Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Woman Calls Cops on Scam—They Kill Her Dog Instead

The cops are already making excuses for this thug. Here a woman calls the police to tell them that there is an online scam. They say they will send a police officer to talk to her. She tells them she won't be home and to call first so she can be there. They ignore her.

The officer goes to the home, when she is away, and then jumps over her fence ignoring the trespassing signs and warnings that there is a guard dog. When the 11-year-old dog appears he shots it to death.

Police routinely kill dogs. This is not an anomaly. This blog has warned about it repeatedly. I think of the woman who opened her door to a police officer who was lost and asking for directions—yea, they aren't so bright these days. Her dog in the house was barking. She was in the doorway and the dog couldn't get out. The officer pulled his gun and shot her dog inside the house. And, like this officer will, he got away with it. Cops cover for their own.

This is why I argue there are no good cops. The bad cops have allies who lie for them in statements, who destroy evidence on their behalf, and who will exonerate them if they are caught. It is very, very rare that a police member will be disciplined in any way that hurts them. The typical response is "paid leave" while a case is investigated. People in the private sector call paid leave a vacation. Of course, the adrenaline junkies in the police force, who get their kicks throwing around their authority, may actually find that a punishment.

What is particularly upsetting is that the good officers know of cops doing things that are criminal. They rarely turn them in. Cops don't generally arrest cops unless the case is very severe and the evidence hard to hide.

This woman, and her children, have learned that one should never call the police for help, unless it is absolutely necessary. My advice remains:

1. Never call the police unless you are convinced that the risk of their presences is lower than the risk of their not being present.

2. If you see the police in pursuit of someone, go in a different direction. Offer them no assistance and stay as far away from them as possible.

3. Teach your children that the police are NOT their friends. The days of Sheriff Andy Griffith are long gone. The police are not there to protect you or your family, they are there to enforce the law and given the over-legislation of the day, chances are you are a criminal.

4. Teach your children to never speak to an officer unless a parent is present. Cops regularly arrest children for things that rational people don't see a crimes.

5. If your school has a "resource officer" demand that they be removed. Many parents deeply regret the presence of police in the schools when their kids end up in jail for something that shouldn't matter. Kids have been arrested for accidentally bringing butter knifes to school, or for drawing a gun. Kids have been arrested for hugging, small children were handcuffed for crying. Kids were arrested for playing a game where they smacked other kids on the butt and ran. Kids have been arrested for asking a teacher for a hug—and we aren't talking high school boys after a teacher but small children.

6. If you are in a safe position, and see the police in action, and can videotape their activities, then you may save an innocent person from going to jail. Cops don't like this, however, and have arrested people for videotaping them acting illegally. But these tapes have regularly saved people from being railroaded into jail by lying officers, swearing under oath in court. The one greatest help to the innocent has been video which proves the testimony of police officers was perjured.

Labels: ,

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Separation of Church and State Makes Santorum Vomit

Above is John Kennedy speaking about separation of church and state. Let us remember the context of the day. Fundamentalists were scurrying about telling voters that Kennedy would take orders from the Vatican and would impose Catholic doctrine through public policy. In this speech Kennedy was speaking to Southern Baptist leaders. But, this was before fundamentalists got a taste of political power and realized they might be able to oppress others in their name of their religion. And that was an entirely different matter.

But, when Kennedy spoke, the idea of separation of church and state was the consensus. There was no "Religious Right" intent on imposing theocratic laws. Santorum said: "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." He said that this very idea would make most people "throw up."

Perhaps, it is time to remind fundamentalists that just because Santorum repeats their hateful slogans, that doesn't make him one of them. He is a Catholic and his doctrines are Catholic. He believes that Protestantism is a false church and that Baptists are heretics. Mr. Santorum's religious views are a radical Catholicism unlike that of most Catholics. Yes, a few fanatics (Jennifer Morse comes to mind) are as extreme as Santorum, but most Catholics don't want the law to reflect church doctrine.

