in the Boston Globe wrote that while the hurricane "was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."

Hurricane Katrina was born August 23, 2005. It has been six years since the media was assuring us that global warming was driving hurricanes to greater intensities and frequency. According to the BBC, "The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods." They also noted that the IPCC reported was "based on an unpublished reprot which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny—indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it." The IPCC used the report because it substantiated the entire theory on which their very existence relies.

And, a new hurricane record is about to be set—but not the kind of record you would expect from the dire warnings. The last major hurricane to hit the United States was Wilma which was formed on October 15, 2005. Since then there have no large hurricanes (categories 3, 4, 5) to hit the United States. This record will be 2,232 days from the last major U.S. hurricane. The previous record was a period between September 8, 1900 and October 19, 1906. So this record means we have just gone through a period of the least amount of severe hurricanes since a century ago.

Roger Pielke, Jr. notes that the chances of an intense hurricane before next summer is practically zero, since hurricane season won't start until then. And he says it appears "the days between intense hurricane landfalls [are] likely to exceed 2,500 days." Of course, there is a decent chance that no severe hurricane will hit in 2012 either. But, we can't know until the winter of 2012. What we do know is that we have just gone through a period of the least intense hurricane activity in the memory of anyone alive on the planet today.

One Case Showing the Problems of Criminal Law in America

2011-11-29T22:17:00.003+01:00

Edgar Coker was 15 when he had consensual sex with a girl one year younger than himself. The girl, however, terrified of her father, decided to claim she was raped. Edgar was arrested. And he was offered a deal. If he pled guilty his sentence would be much easier, but if he insisted on his innocence, even though he was innocent, he would be tried an adult. Prosecutors love to force people to pled guilty by holding threats over their heads—and whether they really are guilty or not matters none to these petty bureaucrats wanting to become major bureaucrats.

Edgar and his family thought his only chance of surviving the justice system was a guilty plea otherwise the prosecutor would make his life a living hell. Worse, the defense attorney knew the girl had made such claims previously and then, when the judge ordered Edgar be put on the disgusting "sex offenders registry" she did nothing to protest the move—which amounts to a life sentence of harassment.

Then the girl admits she lied. The girls mother joins those defending Edgar and demanding justice. With some effort they got him released from juvenile detention—it's nice to know that they don't incarcerate innocent people for too long after they were proven innocent.

So, everything's good, except for that sex offender registry, but is that such a big deal?

"The family has moved several times, twice because of complaints from neighbors who learned that Edgar Coker Jr. was on the registry. Once, a neighborhood girl made a false sexual allegation against one of his brothers, and someone else left this note on their door when they lived in Stafford County: "We don't want a rapist living in our neighborhood."

As for Edgar he had to receive special permission to go to high school. But he couldn't take that. Seeking a job requires him to reveal he is a "sex offender" even though he isn't. So he doesn't look for work. He sits at home, afraid. What they are finding is that his innocence isn't enough to get Edgar removed from the sex offender registry. They have all sorts of methods and excuses to put people on the list, but apparently no one is sure how to remove someone. Once damned always damned. Edgar's mother says she doesn't believe "that anyone can undo the damage that has been done to him." And, remember, he is innocent of any crime.

People have to realize the Sex Offender Registries have become a sick joke. People are listed on them for the most inane things. Stopping to take a piss at the side of the road is now a "sex" offense. A kid can streak a school event and suddenly find he's a sex offender. The Puritans in America have criminalized virtually everything having to do with sex and nudity so things which before were considered normal are now sex offenses. Kids running around a playground slapping one another's butts were arrested as sex offenders. A woman who gave a blow job to another student when in high school has been on the sex registry for decades and continually loses her home over it, because of the cruel zoning laws that apply to sex offenders only.

We had one case where a man was arrested as a sex offender because he hired a stripper. The prosecutor said he used a stolen credit card and therefore committed a crime for sexual purposes. The theft of a credit card put the man on the sex offenders registry for life. A teenage boy was with a friend who robbed a Dairy Queen, for that he is on the sex offenders list. Apparently a customer was under 18 years of age and the robber made him stay in the store during the robbery. In Georgia forceable detention of a minor is a sex crime—unless I'm sure, if the schools do it. So you can be a sex offender without doing anything sexual.

The registries are a major reason that many sex offenders just choose to disappear now. The registries actually make it more difficult for released offenders from returning to a normal life and increases the risk of reoffending. The registries also tie up police resources because they have to visit all offenders periodically, even those who haven't reoffended and are doing well. It doesn't allow police to prioritize which ones to keep track of. So, in fact, police have made cursory visits to serious offenders and missed things like women being held captive in the back yard. With only a few minutes to spend at each location the visits are more routine than investigatory now. It didn't used to be that way, but the registry makes it so.

And, we have had individuals use registries to gain information on individuals and murder them. One case was a young man who had sex with his girlfriend who was slightly under the state age of consent. It wasn't rape, but that didn't matter. He was executed when he opened his door to a stranger, his mother witnessed the murder. In other cases these registries are so out of date that addresses that haven't been in use for decades are still listed. People who have done nothing but move into a new house have found themselves harassed as sex offenders because of someone who lived in the house some years before. The registries have been a disaster and need to go. At the very least they should be accessible to law enforcement only, and not to any moron with a gun and half a brain.

Fox Invents War on Thanksgiving

2011-11-29T21:54:00.002+01:00

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Once again the fundamentalist nutters are out in force whining that Obamam didn't mention God in his Thanksgiving speech. And then some Republican buttwipe goes out and gives a sermon about his lord and savior, blah, blah, blah. The GOP is a theocratic party and that is why I won't support it.

Now, I would have to do some reading, but I'm pretty sure you will find the Pilgrims were a nasty lot of assholes who left England, not because they couldn't be religiously free, but because they felt the King was far too fucking liberal in oppressing sin. Their complaint was that people were allowed to do things they considered sinful and that this was displeasing to god. They didn't come to America seeking freedom of religion, they came because they thought they could restrict freedom of religion and damn sinners more easily without such a "humanist" as ruler.

The Pilgrims were not in favor of religious freedom. You might double check the various other Christians that they drove out of the colony or murdered for having the wrong religion. Remember also, that when these dark, brooding, fanatics once had control of the English government they literally made Christmas illegal and tried to force everyone else into being as sour, dour and dismal as they were. The Pilgrims were a grim, horrible beginning for this country and they shouldn't be lauded. They were murdering thugs with no respect for human rights and human liberties.

Prosecutor Tries to RailRoad Boy 6, Gags Parents

2011-11-28T20:50:00.003+01:00

Back in May we reported on the vile actions of one district attorney, some bungling female Republican named Lisa Riniker, who, if there is a just God, will be sterile and never allowed near children. Riniker learned that a 5-year-old girl, her brother, and 6-year-old boy had been found playing doctor. Children playing doctor is normal and all but the religiously infested tend to see it that way. Riniker, however, is a Republican, which means she has to cater to the most fanatical elements of the American Taliban and sometimes that means you destroy a few kids along the way. After all, God loves it when one’s only born is sacrificed. Of course, Rinker prefers to sacrafice the only born of other people otherwise she would have to do the horizontal mambo and god doesn’t like it when Republicans, his chosen people, do that.

In this woman’s sick mind the children involved are evil sexual offenders who pose a threat to virginity, Jesus and the Republican Party. The boy in particular, is clearly dangerous due to, wel,l he is male, what more do you need? But Riniker was also out there looking to cover her big political ass. There were three children involved in the playing doctor game, but the girl and her brother are the children of a “well known political figure” in the county. They get listed as victims in this mutually consenting activitiy. The other boy, his parents are nobodies in policits, so all the charges are laid against him. Good move Lisa, you can further your political career while sucking up to the parents of the other kids, while destroying the life of a little boy! Bet, you say you believe in "limited" government and "family values" as well, don't you?

Riniker has been going all out to destroy the lives of this family and their son. She has gone so far as to threaten to have him taken from their custody. The parents are fighting back. Between Riniker and the cop she had constantly interrogating the child the boy now suffers from anxiety, depression, vomiting, crying, and can’t sleep. Dare anyone point out that Rinker is a child abuser. See, this is one of those things about child abuse. When government does it, it’s okay. When other people do it they crack down. So, let a pernicious prosecutor torment a child for the sake of Jesus, hysteria and the Republican Party, and everything is fine and dandy—just the way God wants it to be. Or let some TSA official run their hands through the genitals of Americans and it is not molestations. But three little kids getting curious, that's a major felony that needs attention.

Riniker has tried to force the parents of her victim to acquiesce to her jihad by telling them that she will have their child taken from their custody. It gets even more horrible when you realized the parents were told they were tampering with a witness when they invoked the right to have an attorney present while their child was being grilled.

The parents finally had enough of the harassment and attempts to intimidate them into allowing their six-year-old to register for life as a so-called sex offender—and what sex doesn’t offend Republicans? So they filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor. Up until this point Riniker had been the one whoring herself to the media and getting her bizarre accusations out to the public. The very idea that the parents would dare defend their little boy terrifies control freaks like Riniker, they need to control the dialogue so that only one side, her side, is made public. How else will she be able to protect society from the scourge of little children playing doctor.

So Riniker used her contacts in the court system to get a gag order issued against the parents. The last thing she needs is some sympathetic parents discussing how a sexually frigid political-whore used her position to destroy the life of a young boy. Riniker had a judge strip them of their right to freedom of speech.

The boy’s attorneys say the child is traumatized by the bullying tactics of Riniker and fears he will go to jail. As part of her intimidation Riniker didn’t have a summons sent to the child’s parents but mailed directly to the boy—as if a young child can understand what this means. According to Riniker the small amount of touching the children were doing is a crime because “the Legislature could have put an age restricting in the statue… the legislature did no such thing.” Apparently she would be fine in prosecuting a 9-month-old-child since the legislature didn't draw a line, that most people draw using common sense. Riniker doesn’t want just prosecution, she wants the boy put on a sex offenders list for the rest of life. It is Riniker and her ilk who have so flooded the SRO list with cases like this that any truly dangerous individuals are buried in a flood of cases that never should be there. If the SRO list is meant to protect children, then flooding the list with the names of children who clearly are not a threat to anyone, only destroys what little value the list may have had.

Why You Shouldn't Donate to the Salvation Army—Ever

2011-11-23T04:39:00.004+01:00

With Thanksgiving days away, you know that means the Christmas lights will be out. And with them will be the bell ringers and their Salvation Army kettles. But libertarians and liberals may well wish to keep their change to themselves. Even conservatives should think twice. The Salvation Army is not exactly a charity, as many people assume. It is a religious sect, and a fundamentalist one at that. It is part of the Religious Right and it has an agenda like they do.

Like other fundamentalists they think abortion should be outlawed. They write: “The Salvation Army deplores society’s ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn.” Get that? The “unborn” are persons. That is in line with the “personhood” campaign to define every fetus as legally a person. Similarly you can count them out when it comes to defending the rights of individuals to terminate their own lives in the face of unbearable pain and misery. They say: “The Salvation Army believes that euthanasia and assisted suicide undermine human dignity and are morally wrong regardless of age or disability.” Yep, I sure would feel more dignified, if my mind was gone, and I was bedridden, lying in my own urine and feces while suffering pain—instead of being able to choose to terminate my life before that happens.

On alcohol and drugs they don’t want legalization or harm reduction strategies. As they note there are “both spiritual and temporal dangers inherent in the use of alcoholic beverages” and the church “believes total abstinence to be the only certain guarantee against overindulgence and the evils attendant on addiction.” They also believe there is a “direct connection between the incidence of addiction and the easy availability of alcoholic beverages and the increasing social acceptance of their consumption.”

No gambling either, they say that “engages its participants and promoters in an exercise of greed contrary to biblical moral teaching.” “We believe gambling is wrong, regardless of any perceived benefit of entertainment, charity, or personal gain, even when its destructive influences may not be seen on an individual basis.”

How about gay people? Well, they try to sound enlightened by saying that “same-sex orientation” is not blameworthy but “requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural authority.” If they stopped at “individual responsibility” there would be no problem. Instead they toss in the Bible and then say this means homosexuals “are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.” Sure, celibacy, that worked so well with Catholic priests, didn’t it. Thus they oppose marriage rights for gay couples because “There is no scriptural support for same-sex marriage as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.” I would note there is also no “scriptural support for cars as an equal to, or as an alternative to, riding an ass into town.” They even try to say they will accept gay people in their church and don’t discriminate, provided they “accept and abide by The Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline.” In other words, gay people are fine provided they don’t actually have a relationship, remain celibate, only shake their tambourine to raise money for the sect.

The church, remember the Salvation Army is a church, says that marriage is “the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” I think that “for life” part precludes divorce for heterosexuals, and, of course, it precludes all marriages for gay people at all. And marriage “is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.” Otherwise it is “abstinence before, and faithfulness within, marriage” but only for opposite-sex couples. Gay people are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to have sex. They also push the myth that marriage is “God’s institution” and that God invented it. They no more believe that marriage evolved than they believe humans did.

And, since gays can’t marry, can they at least have a wank? Well, it's not clear but they can’t if they look at erotica which the Salvation Army opposes “in all of its forms.” They also promote the lie of the Right that porn “is clearly linked with prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, and other forms of sexual exploitation.” They claim it “promotes deviant sex and violence”—I was so naïve I thought the Old Testament did that; it is pretty kinky book with fathers and daughters fornicating, multiple wives, etc., and there is more genocide there than in the worst blood and gore film around.

And don’t think you have a private right to erotica. They say it is “not an issue of private morality alone,” and that people “have the right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons.” What does it mean when you say people have a “right to protection from” something? If you have a right to protection from assault it means that the act of assault is a crime. It means those who assault are arrested and may be imprisoned. When you have a right to protection from murder it means that murder is a crime, as is attempted murder, and those who try, or succeed, in such an endeavor are arrested, tried, sentenced and imprisoned. It is clear they want the low to censor erotica under penalty of prison.

They also urge people to “start or join grassroots efforts to protect your community against pornography.” And they even have a “click here” button so you can download information on how to do that. And where does that information come from? Focus on the Family, of course. In other words, the Salvation Army directly promotes one of the most active Religious Right groups around. And Focus on the Family then quotes a Salvation Army official who says erotica “is prostitution for mass consumption.” (Note to libertarians, they would oppose legalize prostitution as well.) The brochure the Salvationists distribute says that all porn is technically illegal and that the problem is that “law enforcement agencies at the local, state or federal level do not enforce obscenity laws.” The Salvationists, and Focus on the Family, note “Active, informed and vigilant citizens are needed in every community to ensure laws are enforced and community standards are maintained.” Get that, what we need are more vigilant fundamentalists trying to impose their moral values, through the force of law, on the rest of us.

So, the “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons” means that people should be arrested for producing and selling porn, perhaps even for owning it. And since it is not just “an issue of private morality alone” don’t take naughty videos of yourself and your partner, presumably even if you married (which means straight, and for life).

But, wait a second. If there is a “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons,” and since the Salvation Army already said that alcohol and gambling do just that, then aren’t they also hinting that gambling and alcohol production should be criminal offenses as well?.

They also say they support human equality and then put in enough loopholes to indicate that they don’t. They say they support “the Biblical and Christian imperatives of human and civil rights.” So, if the Bible says you can have the right they are fine, otherwise, not so much. They don’t oppose discrimination per se, just “unlawful, unjust, or immoral discrimination.” Apparently “moral discrimination” is fine, such as denying gays the right to marry because it isn’t a “Biblical and Christian… civil right.”

Libertarians, and conservatives will both be appalled to learn that the Salvation Army believes: “All people have a right to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.) So along with their socially conservative agenda they are very Obamanesque when it comes to a “right” to health care and a “right” to shelter, education and “economic security.” They claim all people have a “right” to a “just wages and benefits” but fail to define what that means. Rights are something other people have to respect, and how do they respect your right to health care? Not by leaving you alone, but by being forced to fund your health plan.

So what kind of governance would exist if we implemented the ethical system of the Salvationists. First, there would be no decriminalization of drugs, a reimplentation of prohibition, a war on gambling, and erotica would be illegal. Gay people would not be allowed to have sex, let alone marry. Abortions would be illegal. And if you think all of this is rather unbearable you aren’t allowed to commit suicide either. And before the Religious Right starts having wet dreams over the Salvationist ideal society they should remember that it also teaches that every person has a “right” to health care, economic security, just wages and benefits, education, etc. We are talking about very active government with fingers in every aspect of human existence.

Next time you see one of those annoying bell ringers, remember your donations do more than feed some hungry people. It goes to a fundamentalist sect with the same agenda as the rest of the Religious Right. It allows them to promote brochures on how to bring the law down on people who don’t live according to their religious morality. It is used by them to promote a political/religious agenda, not just to help people in need.

There is nothing wrong with helping people in need. If you want to feed hungry people give to a food kitchen for the hungry. What you don’t have to do is donate to an organization that has a “charitable” public face, while pushing a fundamentalist, religious agenda behind the scenes. The only reason the Salvationists are not as open as their good friends at Focus on the Family, is that they, unlike FOTF, rely on naïve, charitable people for their donations. In a way, that makes them worse. At least Focus on the Family is upfront about their political agenda and only people who support that agenda donate to them. But the Salvation Army has their agenda hidden behind a wall of “human needs” and that allows them to dupe a lot of well-meaning individuals to fund an agenda they would not normally support.

Two Kids Kiss, School Brings in the Cops

2011-11-22T08:27:00.002+01:00

This blog has tried to warn about how "sex offender" laws have gotten entirely out of control. While no one seriously wishes to allow children to be raped, the laws have completely left common sense behind.

In this case two children 12-years-old had a playground kiss. The school immediately called the police and reported the miscreants. Thankfully the police had more common sense in this case than the school officials did.

But laws to protect kids have become themselves threats to the same kids. One of the signs of government overreaching is when the solutions are more harmful than the problems they were meant to solve.

More out of control cops attack peaceful family, kill dogs

2011-11-19T23:42:00.000+01:00

Thanksgiving Hilarity

2011-11-17T02:39:00.003+01:00

One of the funniest skits in the history of television for Thanksgiving.

This should take you to the entire show, if you want to see it, but with commercials.

WKRP Turkey Drop
- Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Life Imitates Art

2011-11-15T09:48:00.002+01:00

Paul Krugman

Not Paul Krugman

Far Safer

Funny Mistakes and Malignant Intentions: The Real Rand and Her Critics

2011-11-12T23:36:00.010+01:00

Somebody at the distribution house for the film adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged goofed. They wrote jacket copy saying the story was about "courage and self-sacrifice." An error, to be sure. And given that Rand believed no one should be sacrificed to anyone there is a certain amount of humor in the error. Of course, the film company is not laughing as they are recalling 100,000 copies for new covers.

Well, I've got mine and I'm not giving it back. Damn, that is a collector's piece. Copies with the old, erroneous cover will always be worth more than the reissued copies, especially since these will be unqualified proof that the edition is the real first one issued. All others will have the corrected cover.

What is interesting is the choir of hate that rose up to use this as another excuse to misstate Rand's views, to lie about her, and to smear her. It is predictable. Be they Christian Rightist or Left-wing Progressives, they simply can't help bashing Rand, usually by inventing her as a monster, often one espousing the very opposite of her actual beliefs.