Santorum has claimed that Satan has America in its grips—Satan! Pretty soon he'll be saying that libertarians are demon possessed and should be exorcised. He claims that mainline Protestantism isn't even part of "the world of Christianity as I see it." Some people thought that would alienate fundamentalists, but they hate mainline Protestantism as much as Santorum does. When Santorum rags on mainline Protestants and attacks gay people the fundamentalists think he sounds like them.

Simply put, fundamentalist Christians are not the brightest bulbs around. They are less educated and less informed than the general population. Many of them simply don't know that Santorum is a hated Roman Catholic. They pick up a bit of news here and there and hear him spewing his hateful messages and they shout, "Amen, brother." But, they don't really see him as a "brother" in Christ at all; at least they wouldn't if they knew he was Catholic. Then he would be part of the Great Whore of Babylon—the Vatican.

The media has made much of Romney being a member of the Mormon cult. His sect membership is unusual. After all, less than one in a hundred people attend a Mormon church. And, contrary to Mormon PR material, the sect is not growing but stagnant, even in spite of among Mormon woman. But Santorum's Catholicism is not unusual. About a quarter of all Americans have some affiliation with Catholicism. Of course, most Catholics have enough common sense that they don't take all Catholic doctrine seriously—Santorum is not one them.

So, while Romney's membership in the Mormon cult is widely touted to ignorant fundamentalists, Santorum's rabid Catholicism is more hidden. Romney's religion is in their face, Santorum's is not discussed. His views are talked about but not so much his Catholicism. This is allowing fundamentalists to compare a candidate that sounds as hateful as they do, to a candidate they know is "not a Christian." Truth be told, a huge percentage of fundamentalists would also say Santorum is no Christian, if they focused on his Catholicism.

The way the media has covered the religious debate in God's Own Party (GOP) plays to Santorum's advantage. Now, I don't think it much matters if the Republicans win or the Democrats win. They both are in a race to see which disgusts me most. But, I do know most media employees tend to be Democrats and would rather see Obama win than any Republican. Given that I don't believe the bulk of independent voters will support someone as noxious as Santorum, media coverage of the GOP is helping Obama.

Now, from an entirely practical viewpoint, I won't vote. My vote will make zero difference in outcome, but then neither will your own. The best outcome, as I see it, would be neither party having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. Given that the Republicans are more likely to win control of the House, than the Senate, then Obama winning the White House would do the least harm to liberty and individual rights.

This wouldn't be because Obama much cares for either. But a Republican House is likely to stymie his efforts. So, I'd prefer to see the GOP win the House and Obama win the White House. In that case, a Santorum candidacy would be optimal. Republicans in the House turn into Big Government evangelists the moment a Republican is in the White House. As for the Senate, I'd like to see it as evenly divided as possible.

If I were a Republican seeking political power then I would not want Santorum even in the race. Every time he opens his mouth he alienates independent voters. But, I'm not a Republican. As far as I'm concerned the only decent Republican running was Gary Johnson and he dropped out to run as a Libertarian. If I were to force myself to vote I'd vote for Gary, if he were the LP candidate—maybe. I have little confidence that the LP will give Gary a decent running mate and are more likely to inflict a conservative like Wayne Root, or some ideologue with little understanding of reality. That the LP continues to allow open racists to hold positions in the party, men like David Macko, is just too much for me to stomach.

We need a party that represents the mushy-libertarian middle of American politics. But the Democrats are held hostage by greedy unions, the Republicans are held hostage by religious crazies, and the LP is held hostage by idiots.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Faked Scandal Against Warming Skeptics Backfires Badly.

In the middle of the month a set of documents made the rounds of the media claiming to expose “climate change deniers” at the Heartland Institute. Most of the set of documents were rather innocuous memos for the Heartland Board, and really of no significance. But attached was a “strategy” memo that supposedly outlines plans by Heartland to prevent the teaching of “science” in government schools.

Heartland immediately said that the board documents appeared genuine but that they had to verify them against the original but also said the “strategy” document was fraudulent. This immediately raised the specter of “climategate” when hundreds of emails by warming activist-scientists discussed matters such as preventing scholarly papers refuting their theories from being published. Those emails were later confirmed to be genuine, even though they blustered at the start that they might be fakes. But, what struck me during that scandal was how often defenders of warming alarmism said the issue isn’t so much the validity of the emails in question, but the issue that they were stolen.