Here are a few of those lies.

Gawker: "Self-sacrifice is for idiots, duh! Ayn Rand use to mock poor beggars for being so poor." Of course, no source is cited for this claim. So how did Atlas Shrugged deal with such a person in the novel? No doubt Rand had her "hero" shove any beggars into ovens to die the wretched death they deserve. Or did she?

Luckily Rand actually describes an incident beginning on page 654 of Atlas Shrugged. Heroine Dagny Taggart is riding in one of the trains of her company. She exits her car and hears a conductor screaming: "Get off. God damn you!" She describes the victim of the scream as an "aging tramp" who "had taken refuge" in the corner of Dagny's vestibule. He was someone with "no strength" but his eyes were "observant, fully conscious, but devoid of any reaction." The conductor has the door open and the train is slowing for a curve. It is clear the conductor wants to push the man out into the darkness.

Of course, according to true Randian inspiration, Dagny rushes forward and kicks the man to his death—or NOT!

Dagny actually looks at both men and sees that neither views the other properly: "The two men were not human beings to each other any longer." The tramp gets up, ready to jump, grabbing the small bundle of his belongings. Dagny yells out: "Wait." Rand wrote, "'Let him be my guest,' she said to the conductor, and held her door open for the tramp, ordering, 'Come in.'"

She offers the man a seat and asks him when he last ate. He responds, it might have been the day before. "She rang for the porter and ordered dinner for two, to be brought to her car from the diner." Damn, Rand, she missed a chance to prove that her critics aren't liars!

The tramp and Dagny talk. He tells her he doesn't want her to get in trouble. She wonders why she would, and he says because she must be traveling with a tycoon to be in her own car. She says she isn't. He assumes she must a tycoon's wife then. She says she isn't. He responds with a knowing, "Oh," implying her purpose was that of a prostitute or mistress. Was this where she sends him flying to his demise? Damn, not again! Instead, she laughed and told him she ran the railroad. They share dinner and conversation for several more pages. What a monster!

An unnamed author at Huffington Post ridicules the company that released the film because they set up a site where people can order, free of charge, a corrected version of the cover, if they wish. This for "angry Objectivists." Does Huffington Post think there are any other kind? There are, of course, it's just that they don't think so, they prefer their stereotypes. Actually the Objectivists I know find this error more amusing than infuriating. The anonymous author then misrepresents Rand's views by claiming "The generous offer strikes us as distinctly un-Randian." How is it "unRandian?" They don't say and I hazard they would have a hard time given a coherent answer—they would just stutter some remarks indicating they have no fucking clue what they are talking about? To say the least, there is nothing "unRandian" in making good on an error you committed. In fact, she would frown on those who didn't do so. But that doesn't fit the stereotype.

Gothamist used the same kind of smear, one you expect from bigots. Bigots tend to operate with a stereotype of the person or group they hate? Ditto for the Randaphobes. Bigots also tend to have limited knowledge about the group or person they hate. Ditto again when it comes to the Rand bigots. So, yes, this is a form of bigotry rooted in the same ignorance and hatred as other forms of bigotry. Gothamist can't even start the article about the recall without issuing an insult—much the way neo-Nazis can't mention Jews with first throwing in insults: "Ayn Rand's dogmatic 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, beloved by simpleton frat boys and self-serving millionaires alike....."

How does that work? How do these simpletons become millionaires? There have been lots of insults thrown at Atlas, but this is the first time I've run into anyone who honestly thinks that it is a book for simpletons. But then, I said "honestly thinks" didn't I? And there is no indication that is a honest thought at all. And didn't Hillary Clinton list Atlas Shrugged as an influence on her life? Oh, I forgot, she actually is a "self-serving millionaire."

Gothamist twists Rand's actual ideas grotesquely. They claim the DVD recall was to prevent purchasers from absorbing "some sick, twisted message of generosity." The emphasis on generosity was their own. Not only did Rand never condemn generosity but she was herself generous. Numerous people were given places to live at Rand's own expense. She sent food packages after World War II to friends and family. When she learned of a former teacher in a settlement camp in Europe she sponsored the woman to come to the US, and allowed her to live in her own home for a year.

Consider what happened when Ayn Rand came across the Kato family. These Japanese-Americans were incarcerated in racially-based concentration camps by the "benevolent" administration of Franklin Roosevelt. The husband and wife, along with a young daughter and small son, had been imprisoned entirely due to their race. But Roosevelt said all the things that make the Left go soft in the brain, so he's a good guy—unlike that evil bitch, Ayn Rand.

As for the evil bitch, well she discovered the Kato family had lost everything. Ryoji Kato lost his business when he was arrested due to his ethnicity. His wife Haruno, had worked in their business as well. They also lost their home. Once they were released they had nothing left. Daughter June was staying in a church-run hostel that was helping people from the camps trying to regain their life. Younger brother Ken was with his parents. Rand certainly knew what this felt like. Her father lost his business to the Bolsheviks the same way Mr. Kato lost his business to FDR. Her family lost their home and she was a refugee as well.

At the time, Rand and husband, Frank O'Connor, lived in a rural area north of Los Angeles, now part of Chatsworth. Rand hired Haruno as a cook—even though June says her mother couldn't cook very well and in spite of Rand already having a cook. Ryoji was also hired to help Frank with the flowers that he grew on the property—even though Mr. Kato had no previous experience gardening. Ten-year-old Ken was a bit young to be hired for anything. As for June, though she had just graduated high school, and had no experience, Rand hired her as well, to come to the house every weekend and do typing. In addition to paying a salary to June, Ryoji and Haruno, Rand also gave the family two rooms in her house so they had a place to live. Damn, apparently she didn't know that generosity was against her own philosophy. No one told her. But then, she was such a monster, who would dare? In addition to the Kato family another resident in Rand's home was Maria Strachova, an elderly refugee who had taught English to Rand as a child. Rand took her in for a year.

Rosalie Wilson was a small child when she met Rand and O'Connor. Her mother was once engaged to O'Connor's brother Joe, but eventually married someone else. When the Wilson couple were having a hard time in their relationship they went away to try to mend it. Rand and O'Connor gave Rosalie a home with them for the time, even though they lived in a one bedroom apartment. At night Ayn and Frank would sit in the lounge while Rosalie slept in the only bed. After a few hours they would trade with her, sleeping in their bed while she finished the night on the couch. Rosalie remained close to Ayn until one summer when she and her mother were invited to Rand's home for dinner. Her mother, who Rosalie describes "as a real bigot," made some bigoted remarks to Rand that ended the friendship between the mother and Ayn. Rosalie says she never contacted Rand again because she was too humiliated by what her mother had done.

Tammy Vaught lived with her parents and brother in Titusville, Florida, when Ayn Rand came to town to see a shuttle launch. Due to the high number of people in town for the launch the local Chamber of Commerce arranged for visitors to stay with families. Rand and her husband stayed with the Vaughts. Tammy remembered her as "just a nice lady" and didn't know Rand's fame, and clearly didn't realize what her reputation was supposed to be.

Even though her parents told her not to bother the visitors, Tammy did bother Ayn, to have conversations with her and to tell her about her stamp collection. For years afterwards Rand would send Tammy stamps for her collection, from letters she received, and would periodically call her on the phone to see how she was doing and if her gifts had arrived. Tammy described Rand:

I didn't know her as an artist: I knew her as a friend, through the stamps, and things like that. It was more of a grandmother, or an older person, that just took an interest in you, and just kept in touch. I don't think as a child I had any idea of how famous she was. She didn't act like a famous person. I didn't know of her work.

Damn the woman! Has she no decency? And she got worse, Tammy's father said, "I was surprised about her not having children, because she seemed to be so good with them." And it doesn't end with that horror: "She seemed to enjoy the children so much. They were swimming in our pool, and she just enjoyed listening to them laughing." Ayn Rand enjoyed hearing the laughter of children—clearly she was a beast and should have been burnt at the stake.

Obviously these critics are either intentionally confusing what Rand believed, or they simply have no idea what she said. She did damn a moral creed of altruism and self-sacrificing. She didn't think any human was a sacrifice for any other human. She was a critic of altruism and carefully defined what she meant by the term: "that service to others is the only justification for his [an individual's] existence." She warned people to never "confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others." Apparently Rand's whiny critics never actually read what she wrote, otherwise they wouldn't have made this kind of accusation. The accusation itself proves their own ignorance about Rand. There is nothing wrong with knowing little to nothing about Rand and her ideas—but these authors are speaking to the public as if they are knowledgeable when clearly they aren't. But bigots are rarely really knowledgeable regarding the objects of their irrational hatred.

One of the traits of a bigot is that he strips his prey of their humanity. He presents cardboard characters that are supposed to fit some predetermined, evil mould. While such blatant bigotry is no longer tolerated when it comes to gays, blacks, Jews, women, etc., the Left seems to relish it when it comes to Ayn Rand—even if they have to lie to do it. Then lying is how bigots convince themselves their bigotry is actually a clever perception that the rest of us "simpletons" don't see.

Christians Ignore Constitution to Recruit Children

2011-11-11T21:36:00.005+01:00

This blog has long contended that the persistent whining from the Religious Right, that their "religious freedom" is being eroded, is like almost everything else they say, a lie. Religious freedom is alive. What has been under "attack" is the desire of fundamentalist bigots to use other people's resources to preach their nonsense.

You won't, for instance, find a line of people preventing churches from opening. You won't find Occupy-type thugs trying to use their eerie group-talk "mic" to drown out a speaker in a church.

What is happening is that fundamentalists are some of the most notoriously dishonest people in American politics. It seems the more the drool over Jesus they more dishonest they become. They routinely lie about just about everything they say.

Separation of church and states gives them freedoms that no other groups experience. Pretend that some divinity is whispering in you ear—especially when you forget to take your meds—and you are pretty much in line for an automatic tax exemption. Promote reason, liberty and such human values it it can months for the IRS to decide whether you are worthy of the exemption that gospel lunatic asylums get pretty much automatically.

But these people are not happy just being tax exempt, they also want tax funds actively put into their own pockets to enable them to preach their silly idea of spiritual socialism: take the good from Christ who has more good in him than anyone else, and they redistribute it to evil sinners all these people "are equal in the eyes of God," and get the same reward. Divine redistribution was preached long before Marx picked up on the silliness and tried to apply it to this world.

Here you have video from the misnamed New Heights Middle School, Jefferson, South Carolina. Admittedly South Carolina is not precisely a civilized area of the country. But the constitution still applies to all areas. Here you have a government school, one founded on the force of government, compelling students to attend, whether they wish to do so or not. In addition the school itself and the staff are paid from taxes taken from everyone in the areas—whether they wish to pay them or not.

The alleged reason for all this force is "educate" children. Instead, this school brought in some obvious evangelist who spent the day trying to get children to covert to Christianity. He set up a revival meeting in the school, the school coerced students into attending. They claimed that they convinced 300 some students to covert to Christianity because of this. SCHOOLS are not churches and they shouldn't be used for religious indoctrination. See the incident in question below:

There is more. While the Jesus-addicts who have taken control of this school are preaching nonsense they are also failing to teach students the lessons they are allegedly coerced into learning. New Heights Middle School, where this conman tent revivalist was given free reign to molest the minds of children, is failing to teach their kids things like science, writing, English, math and so forth. The school apparently doesn't have enough time to teach the lessons that the schools were allegedly set up to teach, but has time to push religious fantasies as if they made rational sense.

You can easily check how well a school does when it comes to the results of standardized testing. New Heights FAILS to meet even the state-wide average in every class and for every subject. They may have time for Jesus, but they aren't doing a good job teaching courses.

Below are the three grades in the school. Below them are the subjects that are taught. Next to that you will see a negative number. This number reflects how far below the state average this said little school is. You will clearly see that the school administration here is failing to teach kids their lessons but apparently has plenty of time to violate constitutional protections on separation of church and state.

Grade 6

Social Students • -7%

Science • -9%

Writing • -11%

English/Language Arts • -13%

Math • -13%

Average lag for these students -10.6%

Grade 7

Social Students • -15%

Science • -12%

Writing • -8%

English/Language Arts • -9%

Math • -19%

Average lag for these student -12.6%

Grade 8

Social Students • -20%

Science • -21%

Writing • -12%

English/Language Arts • -14%

Math • -17%

Average lag -16.8%

This school is so badly run that the more time they have with the students the further they fall behind the state average. When the kids enter this school there are lagging the state average by 10.6%, one year later their lag has increased to 12.6% and when they leave the school for high school they are now 16.8% behind the state average.

New Heights is not just failing the students, but the longer it has control of these kids the worse their education becomes. Yet the school has time to violate the constitution and, instead of doing their teaching job, usurps the role of parents in deciding what religious indoctrination their children will receive.

The Morality of Glee and Immorality of the Religious Right

2011-11-09T08:08:00.004+01:00

Glee is one of those shows that gets the typical fundamentalist tied in repressive knots of anger. For the last week the Religious Right has been fusing and fuming about Glee's episode regarding virginity. Of course, you knew they would. And, it should be said, they didn't even need to see the show to start having kittens on the spot, howling loudly about the evil that is Glee.

Well, in this blogger's mind, Glee remains one of the most moral shows on television. And those Bible-bashing banshees remain one of the most immoral groups the American South has ever spawned. I include the Klan in that category since the Klan was always closely allied with Christian fundamentalism.

If you've see the show you would know that the most sexual thing depicted is a kiss and a hug. And you get individuals wanting to lose their virginity "for the wrong reasons." In the show they are shot down by their would-be partners and the emphasis is on love and commitment. There isn't a shred of "sex for fun" in the entire episode.

We see three relationships at work here. Two are the long-term relationships between Rachel and Finn, and the one between Blaine and Kurt. A third relationship is in the works, that of Coach Bieste and a sports recruiter. Bieste is a large, rather masculine woman but she makes it known that she likes men. And she has a crush on the recruiter. But he's a nice looking man and she doesn't want to entertain the possibility that he is interested in her, so she ignores his invites for lunch.

So, three relationships, at different points in their cycles. The four glee club members discuss issues like condoms. But they also discuss the necessity of having relationships for the right reasons, and none of them imply that sex just for the fun of it is perfectly fine—by the way, I have no issues with consenting individuals having sex together because it enjoyable and for no other reason.

But the "kids" in the show are acting very responsibly. They are not pushing themselves to do something they are not ready for, even if they have the wrong motives part of the time. And, if you expect to see a clear indication that they were having sex you won't get it. Of course, it could be a "you'd-miss-it-if-you-blinked" scene and I blinked. But I didn't see anything that was even close to being clear sex, let alone explicit depictions.

And, the best moment, for me was when the recruiter fights through Beiste's rough exterior to make it clear that he finds her attractive and wants to have a date with her. She finally realizes he is not just leading her on and tears run down her face as, for the first time in her life, someone treats her as she wants to be treated—like a woman.

Glee is a damn moral show. The entire storyline about Coach Beiste pushes the value of seeing who someone really is, not just their appearances. Glee teaches rational moral values—tolerance of others, acceptance, love, character, community.

Fundamentalists are opposed with sex and pay little to no attention to humane values, such as those in Glee. They are intolerant, hateful, cruel and they define community entirely by one's agreement with their hateful agenda. They are irrationalists and they hate Glee because it is not as irrational as they are.

Now much has been made by religious kooks about the show depicting "children having sex." That is typical of their inability to be truthful. Glee doesn't have children. The main characters in this episode are high school seniors and legally adults when it comes to consenting to have sex with another teen. Even if you take the fictional town they are in, it is located in Ohio and the age of consent is 16 there. They are not defined as children either emotionally, physically or legally. But then fundamentalists believe we are all children and they are the stern papa sent to beat us into submission to God's awful will.

Glee, in fact, is pretty much spot on with the real world—the world fundamentalists know nothing about. The average individual in America is around 17 when they lose their virginity. All the teens in this show are this old, if not older. In addition about half of all teens are sexually active, but half the glee club is not sexually active. The show doesn't do anything but depict the world as it really is, at least when you block out all the singing and dancing that happens—everywhere.

No, Glee doesn't represent the hateful, cruel "morality" of the fundamentalist Christian. And that's a good thing. What it does do is show caring, humane people trying to live their own lives, and loving others in the process. It is a humane show with humane values. And that is what the fundamentalist really hates. They hate the show because of its virtues.

Mario Vargas Lllosa and Socialism

2011-11-08T03:55:00.004+01:00

Mario Vargas Llosa, Nobel prize winner in literature discusses his rejection of socialism and his embracing of classical liberalism.

The one thing that is unfortunate is that his position at Atlas is funded by the Templeton Foundation. Unlike Llosa, who supports rights for gay people, Templeton is run by conservative religionists. Much of Templeton's money goes into pushing a religious agenda in free market circles. But John Templeton, Jr., was a major funder of the bigoted Mormon-led Proposition 8 in California. Templeton and his wife gave $1 million to promote anti-gay bigotry.

Please understand that there are good people at Atlas who take no cotton to bigotry. But they get tarnished when Templeton funds so many of their projects.

Templeton also had funded a project for Atlas to bring Michael Reagan in a "Leadership fellow." They were pushing Reagan as a speaker for free market think tanks around the world that Templeton would fund. Michael Reagan, unlike his adopted father, Ronald Reagan, is a major anti-gay bigot. Reagan penned a diatribe on morality, and expressing his own issues with his father, for the Southern Baptist Church publishing house. He claimed that gay people would force kids, through bullying, to try homosexuality otherwise they will be labeled bigots. Odd since that is precisely what the fundamentalists like Michael Reagan try to do to gay people.

Michael Reagan and his book were to be touted at a Atlas Foundation conference but ran into problems. One was that the book vendor who agreed to stock the book refused to sell it when he read the book. This was the old Laissez Faire Books, before it was taken over by people who would have no such problems with anti-gay bigotry. This blog has rescinded all previous support to LFB after the new owners took control and changed LFB policy is a decidedly conservative direction.

With the book vendor refusing to sell the book Atlas officials wanted to know why and were told in no uncertain terms why. Staff members grabbed the book, which none had previously read and started scanning it. It took only seconds to find bigoted remarks by Reagan. Atlas board members and officials soon learned of the kerfuffle and quiet discussions were held out of public view. Gay staff members and board members of a decidedly libertarian bent were not impressed. In short order, Atlas removed all references to the program with Reagan and it went down the memory hole.

Atlas did the right thing. And they are run by good people. But taking money from bigoted, conservatives advocates of moralistic government comes with problems. Templeton donations made Atlas less prone to investigate the positions of Michael Reagan. They were truly caught off-guard by the rabid nature of the bigotry in the book. But there is a certain amount of trust and compliance involved when one funder, like Templeton, makes up such a higher percentage of Atlas Foundation funding.

Templeton's first agenda is religion. Any support he has for liberty comes in second, and a very distant second. He will sacrifice freedom on the altar of his faith if necessary. His gift of $1 million to Proposition 8 is indication of that.

That said, Llosa is a true liberal, not a conservative trying to put on classical liberal drag. Llosa said he is an agnostic, wants separation of church and state, supports legalized abortion and supports gay marriage. Now, if Templeton had to throw their money at someone I'd rather see it go to someone who actively opposes their moralistic Big Brotherism.

To Preserve Liberty We Must Destroy Liberty

2011-11-05T01:07:00.003+01:00

Theocrat Rick Santorum, your typical Republican these days, says that the way to preserve religious liberty is make civil law subject to "God's law."

Of course, what theocrats mean in particular is not God's law at all, but their interpretation of which God they think is the magic man in the sky, and their view of what the man in the sky allegedly says is the law.

Even the violent, cruel God of the Bible is unclear. Christians don't agree with each other as to what writings make up the Bible. For instance, Santorum is seen here trying to appeal to hateful fundamentalist Baptists at their church. What Santorum calls the Bible is different from what these Baptists call the Bible. Santorum's Bible includes Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, additional parts of Esther and First and Second Machabees. The Bible carried by Santorum's audience has none of those books.

Then there are the Old and New Testaments with different versions of "God's law." Which law is applied in which circumstance? Christians have literally gone to war with each other to try to settle these questions. Their assumption was that whichever side managed to kill the most people had the right to determine what law of the "God of love" could be imposed under penalty of execution. Even within the same denominations these people can't make up their mind which "God's law" is the correct "God's law."

And since the deity is silent on such matters it really comes down to man's beliefs, not God's law at all. It is man who has to determine what "God's law" is supposed to be. And men disagree with one another as to which God is true, if any; which law is God's law and how that law is applicable, etc.

In the end, when a politician like Santorum appeals to "God's law" as superior to all civil law, he is asking for unlimited powers, unrestricted by any concept of individual rights. What he means is that he wants the power to impose his alleged moral code on others, by violence if necessary, because he pretends to speak for God. As far as I know God is not a registered voter and hasn't endorse Santorum, or any other two-bit con man with a lust for power.

Family First Tortures Kids for Profit

2011-10-29T18:59:00.002+02:00

The video tape is very disturbing. It angers me to no end, and I promise you, had I witnessed adults doing this to a child I would lose it emotionally, grab the first heavy object I could find, and start bashing in some skulls—and I would not feel guilty about it.

Family First claims to be a "bootcamp" for kids. This means it treats children the way drill sergeants treat adults. That, in my opinion, means abuse. And the video clearly shows four adults abusing a young boy. The adults who run this "tough love" camp go by military titles, playing adult dress-up to try and intimidate kids. Watch this video to see what I mean.

Another video shows screaming thugs, pretending to be adults, forcing teens to drink vast amounts of water until they vomit.

I admit that I get suspicious the moment I see someone extolling "family" as their agenda. Almost without exception the people hiding behind the "family" label are bigots, authoritarians or worse. You have openly bigoted hate groups like the American Family Association, Family Research Council, Family Research Institute, Illinois Family Institute, and now Family First Growth Center.

Conservatives believe in man's innate sinfulness and believe that individuals must regularly be punished to avoid "sin." This is behind their high levels of child abuse, their obsession with executing people, their support for the use of torture, their unending demands for "stiffer" penalties, even for victimless crimes, and their belief in a hateful, vengeful deity intent on torturing people for eternity. As much as they claim to be "pro-life" these attitudes are, in every sense of the word, anti-life to the core.

In my opinion what we see in this one video is sufficient to charge all four of these adults with a crime, and it is serious enough to warrant jail time for each of them. No child deserves to be treated this way, no matter how "at risk" moronic adults believe him or her to be.

I note that the "sponsors" of this "bootcamp" include several local businesses and three churches. All of the churches involved are fundamentalist churches. At least one of the churches appears heavily connected to "Family First" bootcamp.

The "camp" is in Pasadena, California. There is a lot of outrage over the videos that people have seen.

Fundamentalist website, No Greater Joy, tells parents "As the military drills their soldiers, you must drill your children." Do you still wonder why I think of fundamentalist Christians as monsters?

The Good Side of Economic Inequality

2011-10-27T22:33:00.001+02:00

Watch Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Some important points, except that Epstein speaks as if the dichotomy is between liberals and conservatives. I'm neither. And a substantial percentage of Americans don't fall into either camp.

The Proper Way to Deal With Police Brutality

2011-10-26T06:04:00.002+02:00

Fascinating. I'm not exactly sure where this is. But, the situation is pretty obvious. Someone streaks across the soccer field carrying a sign. Police tackle him and then start beating him in front of the crowd. First players get pissed at the police brutality and one attacks the police and then people from the stadium descend on the violent cops.

Having seen cops act violently, and having resisted them myself on behalf of others, I applaud this. Police assume they have a right to act violently anytime they want. On most days I consider the police more dangerous to me than criminals. At least with criminals you are legally allowed to fight back.

Lying about Ayn Rand and Social Security

2011-10-25T06:21:00.008+02:00

In 2010 I discussed a smear that was done on Ayn Rand, one of the favorite targets in the world for smears and attacks. Typically her critics have invented lies about Rand or, at the very least, grossly distorted the facts.

In the 2010 smear some online pundits claimed that Rand said a serial killer was her ideal man and used him to model her heroes. This was a gross misrepresentation of the truth, as I documented at the time.

What was particularly dishonest was that these smear-mongers pretended that some dark truth had been uncovered by the anti-Ayn brigade. In fact, what they did was misquote some material from her journals released by Rand's own estate. They misquoted material, ripped it out of context, claimed it meant the complete opposite of what Rand actually said, and then pretended that they uncovered this truth. They invented it, they didn't uncover it.

I was asked by someone about a new attack on Rand, which some of the rabid haters on the Left were doing, alleging some sort of hypocrisy by Rand for "taking social security." Some childish writer at the rather unreliable AlterNet wrote an article entitled: "Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."

The article claimed "Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor." O'Connor was her married name but her given name was Alice not Ann, but then facts are not important to the smearbund.

The author quotes Michael Ford of the "Center for the Study of the American Dream," saying, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." (I suggest "own self-interest" is redundant. What other kind of self-interest is there?)

I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are NOT immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take.

in 1966 Rand's Objectivist Newsletter said that not collecting from programs that one is forced to finance would be wrong. It said:

...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The AlterNet smear also claimed that Rand said that the link between smoking and cancer was a hoax. She actually never said that. She said she was not convinced that the case had been made, and at the time it hadn't been fully made. She never said it was a hoax and she stopped smoking instantly when her physician showed her a dark spot on her own lung's x-ray.

According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker.

Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties.

Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely consistent with her own ethics. What Pryor said was that she tried to convince Rand to sign up and they argued. Pryor says Rand "was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney. I did the rest." Beyond that Pryor said nothing else. There is no indication whether Pryor used the power of attorney to apply for benefits, or whether Rand knew about it. There is no indication that such benefits were ever used. There is simply no evidence to show Rand "Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."

Pryor's full interview in 100 Voices: Oral History of Ayn Rand, indicates the opposite. It shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn't want to do this. She signed a power of attorney and Pryor said that she acted "whether [Ayn] agreed or not." Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of whether Ayn "agreed or not." What we have is the rabid Left jumping to numerous conclusions not warranted by the evidence.

So, there are numerous things wrong with these claims. First, it would not be hypocrisy if Rand did take benefits from programs that she was forced to fund. Second, Rand clearly didn't "grab" any such benefits but fought her own attorneys about doing so and they, not she, were the ones pushing it. Third, there is no indication she actually got any benefits because Pryor doesn't say. And, fourth, Pryor makes it clear that she acted as Rand's attorney on health issues even when Rand didn't agree with her. And fifth, there is no indication that Rand knew all of the decisions that Pryor made on her behalf. Perhaps she did, but perhaps she didn't.

Rand had sufficient resources to cover the health issues she faced. In fact, she had sufficient funds to pay for heart surgery for her brother-in-law from Russia. Rand's estate had a substantial sum of cash at the time of Rand's death indicating that Pryor's concerns that health costs could "bankrupt" Rand never took place. And, since Pryor argued that Rand should have these things in case health care bankrupted her, it is entirely possible that Rand never got a cent. We just don't know. But if she did, there is nothing to attack her over either.

Here is an indication of the dishonest attacks on Rand. One site claims that "Ayn received Medicare benefits under an assumed name (is that even possible?), that explains why my FOI request came up empty." How stupid is this writer? Ayn Rand was the assumed named, Alice O'Connor was Rand's legal name. This writer repeats the false claim that Pryor was "a New York social worker" who was "a consultant for Rand's attorney's." The book, from which they claim to glean this information, says Pryor worked at the law firm, doesn't mention social worker, and Pryor said she had power of attorney from Rand, something a social worker would not have.

This article claims that Rand and her husband collected a grand total of around $14,000 in Social Security between the years of 1974 and 1982. This would be far under the amount of Social Security taxes that Rand was required to pay in during her lifetime even if we don't include any income for Frank O'Connor. Social Security taxes were first collected in 1937, well before her first best-seller in 1943, The Fountainhead. She earned substantial amounts of money during the 40s, 50s and 60s and would have paid substantial amounts in social security payments because she was self-employed as an author. In other words, the $14,000 she and Frank got back would have been a small percentage of the amount she paid in. (I am assuming the author of that piece is telling the truth about the $14,000, which given his record of truthfulness, is a big assumption on my part.)

The absurdity is that the one site lies by claiming that this small amount, spread over eight years "allowed Rand and her husband to maintain their quality of life, remain in their apartment and live out their final years with dignity." Considering the several hundred thousand dollars that Rand had in savings, does this moronic author really believe that without that $1,750 per year, that Rand would have been unable to maintain her quality of life, would have lost her apartment and not lived out her final years with dignity? Another indication that Social Security was not responsible for Rand's quality of life, etc., is that she employed a secretary to help her pay her bills, a housekeeper and a cook. The cook, Eloise Huggins, was given $10,000 by Rand's Estate in appreciation for her work—a sum almost equal to the total amount that the O'Connors received from Social Security over an eight year period.

The hyperbole and distortions are typical. Sadly it shows that so many of Rand's critics lack any integrity and couldn't give a critique of Rand without resorting to lying.

Pryor's obituary in Variety says that she had a master's degree in "psychiatric social work" but never indicates that she worked as a social worker as multiple articles claimed. They said she worked as a "rights agent" for law firms for authors and that she also worked as "copyright/trademark specialist" and that she was a specialist in business systems and "did bond financing on Wall Street." She was NOT Ayn Rand's social worker! Social workers don't get obituaries published by Variety, the entertainment newspaper.

In spite of how easily one can verify if Pryor worked as a social worker, the falsehood that she was Rand's social worker was repeated on dozens of Left-wing websites. That so many sites are repeating this false claim indicates how quickly they mimic the slogans of each other and indicates that none of them have the level of commitment to the truth to research it for themselves. Had they done so they would catch the numerous errors, that the errors are spread from site to site, indicates they have no interest in checking facts before they spread the claims.

Catholic Priests and Nun Steal Babies

2011-10-19T20:17:00.002+02:00

The story is shocking. Even now as the Catholic Church is pouring money into a campaign against marriage equality in Minnesota new revelations look at the the Church in Spain literally stole babies and sold them for cash.

The BBC says that the story broke when one of the babies, now an adult, was told by his dying father that he was not actually the biological son of the man and his wife, but that he had been purchased from a Catholic priest. The man, Luis Moreno, discovered that the same thing had happened to a friend of his, Antonio Barroso.

They sought out an adoption lawyer to try and explain what happened. The attorney told them he had run into similar cases. And then the men went to the media with their story and the floodgates opened.

The Spanish government says that their investigations shows that nuns and priests did steal babies. Angel Nunez of the justice ministry said they don't how many, "But from the volume of official investigations I dare say that there were many."

The practice began under the fascist rule of Francisco Franco but continued after his death. At first, the children stolen were taken for political reasons and handed over the supporters of the regime. But soon the clergy and nuns were taking children because they considered the parents morally unfit.

Children would be taken for exams and then the mothers were told the infant died suddenly. Parents were sometimes told that they were not allowed to see the infant. One magazine report claims that one clinic kept a dead baby in a freezer and would bring it out to show grieving mothers as proof.

One doctor who was implicated threatened a journalist with a metal crucifix telling him, "I have always acted in his name. Always for the good of the children."

DNA tests have been used to find missing children, now adults, and introduce them to their real parents.

What is so truly shocking is that the Catholic Church continues to misuse its tax exempt status to mount political campaigns to attack the rights of others, in the name of preserving the family. Yet this sect has covered abuse of children by priests and engaged in child stealing in Spain. What moral authority does the Vatican actually believe it has?

The Decline in Economic Freedom in America

2011-10-14T04:51:00.000+02:00

A Libertarian's Lament

2011-10-13T09:16:00.002+02:00

Will Wilkinson takes on the ahistorical views of Ron Paul:

As a rule, libertarians have an unhealthy tendency to apply their principles without due regard to America's history of state-enforced slavery, apartheid, and sexism, or to the many ways in which the legacy of these insidious practices persists to this day. Paul represents this tendency at his worst. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul has argued, led to "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society."

It’s hard to interpret Paul’s position on this matter in a kind light. During the last campaign season, James Kirchick revealed in the pages of this publication that in the late 1980s and early 1990s Paul had published newsletters under his name containing rank bigotry against African Americans and gays. Paul claimed he did not write the columns in question or even know about them. Whether you believe that or not, the newsletter scandal highlighted Paul's longstanding ties with figures, such as Lew Rockwell, with a history of catering to racist and nativist sentiments for political gain.

Read the whole thing here.

The Desperation of Rick Santorum

2011-10-07T20:47:00.005+02:00

One of the major losers in the Republican presidential primary is Rick Santorum. He has garnered almost no attention in spite of the media including him in debate after debate—note that the press only excludes one legitimate candidate regularly, Gov. Gary Johnson, the only libertarian in the race. Santorum has built his entire campaign on flogging a dead horse. He's trying to attract fanatical fundamentalists to his campaign.

There are several problems with this. First, Santorum thinks he can win over the fundamentalist vote but he has a problem shared with Romney. In the eyes of Christian fundamentalists Mr. Santorum is NOT a Christian, but a Catholic. Fundamentalists hate all religions that are not part of their sect. The dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist might tolerate a Pentecostal as a Christian—barely—but he won't cotton to no Catholic or Mormon. Why the Book of Revelation, clearly indicates—as clear as mud at least—that Catholicism is the Church of the Anti-Christ.

Santorum is trying hard to give the fundamentalists someone to hate more than Catholics. the Religious Right coalition, mainly fundamentalists with a tiny smattering of the magic-underwear Mormons and a minority of Catholics, is only held together by one thing today—a common hatred of gay people. Sure the conservative movement today is vehemently anti-immigrant—of course, they pretend they are only against "illegal" immigration, but the evidence shows otherwise—but Catholicism is only avoiding collapse in America because of immigrants. And the Mormons have found that uneducated Hispanic immigrants are often prime candidates for their normally vane attempts at convincing people that the con man Joseph Smith was some sort of prophet. So anti-immigrant hatred doesn't hold the Religious Right together the way scapegoating gay people can.

The other problem of the Religious Right is that American fundamentalism is in a state of advanced decay. Most fundamentalist churches are losing members. The percentage of Americans who claim to be members of one of these ignorant sects is going down. And young Christians in these churches are pretty much disgusted by their elders. Not only are they not attracting much in the way of new blood, but they are losing their own young to "the world," as these cultists put it.

Santorum, however, has nowhere else to go. He's a nobody in a field of morons, bigots, and Know Nothings—with the exception of Gary Johnson. And the only horse he's got for his pathetic bandwagon is the dead one. So flog it he must, even if he looks ridiculous doing so.

Santorum's latest act of desperation was at a so-called "Values Voter Summit," a klavern of the Religious Right where Republicans gather to spew venom, spit hatred, and fantasize the good old days of lynchings, witch burnings, and heresy trials. This klavern included all the conservative candidates that suck up to the fundamentalists, including their fellow fundamentalist Ron Paul. They do, of course, follow the lead of the media and exclude Gary Johnson, not that a non-bigot like Gary would win any support there.

Santorum used his appearance at the klavern konference to lie to the attendees. Mind you, lying doesn't upset these people, their entire political agenda depends on it. But Santorum's lie is so obviously false that it shows how desperate he is.

Recently, as most informed people know, the so-called Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was abolished and the American military entered the modern world, much to the horror of the Bible-beating bigots. Soldiers no longer have to fear expulsion from the military simply for being gay. This brought up a question from some military chaplains. Given that it no longer an offense to be gay in the military, and given that gay marriage is legal is some states, what may chaplains do in regards to same-sex marriages?

The Pentagon issued a directive stating that if the chaplain is in a state with marriage equality, and if he wishes to do so, he may perform a same-sex marriage. But the directive clearly said, "a chaplain is NOT required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs." That is pretty clear.

Santorum, however, got up and told the values klavern that the directive says the complete opposite. He said that Obama "has instructed his military chaplains to marry people in direct contravention—marry gays and lesbians—in direct contravention to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as between a man and a woman. So not only did the President not defend the law, he has now instructive people in the military to break the law."

There are two lies contained in this short sentence—clearly if Santorum is going to be the darling of the Values klan he will have to learn how to pack more lies into one sentence—if he's going to compete with the likes of Maggie Gallagher or Jennifer Morse.

The first lie is the obvious one: the President did NOT instruct chaplains to perform same-sex marriages. Obama is still too cowardly to announce he supports marriage equality. The directive from the Pentagon merely says that chaplains MAY participate in such ceremonies if they wish to do so but that no one is required to participate.

Secondly, if a chaplain feels that participation is the moral thing to do, the odious Defense of Marriage Act does NOT make his participation illegal. Is Santorum really saying that he wants the law to chain chaplains down from participating in legal civil ceremonies, or private religious ones?

There is one bit of honesty in that statement as well. Santorum admits the DOMA "defines marriage in federal law." Ron Paul continues to lie about that claiming that he supports DOMA but also wants marriage defined by the states. DOMA does create a federal definition of marriage, for the first time in American history. And it restricts the federal government from recognizing valid marriages performed in the individual states UNLESS it meets the federal standard. But it does not restrict the actions of ministers, priests, rabbis or chaplains of any faith.

And the real hypocrisy here is that while repeal of DADT doesn't strip chaplains of their right to choose what ceremonies to participate in, Santorum's interpretation of DOMA does. Santorum says such participating is a violation of federal law. So it is Rick Santorum who is assaulting the religious freedom of chaplains, not Obama. There is plenty to bitch about when it comes to Obama, but this isn't one of the issues.

What Steve Jobs Really Gave Us.

2011-10-06T05:21:00.006+02:00

It is sad to learn that Steve Jobs has died. As a dyed-in-the-wool, born-again Apple user I can't go a day without benefitting from his life.

A lot of people will talk about the technology and the wonderful inventions that Jobs, and Apple, brought to the market. But he gave us more than that. Let me put it in context.

For some years now the American public has been despondent. The polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Only 18% say things are going well. Believe it or not, more Americans today think the future is bleak than did so under the rule of George Bush. Only 22% of Americans think there will be less unemployment a year from now.

In other words most people today are pessimistic about the future. What government has wrought is depressing and dark.

But Apple, built by Jobs, does something unique. It continuously offers the public something to look forward to. Call it "crass commercialism," or "capitalist greed" if you want. Bu, every time Apple releases a new product, consumers by tens of thousands literally line up to buy it. Millions more flock to the stores after the initial rush is over.

This is true in America, Canada, China, almost anywhere you can think of. The mere rumor of a new iPhone can set hearts atwitter.

Go to your typical computer store. They are dull places for the most part. But every single time I've been in an Apple store there are customers everywhere, more staff than I can count, and everyone seems to be moving from one product to another with eager expectation and excitement. Ridicule it, if you must. But, given how bleak the outlook for the nation is, I'm ready to grab any shred of genuine excitement about the future.

That is what Steve Jobs accomplished—certainly in recent years—he gave people one reason to be hopeful about the future. Ask the typical consumer if they expect Apple products to get better or get worse. I suggest the numbers would be very high when it comes to those saying the future of Apple products is brighter than it is today.

Obama promised "hope" and delivered despair and depression. Steve Jobs promised little but delivered much. He was the epitome of the entrepreneur, a man who built a fortune by improving the lives of others. He did so without an army of lobbyists, seeking favors, subsidies or handouts. He got rich by enriching all of us.

Given how badly Obama and Congress has dealt with the economic crisis, I'm glad that someone else was out there giving people at least one reason to be hopeful.

Below is a video of Steve Jobs talking about his life and tells three stories from his life. It's worth listening to.

Klan Uses PR Tricks from the Religious Right

2011-10-03T22:15:00.004+02:00

Above is the banner from the web site of a confirmed hate group—the Ku Klux Klan, the cowardly, hooded "knights" that rampaged through the Bible belt lynching folks in the name of God, race and country. Now they are trying the same PR trick that other fundamentalist hate groups try to pull—they claim to merely be "pro-family." Notice the slogan, "Loving our family!" in the banner.

They go even further. Like fundamentalist Christians they claim they don't really hate all the people they are trying to hurt, they really "love" instead. The site for the Klan says: "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!" Right! Sure, I believe it. NOT!

When the Religious Right drones on about "family" what they are really doing is saying that anyone who doesn't fit their definition of family—which is a hell of a lot of people—are evil. When the Klan says they "love" they are a bit more explicit about it. They mean "our people—my white brothers and sister..." and openly exclude non-whites from their "love."

In this sense the Klan is more honest than the American Family Association, Maggie Gallagher or Jennifer Morse. They pretend that they actually "love" the people they are attacking and denigrating.

But this "Love" message from the Klan is new. They have always been openly hateful. So what gives with them taking a page from the PR book of the Religious Right? One possible explanation is that their leader is a fundamentalist minister, Thomas Robb. Robb is one of these nuts who worries about the supposed "New World Order." Of course, many of these conspiracists mean Jews when they talk about "New World Order" or about "international bankers." And this group is no different. They HATE Jews. One example is that they denounce the term "Judeo-Christian" because it "is much like saying clean filth. Filth is not clean and Judaism is not Christian." Guess who is the "filth" in that analogy. They quickly go into claims that Communism is run by the Jew.

And, like the real loons on the Right, they argue the Federal Reserve is a "privately owned" bank and run by the international bankers. Please, don't let the "international bankers" label deceive you. When the Right uses this phrase they mean "Jewish bankers," the old alleged enemy of "White, Western, Christian" civilization—you know, the kind of decent society that poor, misunderstood Adolph Hitler tried to impose on Germany and the rest of Europe.

The far Right has been obsessed with the Federal Reserve, not because they understand the problems of central planning of monetary issues, or understand any of the economics that tells us the Fed is a bad idea. What they are obsessed about is that the Fed is supposed controlled by the Jewish conspiracy of bankers to plunder the economy for the private benefits of Jews. They are convinced that an "audit" of the Federal Reserve will prove the existence of this international banking plot. It won't. As usual their premises are completely wrong.

The "legal counsel" for the Klan is one Jason Robb, who I assume is the son of the fundamentalist minister who runs the hate group. Robb recently went off on the Fed with the claim it is "a private corporation that is not part of the U.S." His solution to this secret Jewish plot: "We all should be getting being Rep. Ron Paul for president." Robb has gone as far are publishing entire fund appeal letters from Paul so his Klan-loving readers can make financial donations to Paul.

Robb senior runs "Thomas Robb Ministries" and like Ron Paul he's worried about the secret plot to impose "one-world government." Robb explicitly claims that God's "chosen people" are whites. "We believe that the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, and kindred people are THE people of the Bible—God's separated and anointed Israel.

I guess the Klan just figured that if Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer and Jennifer Morse could use the "love" slogan for hating gays, then they could use it for hating non-whites and Jews.

Dead Kids and Presidential Jokes

2011-10-02T20:44:00.005+02:00

President Obama is a highly unpopular political leader. Well, he should be. He continued the worst policies of the Bush Administration and then failed to keep the decent promises he did make. Not all his promises were decent, by any means. But, the ones that were, were the ones he ignored.

Those wars he promised to end didn't end. He actually tossed in a new one. In other words Obama has led the the nation into killing more people than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner in history. The prize was a joke, but then so is this administration.

Being unpopular means that Obama has to work extra hard to gain four more years of power, and power drives him. After all he just got the power to "reform" the entire health system giving more power to the the medical establishment and the government, at the expense of patients and ordinary people. Of course, he droned on and on about how he was doing this for the little people, the very ones who are losing control of their own care to bureaucrats. So, it's time to start campaigning and that means fleecing the suckers for all they are worth.

Obama is doing this with a series of dinners, the kind that those "little people" he cares oh, so much about, can't afford. The dinners are available for the reasonable cost of $37,800. But don't be aghast, that's for two people and tips are not necessary. Of course, all the common folk are flocking to the events.

Here we have a perfect example of what is wrong with DC. To get your voice heard by people like Obama you have to pony up the cash. All these regulations and laws reflect the interests of the people the president listens to, and those people are the ones who can afford to buy a moment of his time. If you are an average person, you will be ignored unless, of course, there is some publicity factor involved. Then Obama and the others, including Republicans, will feign attentiveness to your concerns. The only thing that rivals cash exchanges in politics is the currency of publicity.

Recently the singer Lady Gaga was telling fans she would meet the president. Her concern was yet another suicide of a young gay kid, bullied until he took his own life. Lady Gaga, like so many well-intentioned but clueless individuals, thinks that the solution to bullying is a federal law. I wish life were so simple. The problem is at the local school level and federal laws won't change that. The solution is to be found elsewhere, not in federal laws.

But Gaga paid her $38,500 and got her two minutes to speak about the death of Jamey Rodemeyer.

Well, just recently Obama spoke to the Human Rights Council, which sometimes works for the rights of gay people, but always works to the benefit of the Democratic Party, even when the Party is ignoring gay issues. The HRC has faithfully put the Party before the people they pretend to represent. I can think of no major gay organization that has so faithfully kissed Obama's ass than the HRC. They were one of the "leaders" of the gay community that fought against making marriage equality an issue. It didn't fit their agenda, meaning it didn't fit the agenda of the Democrats. It had downside potential and it would give Republicans an issue with their bigoted voters. So, the HRC didn't want the marriage issue pushed. The larger gay community ignored their self-proclaimed leaders and pushed it because it is important to them.

Obama's speech to the HRC crowd was meant to be funny and emotional. For instance, he mentioned bullying saying: "I want all those kids to know that the president and first lady is (sic) standing right by them every inch of the way. I want them to know that we love them and care about them and they're not by themselves." Really!

Sure Obama will listen to a bullied kid, at least for two minutes, if the kid can afford $38,500 for tickets to a fundraiser, or can garner him some good publicity. But what is this "we love them" bullshit. I don't mean to say the President dislikes these kids. I just mean he doesn't love them. One can be concerned about people but to love someone requires knowing someone. And it is impossible to "love" someone you don't even know exists. This is another one of those problems with collectivists (and Republicans are the same sort of creature). What they love is the collective not the individual. So, when Obama tells bullied teens he loves them, he doesn't mean them, not as individuals. He "loves" the collective body, not the individual. He can't love the individual, he has no fucking idea who they are. But saying, "I love you," sounds better than, "I love the body of people."

After Jamey's suicide Lady Gaga made several public statements about wanting to speak to Obama about it. The president didn't seek her out. He wanted for her to pay the admission price of $38,500 to purchase a few seconds of his time. That's how concerned he was.

Now, Gaga simply didn't have the publicity factor that the president wanted. If anything, her odd appearance and unpredictable personality means she is a PR nightmare waiting to happen. So, he wasn't going to meet with her officially. The PR value was potentially negative and she wasn't good for a few million into Party coffers. So, he waited for her to buy a ticket to speak to him, briefly. All things considered he probably hoped she wouldn't show up, since the negative factor was too large. But, at least at a private dinner in someone's mansion, the media wouldn't be all over the place splashing pictures of the president being towered over by this odd woman. And, the potential downside of not selling her a ticket was too great. So she couldn't be rejected but she could be controlled and the dinner allowed that. She got her minute and the president avoided photos of him being lectured to by Lady Gaga.

But, as misguided as she is, Lady Gaga is talking about a real issue, real at least to the kids who are the victims of bullying. And Jamey Rodemeyer was the kid whose death pushed her to be so vocal about the problem—an issue this blog has harped on for a couple of years now.

At the HRC dinner Obama decided the incident was worthy of joking about. So he told the audience: "I also took a trip out to California last week, where I held some productive bilateral talks with your leader, Lady Gaga." I also guess that Stepin Fetchit was the leader of the black community during the 20s and 30s.

What irks me about the joke, however, is not the stereotypical view of Lady Gaga as the "leader" of the gay community, but that the president seems insensitive to why it was that she spoke to him. Sure, he mentioned how he just loves bullied kids, both him and his wife. But, the reason Gaga was there was because a boy had killed himself. It seems inappropriate to turn that occasion into a joke. Given that Jamey had only been buried a few days before the HRC dinner, the timing of the reference was poorly chosen. It was certainly a joke that I would have advised avoiding.

Which American Governments are Bankrupt and Why

2011-10-01T23:46:00.007+02:00

I was reading "Nine American Cities Going Broke," and noticed similarities between the cities in the most financial trouble. Many of them simply forgot their core functions and decided to go into projects like redevelopment and stadium building. These are "grand" projects that appeal to the egos of petty politicians, but for the most part, they do little good for, and much harm to, the taxpayers. Next, you have simple corruption and finally you have politicians buying the support of city workers by offering overly-generous pension schemes.

You may remember Vallejo, CA., actually filed bankruptcy as a result of the extreme pension costs for city workers, especially those given to unionized fire fighters. The city politicians, always wanting to be on the good side of the unions, caved in repeatedly. For years the taxpayers were able to cover the costs of buying political support from the unions, but long term it was unsustainable.

The nine cities listed are those "with the worst credit ratings assigned by Moody's." Here are the worst nine cities in from least bankrupt to most bankrupt.

#9 Camden, NJ. A very corrupt political system meant that three of the last five mayors ended up in prison for corruption. For some odd reason more than half the property in the city is tax exempt meaning taxes are imposed on the remainder. The city, not the school system, got over $1 billion in state aid in the last decade and is still going bankrupt. The state took over managing the finances and spending actually sky-rocketed while tax revenues plummeted. And in 2010 the state paid 80% of the costs of the city to stay afloat.

The city gave tax exemptions to a for-profit aquarium as well as to the a high-rent apartment complex. And greedy trade unions used their political clout to push through high pensions for police and fire fighters. Fringe benefits for those two departments doubled since 2001 after being adjusted for inflation. The city now pays out 28% of its budget in fringe benefits to these greedy city employees who use the clout of unions to their own selfish benefit.

Even while they are going bankrupt the unions increased their clout by getting more members hired. Full time city employees went from 1,131 in 2001 to 1,562. And the police department is 20% larger than the average for a city this size while there are 17% more firefighters than in other similar cities.

#8 Strafford County, NH. The main problem here is that the county went into the business of running a nursing home. And it is losing millions per year. About 40% of the entire country budget goes into this one nursing home. Most the patients are Medicaid patients and the country is finding that the reimbursements from Medicaid simply don't come close to paying the actual costs. This is a problem all health care providers face: government health care refuses to pay the actual costs of health care and this forces up prices for private patients. It is one way that government health care can pretend to cost less, while forcing up the cost of health care for everyone else, and then blaming the higher costs on private health care providers.

#7 Riverdale, IL. The main problem here just seems to be bad budgeting with the village consistently spending more than it takes in.

#6 Salem, NJ. The city decided to get into the office building field by guaranteeing bonds issued to construct the complex. Politicians said they could pay the bonds from revenue from leasing office space. But construction delays, a common thing in government run projects, meant they were paying out with no revenue coming in. Government officials tend to make bad investments like this all the time. They all dream of being the one credited with "revitalizing" the city, or having some grand project attributed to them. They are much more careful when they invest their own funds. But politicians are used to playing with other people's money.

#5 Detroit, MI. Trouble here is long term and tied to the heavily unionized auto industry which continued to push up costs for employers. General Motors and Chrysler both declared bankruptcy which substantially hurt the city. In addition the city was never well run to begin with. The net result is that debts are more than double the annual tax income for the city.

#4 Harrison, NJ. The city got involved heavily in redevelopment and spent $39 million to build a stadium. The income from the stadium, however, is well below what the politicians pretended it would be when they pushed it through. The stadium is one massive subsidy to the privately-owned New York Red Bulls, a soccer team. Bloomberg reports:

Town officials in December had to borrow $3.1 million -- 21 percent of its municipal tax collections -- to make the debt payment on the 2006 issue, and they anticipate doing so again this December, Moody’s said.
Meanwhile, the New York Red Bulls, whose owner is No. 208 on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s billionaires, are challenging their taxable status. The team refuses to pay a $1.4 million property levy, according to Moody’s.
To close its $6 million budget gap, Harrison plans to dismiss 17 percent of its police and 29 percent of its firefighters on July 1, according to an e-mail from Town Clerk Paul Zarbetski. Mayor Raymond McDonough is also considering selling seven parking lots.

The city claimed that payments from developers would go from $2.3 million in 2008 to $11.5 million by 2011. But, in 2009 they only received $980,000 and $1.1 million in 2010 and 2011, just 10% of what they projected. The soccer team's managing director says the team shouldn't pay taxes since just being there "is a huge economic impact." Of course, it was an even huger economic cost.

#3 Jefferson County, AL. The county is in deep shit, literally and figuratively. It's 2o09 debt was $1,337,233,000 while revenue was only $308,440,000. The county decided to spend $3.2 billion on sewer overhauls. But numerous officials ended up in jail due to corruption connected to the project.

#2 Pontiac, MI. Here is another city hurt by the bankruptcy of union-riddled General Motors. But there was another stadium project involved as well: Silverdome Stadium. Built in 1975 it cost the city $55.7 million. The purpose was to "lure" the Detroit Lions to the stadium by given the wealthy owners a huge subsidy. They moved and stayed until they got a better handout leaving Pontiac holding a white elephant. The Jehovahs Witnesses rented it once a year for their annual get-together and a drive-in theater was opened up in the parking lot. The city decided to get rid of the stadium and asked for bids. In 2008 an offer of $18 million was made. The buyers were planning to turn the stadium into an entertainment complex. The city refused the offer and put it out to auction. Instead of getting $18 million the stadium was then sold for $550,000 in 2009. Brilliant!

#1 Central Falls, RI. Central Falls declared bankruptcy in August of this year. The reason was mostly due to the pension plans for city workers. The city owes $80 million in retirement benefits, which is equal to five years worth of the entire city budget. Once again it was the greedy unions redistributing wealth to fire fighters and police officers. The $80 million in retirement promises is for just 215 cops and firemen. The city has around 20,000 residents. The New York Times reports that Central Falls "is small and poor, but over the years it has promised police officers and firefighters retirement benefits like those offered in big, rich states like California and New York." (I don't know about New York, but big, rich California is in financial trouble as well and once again greedy unions have pushed through massive pension promises for union members.)

State regulations are also to blame here. State law favors unions and forces cities into binding arbitration. The law says that benefits are to be based on comparable benefits across the entire state and has to ignore the city's ability to pay. The result is that each time a city is forced into paying higher benefits the "comparable average" for the state increases forcing each other city to increase their benefits during the next union hold-up (I mean negotiation). Of course, as those benefits go up then the other cities are now lagging behind and have to catch up again. And so it goes in perpetuity. The Times report this means Rhode Island has "the nation's highest per capita spending for fire services and sixth-highest for policing." The law does not apply to other government employees but the teacher's unions are now pushing for a similar law to inflate the pay of teachers.

Convenient scapegoats.

2011-09-30T21:37:00.004+02:00

Harris Himes is a Religious Right activist, who periodically claims to be a pastor and an attorney though both credentials seem to have been called into question. He is the head of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and an outspoken proponent of using government to impose "Christian values" on the entire culture. Schlafy lists Himes as her state coordinator in Montana, though I wouldn't be surprised if that changes soon.

Himes was recently arrested in a phony investment scheme, charged with bilking a man out of $150,000. Himes and another man, who is also a fundamentalist minister, claimed to be principles in a manufacturing compan,y but records indicate the $150,000 went to pay off credit card debts.

After his arrest Himes went on radio to claim that he is the victim of a conspiracy lead by "the gays" along with "pro-abortion activists." I wonder if "the gays" involved in the conspiracy against Himes includes Schlafly's son.

In celebration of the paranoid delusions of "Rev." Himes, here is a music video by Oded Gross, "It's All Because." Enjoy it.

Has the Christian Right Jumped on the Wrong Campaign?

2011-09-28T12:42:00.003+02:00

The story that went around the media, courtesy of a far Right fundamentalist group, was that a poor Christian high school student, Dakota Ary, was being picked on because he's a Christian who, of course, dislikes gay people intensely. Dakota, by the way, even with the long curly locks and a rather feminine-sounding name, is a boy.

The story that went out was entirely one-sided. It claimed that Dakota was sitting in class minding his own business when he was possessed to quietly make an anti-gay remark to another student sitting near him. We were told he did in a manner so as to NOT disturb the class, that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, and all he was doing was expressing his faith.

I was waiting for more information until I commented, but I was already a wee bit suspicious. The first thing I had to wonder about was how the claim that he did this quietly so as to not disrupt the teaching or the classroom in any manner. If this were so, then precisely how did the teacher hear the remark and report the miscreant to the school, which then suspended him? After all, the fundamentalists insisted that the boy didn't speak loud enough to disrupt the class in any way. That would seem to imply he was so quiet that other students, except the one he was speaking to, would NOT have heard this. Yet, the teacher heard it at the front of the room, during a lecture. So, clearly the teacher could hear the remark over his own voice as he was speaking.

But, if the teacher heard the remark over his teaching voice, then it would mean that other students would have heard the remark over the teacher's lesson as well. And, if other students heard Dakota preaching louder than the teacher was teaching, then, ipso facto, Dakota did disturb the class, contrary to the claims his defenders were spewing to the media.

Having escaped from the clutches of fundamentalists some years ago I also know that they are always tempted to lie in situations like this, for the sake of morality, of course. So, I was suspicious that they insisted the boy also only spoke respectfully and didn't direct his remarks at anyone. I assumed, based on the odds, that this was an outright lie. I assumed, wrongly, that the remarks would be directed at another student.

After a week of the fundamentalist Right whining and crying over the alleged issue of "political correctness," some friends of the teacher are now coming forward to speak on his behalf. And the story that is emerging there is very different than the webs spun by the PR people for the misnamed Liberty Institute, the bigots behind the story.

The teacher and the school are forbidden to speak publicly about the matter while it is being investigated but some individuals have meet with the teacher privately to discuss the issue. His story is significantly different.

The class in question was a course on German and Germany. The teacher, not a student, had been the object of various anti-gay remarks made by Dakota and a few of his friends. They perceived the teacher to be gay and would make snide and snotty remarks directed at him, in his presence. The teacher, Kristopher Franks, is said to have reported these incidents to the school several times already, indicating it was a consistent patter by Dakota and his friends to disrupt the classroom by harassing the teacher.

On one occasion Franks reported that he had posted various German language articles on a board in the classroom. One of the articles mentioned gay politics in Germany and had a picture of two men in it. Dakota and his fellow harassers were seated at desks next to the wall where the article was posted. When Franks was not looking the article was ripped off the board and vanished. Apparently the fundamentalist defense team is not denying this but instead saying it violated the rights of the students by "imposing acceptance of homosexuality" on the classroom. The nonsense there is that "acceptance" can not be imposed. It is an inner state and not subject to the control of others. One can fake acceptance, but that doesn't make it real.

According to the friends of the teacher, who claim to have spoken to other students in the class, Dakota and his gang of friends frequently would burst out with anti-gay remarks in class under the pretense of "class discussion." But, it was reported that they did this even when the topics under discussion were not even remotely connected to the topic.

The Liberty (sic) Institute claimed that the discussion in class was on homosexuality. Not so, say others who were there. The topic, in fact, was about religious life in German with various students asking about what sort of religions were practiced there. Instead of whispering quietly to a friend, Dakota supposed said very loudly "Gays can't be Christians." (Exactly why they would want to be remains to be seen.) And, instead of the remark not being directed at anyone, the report is that Dakota was looking directly at the teacher and intended the remark for him.

Sadly this sort of dishonest representation is all too typical among Christian fundamentalists. It would be relatively easy to put together an entire book of the various lies they have told and continue to tell.

Now you know why the schools fail to stop bullying.

2011-09-25T06:34:00.005+02:00

For the last couple of days the death of Jamey Rodemeyer has weighed heavily on my mind. Jamey committed suicide after bullies tormented him for the last couple of years due to his sexuality—he was gay.

The state schools are simply unwilling to deal with bullying in a realistic manner. They want touchy-feely hug moments, but without the hugs, which are just "way to inappropriate." What they do NOT wish to do is deal with the bullies.

Tanya Sydner found out her 10-year-son, Griffin, was being assaulted by two bullies while riding the school. The next day she marched down to the bus stop and waited and then boarded the bus to speak to the driver. He made excuses and told her he does the best he can—in other words don't expect anymore from him. She then told off the two monsters on the bus and that irritated the driver who threw her off.

Tanya and her son marched to the school only to be immediately meet by the school's resident police officer. These cops are now routine in the state schools to make to give an air of authenticity to the already prison-like atmosphere.

The school then deal with the issue by making the bullies and Griffin apologize to each other. The fucking morons don't want to take sides, they want to be Switzerland in an war between bullies and victims. But they can't be Switzerland, the problem is taking place on their turf. Imagine these bureaucrats being around at the end of World War II. They would have made Jews apologize to the SS. "Gee, Mr. Nazi, I'm so sorry I irritated you and forced you to gas my family."

This is not the first time the schools have tried this "touchy-feely" sort of discipline where victims and attackers are put on the same moral plane. I have read of other incidents where victims were forced to apologize to their attackers. And then the school told Sydney she is banned from the school, because she complained. When the media asks the morons who run the school to explain they refused to protect the privacy of Sydney and her son. They sent out the typical PR press release that is pure bullshit: "Minneapolis Public Schools encourages (sic) parents to contact their school immediately if there are bullying concerns. Our schools take allegations concerning bullying very seriously and have a protocol to address these type of situations."

Protocol? Right! What exactly was that protocol? It was to force the victim to apologize to his attackers as if he is mutually responsible for being such a tempting target to juvenile thugs. This isn't the first time victims had to apologize to their attackers, and it won't be the last. This ethos is rampant in the schools run jointly by the government and the teacher's unions.

A 7th grade girl in told her Missouri school that a boy had been harassing her, that he assaulted her and then raped her. This special education student was told she was making it up and told to retract her story. One of the results of her mental state is that she wants to please so she did what she was told. Then the school forced to write an apology to the boy in a letter and was expelled from the school. In addition, even though the law says all such incidents of sexual attacks on children must be reported, the school refused to report it.

The next year she was admitted back to school and the boy started harassing her and assaulting her all over. She was so afraid of being kicked out of school that she refused to report it. And then the boy raped her a second time inside the school library. She told her mother and the school again refused to believe her, after all they pushed into retracting her previous accusation.

The mother took the girl to a Child Advocacy Center and DNA samples were taken from the girl showing the presence of semen, which later proved to match the boy she had said was guilty of raping her. The boy admitted his guilt—he had raped her and she was telling the truth all along. The school is being sued. And what is their response to the lawsuit? They claim that the victim "failed and neglected to use reasonable means to protect her self." Yep, they blamed the victim for being raped twice even though they were the ones who refused to believe her when she reported it the first time, and then they punished her.

This is the moral universe of the government schools—they refuse to take sides in real cases of bullying but love expensive programs to talk about bullying in their faux sing-songy voices that are meant to "relate" to the kids. But when it comes to real bullies and real victims they are unable to distinguish between them and see them as moral equivalents. And, that is why bullying thrives in spite of millions spent on "programs" to stop it.

Cop beats man with Downs Syndrome

2011-09-24T11:39:00.002+02:00

This is another example of police attacking innocent people violently in violation of the law. Gilberto Powell was walking the half block from a friends house to his home. Gilberto, who has Downs Syndrome, is around 5 feet tall. He called his parents to tell them he was coming home but before he could walk the short distance he was attacked by Miami police officers.

The officers claim they wanted to investigate a "suspicious bulge" in his pants. Who do they think they are? The TSA?

Now, a bulge is not a crime. And it is only "suspicious" if you have that sort of mentality. But suspicion is not evidence and individuals walking home can't be stopped and frisked for no reason other than a police officer's fervid imagination. Gilberto insists he did what the police officers told him to do but that they started hitting him and then pulled the colostomy bag he wears out of his pants.

When Gilberto's parents got outside their son was bruised and beaten and in handcuffs.

I have said it before and have to say it again: treat the police as you would a rabid dog. Do not go near them. Do not try to befriend them. Do not try to help them. If you see them avoid them. They can't be trusted. Sure, some of them are tame, but you can't immediately tell which is which. I have reported before that people who merely opened their door to cops who were looking for an address have suddenly witnessed these thugs pull their guns and murder their dog because it was barking inside the house.

I also urge parents to teach their children to avoid police whenever possible. The police are not their friends either. As I have shown on this blog multiple times, with video, police officers are not adverse to attacking and beating children either. And all it takes is saying the wrong thing to set these criminals off.

I wish this were not the case. I wish we were still in the America where a police officer would help you or try to peacefully resolve any conflict they find. They resort to violence quickly and with little rational forethought. And the results are that a lot of innocent people get hurt.

If you thought the Libertarian Party couldn't sink any lower.

2011-09-22T11:42:00.006+02:00

This blogger has held that the Libertarian Party is a hopeless venture and is often more conservative than libertarian—especially after a Root infestation that continues to plague the party. The only decent candidate they had seeking the presidential nomination was Steve Kubby, but Kubby simply would have been a lousy candidate, no matter how good he might be on issues. Otherwise there simply wasn't a candidate seeking the office that could be trusted. They all were deficient, if not ideologically, then ethically.

Today it is being reported that State Rep. Daniel Gordon, of Rhode Island, has joined the Libertarian Party to serve as an LP state representative. Gordon, made a name for himself for some nasty anti-gay remarks directed at a high school's Gay Straight Alliance. Like most extreme Right bigots he mischaracterized the support group made up of students by calling it a "sexual meet-up" group and then asking "Is it really more important for our children to get sexed-up, than learning advanced math?" Of course the main purpose of the GSA groups is to provide support for gay students on campus, many of whom are suffering bullying. As we just saw, a 14-year-old boy in New York just killed himself because of school bullying. So yes, Mr. Gordon, the club is important and no, they aren't there to get sexed-up.

But, according to Gordon, gay students who get bullied probably deserved it. He said, "I don't think there would be much of a problem with bullying if students weren't flaunting their sexuality in school." Hmm, I guess women who get beat up by their boyfriends deserve it as well. (Gordon might say so for reasons that will become obvious in a minute.) Gordon said that the Gay Straight Alliance should be banned.

The mere fact that this man could publicly make such statements indicates he is not a proper fit for the Libertarian Party. But the LP has been taken the garbage the Republicans throw out for a long time. According to a pro-war, anti-gay site run by a former Ron Paul staffer, Gordon called the LP National Direction Wes Benedict that he was sending in his dues and joining the party. This site claims that Gordon is leaving the Republican Party over a "controversy stemming from a drunk driving conviction in Massachusetts a year ago."

In fact, Gordon was thrown out of the Republican Party. All members of the LP national committee were told, with some excitement, that this bigot wanted to join the LP. Now, what is the "controversy?"

Mr. Gordon is drunk driver. Actually he has been convicted three times of drunk driving. Of course, the Republicans wouldn't throw him out merely because he is an anti-gay bigot. Virtually all their candidates for president are anti-gay bigots with the exception of Gary Johnson and perhaps, Jon Huntsman.

Gordon tries to weasel out of it by claiming that he wasn't drunk he was "self-medicating with alcohol." Jesus, that is like the sleazy Republican who took close up photos of his sphincter, posted them on a gay site, and then when caught, said the photos were to document weight loss. Even if the "self-medicating" bullshit was a legitimate excuse, driving while self-medicated puts the lives of others at risk.

Now, the Libertarian Party may miss the bullet on this one. Unless Gordon sent in his dues for LP membership almost immediately after calling the LP, it might be some time before he can mail that check in. And, he actually might need the money for a good lawyer.

Apparently he was arrested and is in state prison and will be there until arraignment on Monday. He is charged with driving with a suspended license and also failing to appear in court to face charges that he had tried to elude a police office.

Gordon had gone to the police to try to file complaints about "cyberstalking" because "people were saying things about him on blogs." Apparently, not only is he weak on rights for gay people, but he doesn't understand free speech either. Yep, sounds like a Republican to me. Of course, he calls himself a Constitutionalist. I find that to be one of the major excuses used by conservatives when they try to claim they are really libertarians. Apparently if they can concoct a claim that constitution is in favor of violating rights, then that trumps their libertarianism.

But while Gordon was trying to get bloggers arrested the police were running his name and found he had "a very extensive record in Massachusetts" and they found that he skipped out on a 2008 trial and that there was an arrest warrant out for him.

It gets worse! The Providence Journal reports that he was previously in jail for five months "on charges of attempted murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and for assaulting and threatening to kill his girlfriend." The paper says the arrest records are in storage but that what they were able to find indicates "there is no question that Gordon has exhibited a propensity for violence."

Apparently in 1996 Gordon was arrested on assault charges and discharging a firearm. He served time on those charges. Then in 2001 he assaulted his girlfriend and threatened to kill her. He pleaded guilty and served a brief sentence and was put on probation. In 2003 a warrant was put on him on charges of car theft, along with a slew of traffic offenses connected to the incident. Next, in 2004 he was arrested for attempted murder and assault, again on a woman, who told police, "He tried to kill me." This was another girlfriend, so apparently assaulting romantic partners, is not unusual for him. She was upset because he didn't have a job and called him a loser so he tried to strangle her. He was in jail for two weeks that time.

So, just about the time I thought the LP couldn't sink lower in attracting Republican rejects Mr. Gordon comes along. Of course, with all the negative publicity that this is likely to get, the LP may get nervous and refuse his membership. But then, some of their National Committee members aren't adverse to con men. So, will they actually balk at men who act violently toward women, as well as a slew of other problems? We'll see.

But, let's recap this man's "libertarian" record. He has assaulted women. He drives drunk, putting others at risk. He was charged with car theft and attempted murder. He is anti-gay, wants to ban a group, apparently opposing freedom of association and freedom of speech. At least he would make Wayne Root look good—well, only briefly.

We're not bigots but.....

2011-09-22T01:53:00.006+02:00

Ever notice how when people say, "I"m not prejudiced, but...." that what usually follows is a statement that proves they are precisely what they claim not to be?

In Elkton, Virginia dozens of angry citizens marched on the city council demanding they do something about a gay pride picnic. They say that they don't want the towns name associated with the event and they want the local politicians to stop it. Beverly Knight said, "I'm not racist. I'm not biased, this is a free country, but we have to be careful as to what we are going to allow attached to our names." Well, this isn't about race, so the "I'm not racist" is about as relevant as Pat Robertson. But, the biased part remains to be seen. As for attaching "our names' to the event, I note that Knight's name is not attached. She is trying to ban the rally from mentioning the town's name.

Another, "I'm-not-a-bigot-but" whiner was Tammy Hammer. She bitches, "When you say Elkton, that pertains to everybody that lives in Elkton, and we don't like that." Tammy, dear, the word for that is bullshit.

One of the local yokels, Pastor Homer from the Bible Holiness Church says his opposition is "not a position of discrimination or hate. We just don't feel like tagging it with Elkton was necessarily a reflection of Elkton values."

I did a small amount of digging that proves Homer, Bev the Bigot, and Two-faced Tammy, are just lying their asses off.

Does everybody in town attend the Elkton Church of God on E Street. Oh, no, they can't, otherwise there wouldn't be people at the Elkton Freewill Baptist Church, or the Elkton Pentecostal Church, the Elkton Presbyterian Church, the Elkton Seventh Day Adventist Church, the Elkton United Methodist Church, or the First Baptist Church of Elkton. Apparently using the world "Elkton" only means "everybody that lives in Elkton" when it comes to a gay pride event. I noticed that a local TV station said that numerous ministers—anyone want to bet they were fundamentalists?—were at the protest but they all refused to be interviewed. No doubt because they represent the churches that actually use "Elkton" in their name, proving the name doesn't have to be for everyone, but can just represent a small number of locals.

The problem with that selective demand—that only gay groups avoid using the name Elkton—proves that when these bigots insist they are not bigots, and wouldn't dream of discriminating, that the very thing they deny they are doing is precisely what they are doing. Excluding only gay groups from using the name Elkton is what discrimination means. I have to ask if everyone in town uses Elkton Family Dentistry, or if everyone goes to Elkton Eyecare, I'm pretty sure that not everyone is buried in Elkton Cemetery, and clearly most people are not residents of Elkton Manor, or go to Elkton Family & Children's Medical Center, or buy only at Elkton Pharmacy. Does everyone wash their car at Elkton Car Wash, and store the porn mags they don't want discovered at Elkton Mini Storage? We also have Elkton Emporium, Elkton Florist, Elkton Motel, and Elkton Pawn & Trading.

Now, with all these churches, and all these businesses, using the word Elkton, without even pretending to represent "all the people of Elkton," then the only possible conclusion one can draw is that these protests are precisely because the people in question dislike gay people. If Baptists, Pentecostals, doctors, florists, gravediggers and pawn shop owners all have access to the name Elkton, without asking anyone's permission first, then an attempt to exclude gay people, and only gay people, is absolute proof that Beverly, Tammy, Pastor Homer and all those other cowardly ministers are bigoted and they do want to discriminate.

As I said, the moment someone tells you, "I'm not a bigot" and then immediate says, "but...," you can safely bet that what will follow will be bigoted. Beverly, Tammy, Pastor Homer and the rest have proven my case.

UPDATED: Death by bullying.

2011-09-20T21:00:00.003+02:00

Did bullying push teen to suicide?: wivb.com

Sadly, another kid has killed himself after bullying over his sexuality. Yet the Right-wing continues to deny bullying is a problem and tries to downplay what is happening. Here is a second video on the story.

Jamey, according to press reports, "routinely blogged about school bullying." Routine! What was done about it? "I always say how bullied I am, but no one listens. What do I have to do so people will listen to me?" Another day this month he wrote: "No one in my school cares about preventing suicide, while you're the ones calling me faggot and tearing me down."

But the bullies followed him posting anonymous messages on his blog. One said, "JAMIE IS STUPID, GAY, FAT, ANND UGLY. HE MUST DIE!" Another wrote, "I wouldn't care if you died. No one would. So just do it : ) It would make everyone WAY more happier!"

The boy's parents say he was having a hard time because of his sexuality. Most particular he was concerned about how much worse the bullying would get in high school. Jamey's mother said that because of his sexuality "some of his classmates used those issues as an excuse to say horrible and malicious things about him."

Now, I want to say this loud and clear: NO, BULLYING IS NOT A RITE OF PASSAGE. And, if you call this sort of bullying "normal" then your moral compass needs adjustment. This is a real problem in the schools, where kids are warehoused by the state and where thugs, some of them teachers, have free reign. Every libertarian should be aware this is going on, and that kids are forced by state law to endure these things because of mandatory attendance laws. As long as kids are required to attend government schools then the first obligation of the school is to protect them from thuggery.

I look at the response from Jamey's school and I'm appalled. They speak about all the counseling they are offering to the students who are still alive—I assume that includes the little thugs who told Jamey to go kill himself as well. The school speaks about everything it does to counsel—counseling provides jobs and the teacher's unions love that. What they need to do is remove the students who do the bullying. But, the school didn't say a single thing about what they tried to do to prevent the bullying. So, the bureaucrats are there to hold the hands of bullies after their victim dies. How nice! Next time, do something about it before you have a dead body on your hands.

There is one other issue that Jamey's death raises. And I know some people won't like it. Tough shit, I'm not in the mood, not when another kid has killed himself. Jamey wrote about the death of a beloved relative and a friend. He wrote that he would soon be with them and was looking forward to seeing them again. The belief that there is a life after this one is not only false, but malicious. It devalues this life by pretending there is a better one waiting for people. I know that is not popular because most Americans believe this crap, but it has to be said. Telling kids, some of whom are suicidal, that there is a "better life" awaiting them after they are dead is only encouraging them to take their life.

Now, here we have a Christian activist giving their line about such issues. His view is that bullying is hardly an issue that we should be concerned about and that it's just part of growing up. NO! IT'S NOT!! When kids are bullied and kill themselves it is something we should be concerned about. And, whether this is normal is not the issue. Throughout history many horrible things were normal, which no longer are so. So it ought to be with bullying.

Should we accommodate religious intolerance?

2011-09-12T23:26:00.003+02:00

Some years ago I owned a business, and as is normal, it was open to the public. A man enters and moves from one section of the business to another and then comes out to complain that a black man was in the other section. He literally demanded to know why I was “letting people like that” come into the business. The black man had done nothing wrong, he had a skin color this bigot found offensive.

It took me a few seconds to figure out what was actually happening. I think it took a bit longer than normal simply because I couldn’t fathom someone actually complaining that I allowed black people to enter my business. I just assumed it had to be something else and not something so blatantly ugly and hateful. But, it was ugly and hateful; it wasn’t something else. When that dawned on me, I, in no uncertain terms, told the bigot that my business was open to everyone and if he didn’t like it he was invited him to leave and he would not be missed.

Now, what if the man told me he held sincere religious beliefs about the inferiority of black people and that they pose a threat to his world-view because God damns them? Does god-talk mean we have to cut people slack?

Racism in the West often had a religious foundation to it. Having escaped fundamentalist Christianity I can assure you that I heard Baptist preachers claiming that the Biblical “curse of Ham” damned the black race to an inferior position for eternity. This wasn’t all that long ago either. Mormons were rather racist and claimed it was all about theology as well. Of course, after the civil rights movement the Mormon “prophet” faked a revelation from God that said black men were now allowed to join the Mormon priesthood—which is open to all other men, but not women, no matter their race.

Recently some Orthodox rabbis in Israel were making a stink about the military because at various events female soldiers were allowed to sing. Apparently, and I admit I did not know this, it is Orthodox religious law that men may not listen to a woman sing in person. Apparently God made exceptions for CDs, radios, DVDs and the like—which is rather progressive of him. The rabbis want male soldiers exempted from events where women might sing.

Admittedly I’ve heard some female singers that were rather offensive, but it just never dawned on me that some god-monger might invent a deity that finds all female singers a problem. But this controversy is going on now in Israel.

Closer to home we have a woman who is a rather fanatical Catholic and a prolific breeder as well, having seven children—not allowing birth control will do that. In the mode of the insane Jennifer Roback Morse, this woman, Stacy Trasancos, is deeply offended that gay people exist and that she sometimes has to look at them.

Stacy says seeing gay people means they “are imposing immorality on me” and that now she has a “hard time even leaving my home anymore to do something as simple as visit the park. And this is freedom?” Stacy is deathly afraid she will see gay people. This Massachusetts baby-maker is very upset that she went to a public pool and “there were homosexual couples with children” present. Apparently that may cause her kids to ask questions, “I’m not ready to answer.” As for the pool, “The truth is, now I don’t really want to go back.”

Later she saw a gay couple with kids at the park and now laments “I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. …I can’t even to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality.” By the way, she then also laments the presence of immigrants as well, but bigotry is rarely limited to just one group.BTW: she really doesn't know if the people are gay or not and I imagine that she imagines gay people far more often than is the case. The women in the park rubbed each others back and that clued told her they were lesbians. Of course, I see straight women do that with other straight women. Perhaps the two women were sisters? But when you imagine gays to be monsters you see monsters everywhere.

Having to see gay people is to Stacy being forced to “tolerate immorality.” Okay, let’s run with that. Am I being forced to tolerate irrationality every time I see some Jesus-addict pray in a restaurant? Does the church I drive by force me to tolerate irrationality? I think these religious people are irrational and often, particularly in this case, rather creepy and pathetic. To obsess that one may see a gay couple in public, and to hide in one’s home to avoid this, is actually rather sad. It is her right to be fearful and terrified, but given her tendency to produce litters of children she should be aware that with each additional child the chances that one of them would be gay grows. With seven kids there is already a decent chance one of them is an embryonic homosexual and then she won’t even be safe in her own home either.

We are told we should “tolerate” such things. More importantly we are supposed to give way to these prejudices precisely because they are religious. For instance, we are supposed to accommodate religious beliefs in employment. So, if someone won't work on one particular day, because they imagine a deity told them to chant and lament the state of the world on that day, employers are supposed to alter work schedules to fit that belief.

We have an entire political campaign run by the dowdy, porcine Maggie Gallagher that argues that American marriage law should be founded entirely on the imagined god that lives in Gallagher’s head.

Constantly the rest of the country is being told they must accommodate the religious fantasies of the god-snorters. Yet, we also must not question these beliefs. We are told that sincere religious beliefs are immune from criticism and questioning. But what is a religious belief?

At the basis it is a belief that someone holds and which he or she claim is religious. That is all. We can’t say it is based on God’s revelation to them since they all differ about what their God wants and we have zero evidence a god revealed anything to them. All we have are their claims. The mere fact that someone calls a belief religious is supposedly enough to make it immune from scrutiny. Now, if someone says that they believe in evolution, because of various facts, that is science. If they say they believe in creation because God said to, that is not science; that is religion.

Religion is claimed knowledge about reality based on imaginary sources, not rooted in reality, and supposedly exempt from rational inquiry or criticism.

And, the Republicans want us to base the law of the nation on such notions. Most Republicans would laugh at the idea that female singers are offensive. But many of them would applaud this paranoid baby-machine in Massachusetts. To them the belief that female singers are offensive is just plain silly, but the belief that seeing gay people in public is offensive makes perfect sense. Why? Because they don’t believe the nonsense of Jewish orthodoxy, but they do believe the nonsense in Christian orthodoxy, that’s why.

The bigoted theology that says the black race is cursed by God to be servants to the white race doesn’t establish American legal policy. Nor should it. So, why do we allow any theology to determine the law? We don’t just need separation of church and state, we need separation of theology and state. Just because your god is a teetotaler is no reason to impose prohibition on others. And, just because you imagine God wanted marriage to between one man and one woman (if you are Maggie Gallagher) or one man and many women (if you are Joseph Smith), doesn't mean the law should deny marriage contracts to gay couples.

Now, I have to applaud fearful Stacy in one sense. If she doesn’t like seeing gay people then she shouldn’t go in public. And yes, Stacy, that is freedom. The equal freedom of all people to use the public parks is part of freedom. Just because Klanners don’t like seeing blacks doesn’t mean we are infringing on their liberty by not hiding blacks away. And, just because you hate gay people so much that even seeing one causes emotional pain, does not justify anti-gay policies, though it may justify therapy. I’m just hinting, for what it’s worth. A little less time on your knees and a little more time on the couch might do you a world of good and, it might make you a better mother—just in case one of your own turns out gay.

Fundy pastor wants "registry" to track non-believers.

2011-08-31T20:01:00.007+02:00

Fundamentalist "minister" Mike Stahl wants to use the power of the state to force all "atheists" to register on a "national registry" so that Christians can harass them.

Stahl wrote: "There are already National Registrys (sic) for convicted sex offenders, ex-convicts, terrorist cells, hate groups like the KKK, skinheads, radical Islamists, etc." Other than not knowing how to spell registries Stahl is talking out of his proverbial anal orifice. There is NO national registry for sex offenders. There are state registries and they have worked very badly, and been counterproductive.

That said, there are no national registries of any kind similar to what Stahl envisions. Not only that, but other than state run registries for so-called sex offenders (peeing in an alley is now a sex offense, streaking is a sex offense, two teens have consenting sex is a sex offense, etc.) there are NO registries of any kind, at any level of government. More importantly, under Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech there are NO registries based on opinions.

Stahl is simply making things up.

What is the purpose of this registry? Stahl wrote:

Now, many (especially the atheists), may ask "Why do this, what's the purpose?"Duhhh, Mr. Atheist for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net - to INFORM the public! I mean, in the City of Miramar, Florida, where I live, the population is approx. 109,000. My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists! Perhaps we may actually know some. In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism. Or perhaps they are radical atheists, whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh's, in that case, if they are business owners, we would encourage all our Christian friends, as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be "feeding" Satan.

Frankly, I don't see why anyone would oppose this idea - including the atheists themselves (unless of course, they're actually ashamed of their atheist religion, and would prefer to stay in the 'closet.').

Two purposes are given by Stahl to register non-believers. First, he wants to know who these people are so fundamentalists can "witness to them." Anyone who has been "witnessed" to by this annoying morons knows exactly how aggressive and rude they can be. To register people so that fundamentalists can find them for "witnessing" amounts to harassment. People's opinions are not public business. The second reason Stahl wants a registry is so that Christians can boycott, perhaps picket, businesses owned by these people.

Now, let us consider a second factor when it comes to these extremists. They don't believe Catholics are Christians. They believe Jews worship the wrong god, ditto for Mormons, most mainstream Christians and everyone who is not a brain-damaged fundamentalist. None of these people are Christians in the eyes of the fundamentalist. Only fellow fundamentalists are Christians. So, why stop with a registry for atheists who need "witnessing?" Surely the Mormons need witnessing. Ditto for Catholics, Episcopalians, etc.

Also notice that Stahl wants to use boycotts to harm businesses simply because they are owned by non believers.

And that brings us to a religious right loon named Matt Barber. Like many fundamentalists Barber's obsession is hating gay people. Fundamentalists, of course, really "love" gay people. Much like the SS loved Jews and the Klan loves blacks. Actually neither the Nazis nor the Klan liked gay people much either—which just goes to show how "Christian" they really were.

Barber's bitch is that there is a fundraising organization that was called the Christian Values Network. Well, the name was a give away so they changed it to something that gives a different, albeit false, impression. They are now called the Charity Give Back Group. Now "giving to charity" sounds much nice than funding fundamentalist hate groups sounds. Which is why they changed their name to hide that funds they received went to far right groups trying to impose government regulations on people they hate—which is about everyone.

They encourage fundamentalists to use their web site to buy items from major companies and they tell the companies they will channel business to them for a cut of the action—which is then used to finance fundamentalist political groups and churches. What is missing from the list of organizations funded this way are what would count in most people's minds as real charities.

Lots of large corporations signed on. After all they don't have anything against "giving back" to charity. What they didn't realize was that they were funding some very specific political policies. As these corporation discovered they were being duped they started pulling out of the program. That has pissed off fundamentalist hate leaders like Barber who, of course, says "the gays" are to blame. Gays are to fundamentalists what Jews are to Nazis, the all-encompassing scapegoat for every social ill that befalls them.

Barber says that since sponsors of this project are dropping out, when they discover they are financing a political agenda, it means that there is "economic terrorism" going on. Yep, "economic terrorism." Apparently Barber assumes that since people tell businesses they will boycott them if they make political contributions this is "terrorism." Well, actually it is only terrorism when other people do it. Barber himself has demanded boycotts of businesses for not being sufficiently anti-gay to please him. When he does it, it's peachy keen and what Jesus wants. When other people do it, it's "economic terrorism." This is fundy-speak, an Orwellian world where words mean different things for different groups.

Barber goes even further with his latest rant. He now claims that the "sexual anarchist lobby," which includes non-anarchists as well, "want to see those of us who hold traditional values and have a biblical view of sexual behavior and sexual morality; they want to see us behind bars." Hyperbole is the hallmark of the fundamentalist. I know of no such effort to arrest people for being assholes—Barber is safe. He knows he safe but he needs to terrorize the old bigots on his mailing list and this works. He says that the nasty gay anarchists "want to see people like us not able to make a living" and that is why they have this "economic terrorism."

Notice that CGBG is not about "making a living." It is about donations to political groups and religious groups. No one is saying that these people should lose their jobs or that companies should fire them for being annoying asswipes. It is their absolute right to be asswipes and Barber exercises that right on a daily basis. But no one has a right to donation. Donations are freely given gifts and if people decide to not give those donations there is no "terrorism" going on.

But things get more bizarre when you read about how Barber pretends that gays want to put fundamentalists "behind bars." Watch the video below of fundamentalist Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association. Fischer claims there is "no reason" that homosexual sodomy shouldn't be a criminal offense in this country. Criminal? So who wants to jail whom? See, that's more of the fundy speak. People who don't donate to them want to put them in jail but when they actually want to make being gay a criminal offense, which means jail, they are just being loving.

By the way, for the record, sodomy laws did not make homosexuality per se a sexual offense. The laws were much more complex. Sometimes homosexual acts were covered by such laws and some homosexual sex was NOT covered by such laws. The laws often applied to oral sex between any consenting adults, including husband and wife but not oral sex between two women. And in many cases two men having sex in private couldn't be prosecuted even if they both admitted they had sex, in some states it required a third party witness. Fischer doesn't know the facts about sodomy laws in America, but then knowledge and fundamentalism rarely go together.

What's Their Excuse Now?

2011-08-30T22:50:00.002+02:00

Over the years I've run into libertarians (real ones) who justified their support for a conservative like Ron Paul with the excuse: "He's better than anyone else running."

They admitted that Paul wasn't really all that libertarian but they used the dismal records of the other candidates to justify drinking the Rondroid Kool-Aid.

They weren't thrilled with Ron's rabid immigrant bashing, his voting for the wall along the border, or his denying that he once supported abolishing the immigration department. They weren't happy that Ron simply lied about libertarian positions he once took and now pretends he never did.

They were not happy with Ron's record of voting against measures that reduce trade barriers under the pretense that they didn't totally abolish them. They didn't buy that excuse since it would argue that a tax cut is wrong unless it abolishes all taxes.

They were not happy with Ron's bigotry and appeals to racists and the like in his sleazy newsletters, his business venture with fellow conservative bigot, Lew Rockwell.

But, they argued, he was still better than the other choices.

But Gary Johnson got into the race and did so before the befuddled Texan joined the race. So what did the Rondroids do? Did they recognize that Gary was good where Ron was shitty, good where Ron was good, and had NONE of the insane conspiracy theories that Ron entertains? No!

Now they are attacking Gary for ruining Ron Paul's chances.

What are those chances? Zero. Most voters don't know Ron's record. Imagine the first time Ron and Obama square off.

All Obama has to do is read out the hateful, bigoted comments that appeared in Ron's newsletters, under his editorship and under his byline. It matters little whether his business partner, Lew Rockwell, wrote the racist comments or not. Ron approved them. He KNEW they were appearing no matter how often he now denies it. Ron suffers from political induced Alzheimer's, he conveniently forgets things. He forgot he was editor with Rockwell. He forgot he was business partners with Rockwell. He forgot that he signed on to the newsletters and published them over a period of five years. He forgot his wife and daughter were paid staff members of the newsletters—even if they did no work for their salaries. And he claims he forgot who wrote the vile material that appeared under his byline. How convenient!

The senility of the situation should humiliate any decent libertarian. But there are so few decent libertarians left. Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell introduced a poison to the libertarian movement. They promoted the anti-immigrant, anti-gay views of the conservative Right. They pushed the venom of racism and bigotry in a way that the modern libertarian movement has never before experienced. And they attracted a bunch of intolerant, bigoted morons to the movement in the name of a floating abstraction called anarcho-capitalism. This is rather contradictory given Paul's living off of the taxpayers for most his adult life.

Gary Johnson is what libertarianism used to be about, before the sheet-wearing neo-Confederates infiltrated the movement. And he is the only choice for libertarians who remain true to the original definitions of libertarianism.

Wacky Romp on the Religious Right

2011-08-27T20:48:00.006+02:00

You know we're getting into election when the Religious Right goes bonkers, making bizarre statements and hiding their own little scandals. It's been a busy few days.

Of course, we have the scandals of two Republican legislators, both with anti-gay records, getting caught in their own little gay scandals. Indiana Representative Phil Hinkle claimed his brain "snapped" and caused him to try to hire, then sexually assault, an 18-year-old man but rest assured, Hinkle said he's not gay. Puerto Rican Republican senator Robert Arango took rather intimate photos of his anus and posted them to a gay "meet up" site. His justification for the photos was he was documenting his recent "weight loss." Okay!

Then there was Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who speaks at rallies held by the sexual equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan, the National Organization for (sic) Marriage run by that rotund little bigot Maggie Gallagher. Actually Maggie is very pro-marriage. This explains why she had her first child out of wedlock, and why she is now on her second marriage. I believe, if my math is correct, she has had children by three different men to date. Her current hubbie is Raman Srivastav. Maggie not only hides him away but won't use her married name. I guess the kind of pro marriage people she deals with don't take kindly to her current marriage to a man who is not "Caucasian" and who is NOT a Christian. Given how Maggie wears her religion on her sleeve, it is no accident she avoids being seen in public with her husband and refuses to use his name. But, back to Levin, who told the world that earthquake that was centered in Virginia was God's punishment to New York for gay marriage. Yep, he knows what motivates God.

Well, the dike has broken with that sort of nonsense. The senile, rambling Ron Paul of religion, Pat Robertson, said the Virginia earthquake "means that we're closer to the coming of the Lord." I wonder how long these morons can keep that mantra up? Earthquakes have been a common, daily occurrence for as long as the planet has existed. God really is a dork to pick a "sign" that happens daily. It is of no use to indicate his "message" since they happen constantly, no matter what "sins" the people are engaging in. God has to be rather stupid. This is like picking sunlight to predict the end of the world. Every day the sun shines and the world still hasn't ended. All I can conclude is that Jehovah would have to be as dumb as his followers.

Of course, Robertson can't be outdone by a Christ-crucifying rabbi so he upped the ante and claimed that the crack in the Washington Monument is a "sign from the Lord" and is "symbolic." You might remember that senile Pat said the Haiti earthquake was because Haitians had a secret "pact" with the devil.

According to surveys about 38% of Americans believe that natural disasters are messages from God. I note this is almost the same percentage of people who believe support the Republicans as advocates of free markets and limited government. Clearly this proves that once you believe one piece of bullshit, you are prone to believe other pieces. Note, I'm not saying free enterprise and limited government are bullshit, I'm saying that Republican "support" for these things is bullshit. God's Own Party remains a big government organization.

Meanwhile, another crazy woman from the Right, Linda Harvey of "Mission America," has decided that the way to solve the "gay problem" is to announce that gay people simply DO NOT exist. On wacky right radio she said: "There's one big fact that's not backed up." Read that several times and it still won't make sense. It is a contradiction. If it's not backed up, then it is not "one big fact." But what gets more bizarre is that the unsubstantiated fact is "There is no proof that there's ever anything like a gay, lesbian or bisexual or transgendered child, or teen or human." Okay, so her inability to speak English meant she said the opposite of what she was trying say.

She seems to be saying that there is no such thing as gay people, or bisexuals or transgendered people. She was ranting about a program to teach respect of others. She says this really means respect not for people "but for homosexual lifestyle." She says the "The PR campaign to hold up gay as a good thing: the lifestyle, not the person, because there are no such humans." When I hear sentences such as that, I become sympathetic to the bigots who want to make English the official language.

Harvey simply can't put a complete sentence together. Entire clauses appear to be missing. But, what she is saying is that you can't teach respect for gay people because gay people do not exist. There is only something called a "homosexual lifestyle," which apparently even homosexuals can't agree upon. From the "lifestyle" that I'm seeing being pushed by "activists" and "radicals," in the non-existent gay community, is to get married, settle down, and maybe have children. Wait a second! Isn't that the heterosexual lifestyle? Of course, the way the sentence is worded Harvey may simply be saying she doesn't think gay people are humans. It's hard to tell when you're clearly dealing with someone who doesn't speak English well.

Meanwhile, the Religious Right had to deal with the funeral of one of their own. Rev. Zachery Tims was pastor of the mega-church New Destiny Christian Center. Tims was found dead in a hotel in New York City. He had a "glassine envelope containing white powder" on his person. No doubt it was Sweet 'n Low or something similar. Surely it wasn't an illegal substance in spite of Tims history of drug abuse problems.

According to the church's website Tims was a "troubled" youth who was "miraculously saved, instantly delivered from drug addictions and called into ministry." Hmm, I hope that "miraculously saved" part worked better than the "instantly delivered" part. Having escaped from the world of fundamentalism I can assure you that dishonest claims about being "instantly delivered" are rampant on the religious right. The one thing they can not tolerate is reality.

I remember when a porno theater burned down and a well known fundamentalist minister was among the dead. His followers had an instant explanation for his presence. He went there to "minister to" the men attending the film. Sure, he went to the porno theater to give them a hand or something like that. When Southern Baptist leader Lonnie Latham was caught propositioning a male police office for oral sex he tried the "I was in the area pastoring to police" excuse as well. It didn't work. Giving a cop a blow job is not the same thing as pastoring.

They can't face the truth about evolution. They can't face the facts about gay people. They can't even face the facts about drug addiction. They make up bullshit to try and rescue a theology befitting the Dark Ages. Since they can't accept the reality that their religion is so much BS, they twist reality and lie constantly. So, yes, we get scandals about drug addicted ministers dying in a out-of-state hotel room with a suspicious powder on their person. We get "exgay" leaders caught in bed with same-sex individuals they claim to be counseling. We get anti-gay Republicans claiming they posted their anal opening on a gay site to document weight loss, or who claim they "snapped" and that caused them to hire a male prostitute. Of course, who can forget Rev. George Rekers, an antigay leader of the cure-gays kind, who was caught with a pretty boy prostitute that he took to Europe.

Rekers still has the most articulate excuse. He claims he asked this boy to accompany him and give him nude, genital massages, because he needed someone to "Lift my Luggage."

Sure, we all need someone to life our luggage now and then. But only fundamentalists feel compelled to lie about it.

Republican says nude photos to document weight loss

2011-08-27T00:35:00.004+02:00

Part of the American empire is Puerto Rico, which isn't quite a state, but is part of the country, something immigration officials periodically forget due to their lack of education.

Roberto Arango is a senator in the legislature there and a top official in the Republican Party. He was also revealed to have posted naughty pictures of himself to a gay website. His excuse is a gem:

You know I've been losing weight. As I shed that weight, I've been taking pictures. I don't remember taking this particular picture but I'm not gonna say I didn't take it, I'd tell you if I remembered taking the picture but I don't.

The problem with this excuse is that a photo of one rectum doesn't quite document weight loss. I don't have problem with nude photos or even people documenting weight loss with said photos. But really, this is not the pose that one would expect under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, for an update on another Republican hypocrite go below the asshole below:

You will remember that we recently posted about anti-gay Republican Phil Hinkle, a representative in the Indiana state legislature. Hinkle tried to hire a young man for a sexual encounter recently and instead found the young man rather upset by his aggressive gropes and his bragging about his political position. Hinkle didn't want to let the young man leave the hotel room as the nude Republican started fondling the clothed young man. Well, that didn't work out well as the young man fled the scene and the sister of said young man went to the media about it.

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, trying to protect the hypocritical image of moralistic Republican assholes (see above) called on Hinkle to resign his seat, as opposed to fondling the seat of the said young man. Hinkle recently meet with a reporter and rambled on for 90 minutes. He admits he offered to pay the youth for a "really good time," and admits he sent the emails soliciting him, and rented a hotel room for the romp he was expecting. But, he absolutely denies offering anything to the young man to keep the incident secret, which is hard to explain after he gave the young man some valuable items to try to buy his silence.

The reporter asked Hinkle if he has done this before, with young men. Hinkle refused to answer saying, "We're not going there." Hmm, I take that to be a yes.

The reporter says Hinkle fluctuated between quoting the Bible and condemning "judgmental Bible thumpers." I guess the problem Hinkle has is who gets thumped. When he thumps gay people with the Bible that's just peachy. When his feel Bible-thumpers thump him, for precisely the same thing, he gets defensive.

He didn't pretend he was in the room for a weight-loss therapy session. He instead says he is now in therapy because something "upstairs in my brain went off that sent me down a road to self-destruction. Somewhere upstairs a button got pushed and I want to know why. People keep asking: 'What were you thinking?' I honestly don't know. It's as simple as that." Ah, no, it is more simple than that. No button was pushed, Mr Hinkle, you just went out and hired a male for sex and got caught you hypocritical fucktard!

Hinkle insists that he and the young man only talked about baseball. He doesn't explain why he was nude to talk about baseball. He says he went to the bathroom and the young man vanished with the very items the young man says he was given as an attempt to bribe his silence. Of course, Hinkle, being the forgiving conservative that he is, won't file charges against the young man for theft. How convenient. But Hinkle will not resign, though he won't run for office again.

God hates herring!

2011-08-24T22:01:00.006+02:00

Here is the sort of nonsense you get when you replace science with superstition. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, whose faith requires him to look as if an emaciated possum crawled onto his face and died. This hate-filled Rabbi goes into lie after lie to try to prove that his loving God is killing people because God hates gay people as much as the Rabbi does. I find it interesting that when people invent deities they invent ones with all the stupid, petty prejudices that inflict themselves.

I still stand by my observation that when a person invents a god, they invent one that is really a grand version of them self. Bigots like Levin invent gods that are as bigoted as they are. Catholics think God is a big version of the Pope, though I'm not sure he hides the scandals as actively as the Pope does.

Levin says that the earthquake in Haiti was about gays. How? Well, Haiti has a high HIV rate and apparently the silly rabbi doesn't realize it can be spread heterosexually. Actually, contrary to the rants from the Right, HIV is mainly spread heterosexually, not homosexually. Most the HIV victims in the world are heterosexual. Of course, you had that fake libertarian, Ron Paul, telling readers of his hate newsletters that the only way they could not get AIDS unless they "are deliberately infected by a malicious gay." (Gee, what does that House Gay, JR, who licks Ron Paul's boots today, have to say about that? Wasn't he the same person who wrote a book claiming AIDS was a government conspiracy. Today he just engages in cheap anti-Semitism on behalf of Ronnie and Lew.)

Levin now argues that the earthquake on the East Coast was God punishing New York for gay marriage. Apparently God has bad eyesight—which would explain why God doesn't smite Levin for that hideous, scraggly looking beard.

God screwed up. He sent the earthquake to a town called Mineral, Virginia. Now, give or take a few miles, Mineral is 300 miles from New York. So, the malignant being that Levin invents decides to punish New York by sending an earthquake to a small town in Virginia 300 miles. And Virginia is just as anti-gay as the Rabbi. This is divine justice! New York got the residual effects, nothing more. They got shaken up a little bit by an entirely natural process.

Here are the facts, put in terms that even a God-besotted, crazed rabbi can understand. Earthquakes happen every day. They happen all over the world, every day. They happen in places that hate gays, the way the Rabbi demands, and they happen in places where people don't hate gays. Today we had significant earthquakes in Toga, Peru, Turkey, Mexico, and Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not a tolerant place for gay people nor are Peru and Toga known for their "gay scene." There were three large quakes today in the Norwegian Sea, which is hardly a hotbed of gay activity. All that happens there is shipping, fishing and oil rigs. God hates herring!

Yesterday we had significant earthquakes in such "gay friendly" places as Indonesia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Colombia and New Guinea. In the past week Vanuatu has had 19 significant earthquakes. They get over 2,000 "seismic events" per year. I checked with "Gay Vanuatu" to see what could be causing all this shaking. Their site says, "there is no active 'gay scene' in Vanuatu." Gee, with 2,000 seismic events per year, and 19 significant earthquakes in the last week, according to the crazy Rabbi's theory they should be buggering on the beaches as we speak.

The god of Levin is clearly a buffoon. And if he did exist he should sue Levin and those like him for lible. This is laughable, or at least it would be, if it weren't so clearly animated by hatred for gay people. Rabbi Levin is a theological clown, which may explain that beard.

Gay 911 victims treated differently.

2011-08-23T00:28:00.000+02:00

A question for Libertarians

2011-08-22T03:11:00.002+02:00

There are a lot of libertarians who still buy into the Ron Paul myth, I'm sad to say. Ron is no libertarian. He's a paleoconservative and his voting record backs that up. In addition he has all the crazy shit he gets from the Birch Society and continues to spew out.

But what I find surprising is how gullible some libertarians are regarding Ron's excuses for all this. Take the newsletter that Ron edited and sold, during his stint out of office, between his LP presidential bid and his next Congressional race.

Ron was listed as co-editor of the newsletter. There was a staff of four people, including his wife and daughter. So it was hardly a huge enterprise. It published some pretty bigoted remarks about blacks and gays and had the usual crazy Ron Paul shit about conspiracies.

In his Congressional race the issue of his newsletters came up. Ron took full credit for the material, said he wrote it, and claimed that he was just being quoted out of context. Actually, in context it was damn awful as well. But Ron did not dispute his role in producing this newsletter nor his authorship of the articles. Remember also that these articles had been appearing for a period of five years.

When Ron next decided to build his group's bank account by "running" for president the issue of the newsletters came up again. This time he said the opposite of what he said before. He no longer stood by what he wrote. In fact, he claimed he didn't write it. And he claimed he didn't know it was going on.

Odd that he didn't know what was going out under his by line for a period of five years. Odder still that neither his wife nor daughter decided to let him in on the secret that the publication paying them a salary, was spewing bigotry. Odd that Ron's co-editor and good buddy, Lew Rockwell, also never told Ron what was being published. Odder still is that over the five years Ron never heard about this from a single reader, campaign supporter, friend, or fan anywhere, at anytime, during the entire period it was going on.

But there are libertarians who buy every word of this. Why? I suggest for one reason only, because they like Ron and don't want to give up their illusions.

So here is a mental exercise. Pretend there was the Sarah Pallin Newsletter. Pretend it said the same bigoted things that Ron said. Pretend that Sarah's husband and daughter were both employed by it. Pretend the she was co-editor and that the other co-editor was her business partner and good friend. And pretend the only other staff member was Sarah's campaign manager.

Now pretend the newsletters are exposed and Sarah admitted she wrote them, took credit for it but claimed she was being taken out of context. But later Sarah claims she didn't write them. She even claims she didn't know it was being done in her name. In addition she wants you to believe that she found out about any of this during the entire five years it was happening, over and over again.

Would you believe her? Somehow I doubt it. I am sure the Palin fans out there would accept this on face value just because their guru said it. That is, after all, how personality cults operate. People don't like to acknowledge their idols have clay feet. And sometimes they just go through some bizarre mental gymnastics to avoid having to acknowledge the obvious because they don't want to lose another icon they worship. I suggest that this is precisely how Ron Paul is treated by some "libertarians."

Another Republican in a "morals" scandal.

2011-08-13T03:33:00.004+02:00

The French comedy film, Le Cage aux Folles, has the son of two gay men engaged to the daughter of the deputy leader of a French version of the Moral Majority. The deputy leader just learns that the leader of the moral order has died of a heart attack while in bed with a prostitute, who was both underaged and black. Not knowing the truth about his daughter's fiance's family he concocts the idea that a nice, wholesome wedding would save their image. From this premise all humor flows.

Republicans are the organized political party of the moralistic crowd in America. They promote "family values," which is code for "we hate gays." Taking their clues from insane American fundamentalists the GOP assumes that hating gays is the height of morality. Doing unto others, in their mind, requires punishing people for their perceived moral shortcomings.

I have long contended that the conservative obsession with morality is the direct result of these individuals knowing their own heart all too well. They fear "sin" in others because they know exactly how corrupt they themselves happen to be. Conversely, the desire of those on the Left to impose charity, via the state, on others, is the result of their knowledge that they are not charitable when given the opportunity. Political groups tend to want the state to compensate for the moral shortcomings that they themselves possess.

And once again a Right-wing, moralistic Republican politician has stepped forward to prove my thesis. The Republican in question is Indiana state representative, Phillip Hinkle. An 18-year-old male had placed an online ad looking for a "sugga daddy." The implication was clearly an exchange of sex for cash, which certainly is a far more honorable profession than, say, being a state representative.

Hinkle emailed the man saying, "Cannot be a long time sugar daddy, but can for tonight. Would you be interested in keeping company for a while tonight?" In keeping with his "fiscal conservative" nature Hinkle actually went on the cheap. He offered the young man $80 to spend time with him at a local Indianapolis hotel. He told the young man that he would give him an additional tip of $50 or $60 "for a really good time." Hinkle told the young man, "I am an in shape married professional, 5'8", fit 170 lbs, and love getting and staying naked."

The young man, Kameryn Gibson replied, "Yes, I can!" Hinkle offered to pick up the young man at his home and drive him to the hotel. He also suggested, "If u want to consider spending night u might tell ur sis so she won't worry. Would have u back before 11 tomorrow. No extra cash just free breakfast and maybe late night snack." No extra cash! For a full night! He's not only a hypocrite but a cheap hypocrite to boot! Gibson gave his address and Hinkle picked him up.

At the hotel Gibson was told to go to the room by himself first, so that that the two would not be seen together. Hinkle waited about 15 minutes and entered the room and stripped and then wrapped a towel around his waist. At this point he mentioned to Gibson that he was a legislator and showed an ID card. Gibson, perhaps realizing he was dealing with a particularly loathsome and low class of human being—a politician—did what any self-respecting prostitute would do; he told Hinkle, "I don't want to do this."

Hinkle got upset that Gibson wanted out and supposedly him "You need to do this, because I came and got you, and I'm not taking you back until we do what we need to do."

Gibson made a beeline for the bathroom and called his sister who said she would be there momentarily to pick him up. Upon leaving the bathroom Gibson was told by Hinkle that he couldn't leave. Gibson called his sister again who read the riot act to Hinkle and told him that he didn't let her brother leave she would call the police and the media.

According to Gibson, when the pair hung up, Hinkle grabbed Gibson's upper arm to stop him, reached around to grab the young man's ass and then dropped his towel to put his Republican jewels on display. When Megan Gibson arrived to pick up her brother she again cussed out Hinkle telling him she was calling the police and the media. Hinkle panicked and offered her his iPad, BlackBerry and $100 in cash. Stupidly, in my opinion, she took what Hinkle offered and left with her brother.

She says she started getting calls on the BlackBerry from a woman who said she was Hinkle's equally Republican wife. Megan responded, "Your husband is gay." Mrs. GOP said, "You have the wrong person." Megan recounted the email address used to solicit her brother and the wife went silent and then said, "Please don't call the police."

Megan says that various family members of Hinkle started calling demanding to see proof of the email exchange between the politician and her brother. Megan dropped Kameryn off at home and was asked to come back to the hotel to meet Hinkle's daughter who wanted to see the emails. They were shown to her. Shortly Hinkle's wife called Megan and offered her $10,000 to remain quiet. Then Hinkle himself called Megan. Megan told him that she had told his wife and family that he was gay. She said Hinkle said, "You just ruined me." No, she didn't! The ruin of Hinkle was entirely self-induced.

When the media questioned Hinkle about the incident he did not deny the email exchange but described the encounter as a "shakedown." Shakedown? Isn't that what Republicans and Democrats do to taxpayers on a regular basis? His attorney wouldn't clarify what "shakedown" meant, would only say they were "investigating" the matter and then appealed to everyone to "respect" his client's privacy. Privacy? Really! Think about it for a second. Hinkle is a moralistic Republican who supports the laws that criminalized his own proclivities. Sure, if the law only applied to moralistic assholes in office that would be one thing, but these laws apply to everyone in the whole state. When you criminalize the sexual activities of consenting adults you are invading the privacy of every adult in the state.

Hinkle had no respect for the private lives of others. He was hoisted on his own petard.

Now, let us look at what was going on here, and not at the spin that Hinkle is trying to use. Gibson placed an ad on Craigslist making it clear that he would like to meet other men for sexual encounters. He had no knowledge that Hinkle would respond. Hinkle contacted him and expressed a desire to meet. Gibson asked why they should meet and Hinkle offered him money and said he would pick him up. If this were just an innocent friendship there would be no offer of cash by Hinkle and no promise of a tip for a really "good time."

Hinkle, knowing he was soliciting a teen-aged male for sex sent Gibson to the room by himself to avoid being seen entering the hotel together. Upon getting to his room Hinkle strips naked and wraps a towel around his waist. He was ready to go and making it clear. Hinkle stupidly says who he is sending Gibson into a panic who says he wants to leave. Hinkle won't allow it, he did, after all, drive to pick Gibson up and wanted what he contracted for before he would let the young man leave.

Once Hinkle, and then his family, realized that they had a potential scandal on their hands, he and they started offering things to Gibson, and his sister, to try and buy their silence. Let us be clear, it is obvious that Hinkle knew he soliciting a young man for sexual purposes. Everything he did implied he was fully aware of what he was doing. This was no miscommunication. And, it was no shakedown, since Gibson had no way of making Hinkle respond, did not know Hinkle was a politician until Hinkle stupidly revealed that fact—perhaps in the hope of thinking it would impress the young man he was trying to get into his bed.

The offer of $10,000 cash was not accepted and it was Megan Gibson who went to press, saying she thought Hinkle was "creepy" and that since he was a politician the public should know what he was up to. Gibson provided the emails to the press and allowed them to inspect them, as well as showing them the phone log to verify calls from Hinkle. Hinkle, in his "illustrious" career as a political bottom-feeder, has pushed for prayer in state schools, supports "abstinence-only" sex education, was a co-sponsor of legislation to deny marriage rights for gay couples, and pushed through legislation to put "In God We Trust" on car license plates. He is anti-abortion rights, supported a state-wide ban in public places, wants to punish private businesses for hiring "illegal" immigrants, and supported mandating seat belts. He is also anti-gambling. I can see why. He took a bit risk calling a teenaged male for sex, and he lost big time.

Come On, Live Free

2011-08-06T01:23:00.001+02:00

The Gary Johnson Campaign has put out this think piece.

A charming reminder of the ugly side of Dr. No.

2011-08-02T06:51:00.005+02:00

People might have forgotten the sort of things that Ron Paul's newsletter said. You will remember that he retired from Congress before. And then used his mailing list to solicit subscriptions to his new political report, which was written by Paul, Lew Rockwell and a few others. Rockwell and Paul were business partners in it with Rockwell as editor and a major ghostwriter for Paul. The same mailing list when, as I understand it, later used by Rockwell to solicit donations to start the paleoconservative Mises Institute.

Here are a few charmers from the newsletter.

When Al Sharpton and others were pushing to rename New York City after King, the newsletter suggested other names, all charming.

Welfaria

Zooville

Rapetown

Dirtburg

Lazyopolis

The newsletter said demonstrations in favor of honoring King in this way were better held "at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

When a gay reporter criticized the commentator Andy Rooney for anti-gay remarks, the newsletter said he "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."

In the June 1990 issue Ron was attributed with saying: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

The January, 1994 issue said that gay men in San Francisco "don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." As for the issue of AIDS, it said that gay men "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick." In the Dec. 1989 issue he quoted Right-wing Bill Dannemeyer claiming that "the average homosexual has 1,000 or more partners in a lifetime." In January, 1990 they ridiculed the "Silence=Death" campaign, on AIDS awareness, by suggesting it should be changed to "Sodomy=Death." In September, 1994 he assured his white, heterosexual readers that unless they have sodomy, or a blood transfusion, or swap needles that they are "virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay."

In a letter urging various Right-wing loons, anti-Semites and bigots to subscribe to his newsletter Paul wrote: "I''ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grover-perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

So, Ronnie laid bare "the coming race war" in America's cities. That was over two decades ago; did we have a race war when I wasn't looking? Nope. In Dec. 1989 Paul ran an article "The Coming Race War," that said: "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." Paul said "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" In 1992 he said: "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming." Hmm, were those "animals" the black race rioters he was paranoid about? He blamed liberals for preventing "white America from taking action against black crime and welfare."

But back then Paul was pandering to what they called "Outreach to the Rednecks" where they would forge a paleoconservative/paleolibertarian alliance. So you will find various issues favorable citing the white supremacist Jared Taylor. Taylor is a long time racist, and has just released his newest screed "White Identity." But he's been in the race baiting business for decades and was so when cited by the Paul newsletter as an authority.

I got Paul's newsletters at the time and these were the final straw for me. I stopped supporting him entirely after reading year after year of these hateful letters.

Yes, I know Ron, claims he doesn't know who wrote the material. Odd that the paid staff of the newsletter was Paul's wife, his daughter, Lew Rockwell and one other person, who ran his campaigns. There aren't many to pick from. Apparently we have to believe that Paul's wife, daughter, campaign manager, and business partner/friend Lew Rockwell, all kept Paul in the dark about the hateful material that was being distributed in Ron's name, sometimes under his byline. We also have to believe that Ron never got curious enough to read one of his own newsletters, and that in the period of years that this was going on, not one single reader brought the bigotry to his attention. I don't find that plausible. Add in that Ron claims he can't remember the mystery employees name, that no other employees showed up on the tax records, and that Ron refused to investigate who it might have been. It is obviously his attempt to lie his way out of the mess he got into.

I just wanted to remind people as to what sort of venom Ron Paul was peddling to his readers over a period of several years. I know his cult following will simply ignore it. But there are a lot of decent libertarians who do not take kindly to bigotry, at least I hope there are.

Radical hater of Islam edits web page to hide evidence.

2011-07-29T23:40:00.008+02:00

Some years ago I stumbled across a web page entitled Atlas Shrugs. Being a fan of Ayn's and friendly with many friends of Ayn's, I went to the page to see what it had to offer. I was thoroughly disgusted by the rabid, irrational, hateful tone that permeated the material that I read at the time. I have had no reason to assume the site got better and never returned to it, considering it a smear on Rand. Admittedly Ayn sometimes got things wrong, but this web site was so consistently wrong, and so consistently nasty, that I saw it as a haven for deranged minds, not for reasoned debate.

We know the voice behind this fake Atlas site is a radical named Pam Geller. And we know that the killer in Oslo, the cultural conservative with a gun and a tendency to kill young people to destory "Maxist multiculturalism" and stand up to "political correctness," was an extremist named Anders Behring Breivik. Breivik was a fan of Geller's—reading his 1500 "manifesto" makes that clear.

And, there is good reason to believe that Geller actually published an email from Breivik, one that actually warned of possible violent intentions. Here is a page of an "Email from Norway" that Geller published, at least this is how the page reads today. Read it and see if you can find the warning about intended violence. Click on the image to englarge it for easier reading.

Notice anything? Of course you didn't. Since the actual armed attack. it appears that Geller has removed material from the original post she published, which quite clearly indicated violent intentions by her corespondent. Here is the same page from her site BEFORE she selectively hid material from public view.

You will note a sentence that I have highlighted in blue. This is a screencapture from Google web cache. It is currently on line here. But that will disappear at some point, which is why I did a screencapture, to preserve the image forever. Notice that the Norwegian correspondent told Geller: "We are stockpiling and caching weapons and equipment. This is going to happen fast." It is possible that Geller actually knew the identity of the man who wrote the letter indicating he was preparing for armed conflict. Please notice this from the comment section, which, as of today, Geller has forgotten to scrub clean of evidence.

Again, you can click on it to enlarge it. But commenter "turn" refers to the email from Norway as "A very nice letter to you, Pam, from a Norwegian Atlasite (Atlasonian?). Unfortunately, he or she could be prosecuted under hate-speech laws for writing or posting in Norway what you have passed on to us." Geller response says: "yes, turn, which is why I ran it anonymously." Get that? She doesn't say she didn't know the identity of the author, she implies she actually knew the identity and made the decision to run the piece anonymously so as to protect his identity.

Especially appalling to me is that while seeking to protect the identity of the author she found nothing wrong about originally publishing his comments about stockpiling weapons and equipment to prepare for the onslaught. Even after the writer implied he might well be prepared to go on some sort of assault, Geller intentionally hide his identity to protect him.

And now, that Breivik has gone on an armed attack, killing dozens of innocent, mostly young people, Geller goes on to edit out information from her own web site that may have bearing on the murders. Certainly if I were the Norwegian police I would be having a long talk with Ms. Geller and would take over her website to search for the identity of the author of that email. I would check to see if he wrote other comments to Geller and try to determine how much Geller knew and when she knew it. If she denied any knowledge or suspicion that her Norwegian correspondent was Breivik I would ask her for the author's identity, which she seems to acknowledge knowing. He could be dangerous as well.

I would want to know why she didn't pass on that information, which with minimal follow up may have prevented the terrorists attack by this cultural conservative. Right-wing web sites are defending Geller and she, loud-mouthed as normal, is shrilly insisting that just because Breivik was a regular reader of her site doesn't mean she has any responsibility for his actions.

True, she doesn't, not for that. She insists that "she has not met or communicated with Breivik at all. Not ever. 'No dealings, mo emails, no nothing,' Geller said."

Here is the problem I have with this. She did get an email from Norway, from someone whose identity she seems to have known and which she choose to list as anonymous. That email referred to preparing for some sort of armed attack of one kind or another. After the Breivik incident Geller careful removes the reference to the armed attack, perhaps assuming no one would notice that one sentence difference from the original.

If the email correspondent was NOT Breivik there is little need to edit out the statement, except perhaps to hide evidence that she was in correspondence with another potentially violent Norwegian. I suspect that when she learned of the attack, she remembered the email and feared that it could, or knew that it was, Breivik. So she went and selectively edited the email to remove the reference to potential armed conflict. She could have written a clarification if she KNEW it was not Breivik. For instance, she could have said:

"Dear Readers: Since this was published the tragic shooting in Oslo took place. The author of the email made a reference to stockpiling weapons, which I feel may be misinterpreted in light of current events. I did not see the remarks then, as they might be interpreted now, and have removed them. The author's identity is known to me and this author is the not man arrested in Oslo."

If she was honestly unaware of the identity, which her own comment below the article makes unlikely, she should say: "I am not sure of the identity of this article. In light of current events I have turned it over to the Norwegian authorities for further investigation and will cooperate where I can to help see to it that justice is done."

Neither is how Geller choose to act. Instead she scurried about to delete and hide evidence from her own website. And if there is any reason to suspect she knows more than she is admitting it is precisely her actions to hide evidence that give those suspicious credibility.

A bit of Objectivist History

2011-07-29T22:58:00.005+02:00

Destruction (Andy Moore) from Sean Locke on Vimeo.

Here is a video from 1972 which shows the last stages of the demolition of the Richard Neutra House at 10000 Tampa Ave, Chatsworth, CA. The home was built in 1935 by architect Neutra. Ayn Rand purchased the home when she returned to Hollywood to do screen writing. She later sold the home after moving back to New York City. Below are some photos of the home.

Consuming hate: the imperialist passion

2011-07-23T21:56:00.005+02:00

A man, with apparently little qualms, walked through a crowded youth camp randomly killing dozens of kids, the death count appears to be reaching around 90. He is consumed with hatred for Muslims, yet it is not Muslims that he kills. His victims are young Norwegians.

Do not get confused. I am not saying it would have been better had he killed some Muslims instead. I am just pointing out how his hatred became so displaced that he ended up snuffing out the lives of young people who previously he wanted to save from the so-called evils of multiculturalism.

Anders Behring Breivik has been described by police as "Right-wing Christian fundamentalist." I wish I could be surprised but my journey among fundamentalists tells me they are hateful people. They are people obsessed with hatred. They constantly look for the "evil" in others to damn it, condemn it, and punish it.

But often, as much as they hate gays, Muslims, feminists, and others, the people they are most likely to harm are those closest to themselves.

People tell me that being consumed by hatred can be good, if you hate the right people. But the more I see hatred in action the less I am convinced by such advice. Instead I see people consumed with hatred becoming less and less able to distinguish between potential victims.

I think of a radical "libertarian" group that prided itself on being the guardians of purity. Lead by an impish little "intellectual" this organization would go around chanting "smash the state." But they never smashed the state. They became consumed by the desire to smash and, like their guru, spent most their time smashing other libertarians. They were, and are, impotent when it comes to smashing the state. So their desire to smash something gets twisted into an attack on people most like themselves.

Yes, hatred can be a powerful motive. But I see people often so given over to the hatred that they cease to discriminate about where they focus their rage. And, too often, the desire to destroy becomes so powerful that they don't give a damn anymore as to who is their victim.

I have trouble finding the positive in hate. I see hatred turning into rage and rage turning in violence. Through that metamorphosis it becomes less and less discriminating until it simply turns into a hatred for everything or everyone.

Rarely does hate pinpoint its targets. It tends to broaden them beyond any justification in fact or history. For instance, a man who is the victim of a crime by someone of another race may easily learn to hate the entire race, not just hate the person who victimized him. Hatred isn't a laser beam capable of focusing on minute, specific targets. It tends to be cluster bombs destroying anything and everything within a relatively large area. Previously I wrote:

Hatred is an imperialistic motive, it always seeks to conquer new territory, and it seeks to expand in a person’s life. There is a reason that you find bigotry against one group often accompanied by bigotry against multiple groups. The typical Jew-hater I’ve met also hates black people and gay people. The fundamentalist who despises gay rights is often equally opposed to Mormons, Jews, Catholics, and others.

People inspired by hatred easily become violent. And violence is inherently destructive. That is precisely why a libertarian opposes institutional violence or coercion. Violence breeds more violence, it takes a society on a downward spiral. Martin Luther King wisely said: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.” Action inspired by hatred teeters constantly on the edge of violence.

And that is contrary to the basic principles of peaceful cooperation that is at the heart of libertarianism. Hatred fuels hatred and evils multiply. Our first priority as libertarians is the defense of the rights of the individual, not opposition to some policy or government. Policies change, governments change, but individual rights are a constant.

What distinguishes libertarians from the anti-government crowd is not that we oppose many government policies but that we support the rights of the individual. Ours is an agenda inspired by positive values, by the love of human freedom, by our belief in the sanctity of the thinking mind, not by hatred for a president, or an administration, or any government.

Obama still in trouble, but so is the country.

2011-07-16T04:05:00.003+02:00

Once again, we are approaching a sad presidential election, plagued by pathetic choices, phony rhetoric, theocratic pandering and more sleaze than you can shake a stick at.

The most recent Gallup survey indicates that voters would flock to a Republican over Obama, this when no Republican is specifically mentioned. The most recent poll shows Obama has the support of 39% of the public, a generic Republican would win 47% and 15% aren't thrilled with that selection at all.

This blogger has long contended that the independent voters in America are mostly voting against whoever holds power at the time. And they swing the elections. As go the independents so goes the nation. Independents are the more libertarian voters in their outlooks. They are not going to get hardons because Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann smear and slander gay people—that fetish only appeals to the shrinking religious right. Nor do independents much care for Obamacare, the wars, spending deficits or taxes. The least libertarian voters tend to be Republicans and Democrats, both brainlessly wedded to their own narrow ideologies, incapable of thinking outside the box, and doing their best to demonize anyone who doesn't agree with them.

So, while this poll gives the GOP some cause for hope, they should remember that generic Republicans are not offensive, but real Republicans are. Come on, think about it: someone like Santorum or Bachmann is almost entirely offensive. Palin would send half the voters in fits of hysterical laughter. The independents are not likely to go for a theocrat. Befuddled old conservatives are not really that hot, and Ron Paul really doesn't intend to run for president anyway—just fund raise so he has a hefty fund to "donate" to his own 501(c)3. Sadly Paul would actively be undercutting the libertarian Gary Johnson.

Johnson, in my opinion, is someone that independent voters could take a liking to, which means someone that will offend the god addicts in the GOP. Johnson is libertarian across the board. He's good on civil liberties, a major failing for Paul; he's good on economic issues, and he's anti-war. He is the candidate I always wished Ron Paul would be but wasn't. Better yet, you don't get any paranoid theorizing about international banking elites, the "Amero," "North American Union," the CFR, Bilderbergers, the kind of loony things that Paul has spouted for decades. But, between the Ron Paul "campaign" and the religious right, Governor Johnson will have a difficult time. If he gets through, you can bet I'd actually register and vote for him.

Obama, however, is in trouble. He ignored public opinion regarding his health-care meddling and support for his plan remains low. Most Americans still want his proposal repealed. But I suspect if they count on the Republicans to do it, they will be disappointed.

A little anti-Semitism to go with your nonsense?

2011-07-06T18:27:00.004+02:00

There is a right-wing web site called Big Hollywood, which is primarily conservatives lamenting the state of the culture and entertainment. Gee, as if that's news. They've been lamenting the state of the culture since slavery was abolished. So there is nothing new there. The nature of the conservative is to whine and bitch because life evolves and they don't believe in evolution. They believe the best is always behind us and cling tenaciously to the past.

Now what does it take to be a columnist on Hollywood for Big Hollywood? David Swindle, one of their writers, lists his credentials as having written for various right-wing websites, doing film reviews for an Indiana TV station and living near Hollywood "awith (sic) his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy." Okay, in other words, he doesn't have any credibility, just the politically correct (in right-wing circles) views. His own comments seem to limit his knowledge of Hollywood to "doing political, ideological readings of films."

Swindle, with his huge credentials in the entertainment business—sarcasm alert for conservatives who wouldn't know better—sings the praises of the smarmy, oily whiner named Ben Shapiro. Shapiro is a right-wing media whore who makes a pretty penny telling conservatives what they most want to hear. He got his leg up, so too speak, by bragging to conservatives that he was a virgin. Apparently his lack of experience in the field gave him all the credentials to talk about sex that conservatives thought he needed.

Now Shapiro is out to attack evil Hollywood. What I found rather interesting is that Swindle was quick to pay the "Jew card" in this promotion piece for Shapiro's smear book. Here is how he describes it: "Shapiro wore his Harvard Law baseball cap and interviewed some of Hollywood's most influential television creators. Assuming from his alma mater and last name that he was one of them, the Hollywood insiders were too honest for their own good."

Get that? They assumed based on Shapiro's "last name" that "he was one of them." One of who? A Hollywood television producer? Nope. A Jew! Sorry folks, but when conservatives start pulling out the Jew card and pointing to "Jews" as being behind the destruction of American values, I get nervous. Normally they hide anti-Semitism a bit more than that. The anti-gay shit they spew, well that's just fund-raising heaven for them, from their bigoted base. But referring to someone as "one of them," because he has a Jewish name, is scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Though I do have to say that the picture of Swindle does look like someone who would hang out at white power rallies, right down to the "working man" baseball cap and, what appears to be, a vein attempt to grow a mustache—but it could just be dirt.

Swindle says that little Ben "documents the subversion of the cop and legal dramas from the early day of righteous cops and prosecutors to the nihilism of Hill Street Blues and Picket Fences." Wow! This clearly shows how out of touch with reality that Swindle and Shapiro happen to be. Yes, the early fiction on television portrayed cops and prosecutors as righteous. It was pure, unadulterated bullshit. Reality was never that way. And any unbiased reading of history shows that police and prosecutors frequently were corrupt and dishonest. They still are!

It doesn't take much to document the violent tendencies of cops and how they will frequently lie in court and invent evidence to convict people wrongly, and exonerate themselves from any wrong doing. Any accurate portrayal of these two groups will show this happening—just as the news reports show on a daily basis. Right now Corey Maye is seeing freedom again. Cops wrongly raided his home, breaking down his doors in the middle of the night in a no-knock raid. Maye defended himself from violent attackers and killed one of them. He was sentenced to death based on dicey evidence. He was defending his home, as he had the right to do, and there was no valid search warrant for his house. The cop who died was white, Maye was black and it was the deep South. The cop went along on the raid for the fun of it. He was on a joy ride basically. Maye sat in prison for years based on a police screw up. Should we portray those officers as "righteous?"

Sorry, but Swindle lives in a fairytale if he thinks cops and prosecutors are always "righteous." They aren't. This love for authority betrays the "freedom" slogans that conservatives chant. In the end, they abandon freedom every time and cling to the lash of the police state because it makes them safe. That's important to Swindle who once wrote that living on "Chetamon court," as a child, made him feel safe, and gave him "a sense of security." That is what Swindle wants, security, to feel safe—and freedom is just so damn risky. Bad things might happen. So, in the end freedom loses out.

Now let's also be clear that Shapiro can easily bias his book by selecting, in advance, precisely who he will or won't interview. It's that simple. And you can then crow that everyone you talked to was a Leftist. Just don't talk to the libertarians like Clint Eastwood, Trey Parker, Matt Stone, John Larroquette, Drew Carey, Kurt Russell, Raquel Welch, Orson Bean, Penn and Teller, Jason Reitman, Tom Selleck, Wil Wheaton, Marc Cherry, Tracy Torme, Dennis Leary and others.

Conservatism has various branches, from the Ron Paul paleoconservatives to the neoCons, to the Religious Right, to Buckleyite Catholics, for instance. I could do an expose of the "Conservative Movement" and then only interview the real loons like Pat Robertson, Bryan Fischer, Michelle Bachmann, Gary North and other theocratic authoritarians. Such a book would be dishonest. And I suspect some on the Left would lap it up as indicative of the conservative movement. It wouldn't be accurate but it might be popular.

Shapiro can easily do the same thing simply by ignoring all people in the entertainment world who are not openly left-wing. Here is what I suspect happened. Shapiro decides to make money pimping to the Right again. He can't sell the virgin story again, he's too old and too married to make that fly. And, since the Right loves books bashing someone, he decides to bash Hollywood, a favorite target of the Right for decades. (Contrary to their love fest with the 1950s, the conservatives of the 50s didn't like Hollywood then either, which just illustrates the conservative tendency to consistently like whatever is old, even if they didn't like it when it was new.)

Shapiro then sits down and makes a list of the people he already knows are Left-wing and goes out of his way to interview them. The end result proves what he set out to prove. Which, of course, is precisely what you would expect.

Hollywood is far better than conservatives admit. It is often promoting freedom precisely in those areas where conservatives are enamored with Big Government. While conservatives were still supporting Jim Crow laws, white Southern racism, and "keeping those people in their place," Hollywood was depicting the drama of what happens when you allow racism to dominate politics. Hollywood, not conservatives, was on the side of freedom in that battle. While conservatives were engaging in their "polite" anti-Semitism, while ignoring the more vile kinds that would break out in Right-wing circles, it was Hollywood exposing this sordid bigotry in films like Gentleman's Agreement (1947). Again conservatives were supporting the violation of individual rights while Hollywood took the right side of the battle. Today, slimy toadies of the Right, like Shapiro, are beating the anti-gay drum for what it is worth. Hollywood first portrayed gay people as normal human beings, something that horrified the Right. Hollywood was correct, the Right was wrong, again!

I don't think weasels like Ben Shapiro have a leg to stand on. They are big government advocates themselves, just as long as it's big moralistic, Bible-wielding, intolerant government. For them to chastise Hollywood is ludicrous since their own track record promoting individual rights is so damn pathetic.

And, in closing, Hollywood is market driven. The TV shows that conservatives love to hate tend to be popular and that drives the Right nuts. Glee makes money but conservatives see it as imposition on them, a violation of their rights to control what other people watch. Ditto for the various shows they hate. Yes, now and then, they hate a show that bombs and then they crow this proves they were right. But Hollywood continues to make billions year after year because, more often than not, they sell what the public wants to see. Hate the culture if you want, but don't ignore that it is markets at work, the very markets conservative pretend to support.