The best theory at the time was the theft of those emails was more an individual stumbling upon an open access online that allowed them to access them. They didn’t engage in deception to obtain them, though you might question whether going through an unlocked door online is an ethical problem. I’m not sure myself and am open on that question.

Yet, I’ve not seen any discussion by the alarmists about the deception used to obtain these documents. When “theft” was the issue during climategate, and content wasn’t, they have now reversed course, ignore the theft and concentrate on content. Unfortunately for them, the content they concentrate on was the one fraudulent document. I will shortly go into how we know the piece is fraudulent, as it gives us clues to the perpetrator of the deception. And, now we have even more evidence as to who is the guilty party as well.

Earlier, Ross Kaminsky, a Senior Fellow at Heartland, posted a blog article at American Spectator, which suggested that the likely culprit was warming activist Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute—not the libertarian Pacific Research Institute—bit an environmentalist group instead. After Kaminsky named Gleick as the likely culprit Gleick issued a statement through Huffington Post confessing his role in this escapade.

Gleick has closed comments to his confession and said, “I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials.” Convenient. I will get to Gleick’s confession in a moment. First, we need to see what indicated the strategy document was a fraud and then we can see how Gleick appears to be lying about what he claims happened and his role. Don’t misunderstand; I think he is the guilty culprit. I just think the evidence shows he has only confessed part of his deceptive practices and is hiding the rest. But, in order to show that, we must first understand the indications this strategy memo was a fraud.

Some of the documents were genuine board notes. How were those obtained? Someone called the Heartland Institute and claimed to be a particular board member. He claimed that he did not receive the email with the PDF document for the board and would this employee resend it to a new email address. That was done and then the email address was deleted.

All the original documents were the more innocuous material and were no “smoking gun.” All were created in PDF format and emailed to board members. The real documents were created originally as PDF documents. The so-called memo was a paper document that was then scanned and turned into a PDF document. The memo was the only one with no author listed, and it was produced well after the other documents and only shortly before it was sent to an environmentalist website which immediately announced it to the media, without checking if the document were legitimate.

But they are electronic tags in PDF documents. And the tags in the original, real documents show they were produced at the Heartland offices January 25th. The fraudulent memo was created on February 13th and produced via an Epson printer. And the tags show in which time zone the document is produced. The real ones are in Central Standard Time while the fraudulent one is in Pacific Standard Time; Gleick’s office is in California.

The memo not only concocts a fake strategy but also makes claims that can be verified to be false. For instance, it tries to demonize the Koch brothers by claiming they donated $200,000 in 2011 to Heartland. In fact, the Koch Foundation donated $25,000 for a health care project and nothing else. In addition, in 2010 they gave nothing to Heartland. Surely a Heartland memo wouldn’t fake donations figures for the Board to see, especially since they would see the full budget and know this figured was faked.

In his admission Gleick claims that, “at the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” He says that to “confirm” this document “I solicited and received additional materials directly from Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” In other words, Gleick was the one who fraudulently pretended to be a board member in order to get the board documents. He then forwarded “anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”

So, he combined genuine, innocuous Board notes with a memo he claims he anonymously received, or so he claims. Yet, he had zero evidence that the memo was genuine. And strangely, when Heartland thought they were sending material to a Board member they did NOT include this memo. That should have been a red flag that the memo was not part of the Board packet and was not genuine.

Here is my theory. I think Gleick contacted Heartland as he said. He got the Board packet and then concocted a “strategy memo” to go along with it. He scanned the document into PDF format. The real documents were already in PDF format and sent to the fake email account he set up and then deleted.

I suspect he did not realize that the PDF tags existed and would reveal the location of the forger. Once that evidence came out, he realized that the investigation into the fraud was narrowing down in his direction. Then, when Kaminsky publicly stated that the believed Gleick was the culprit, he had to confess. The problem he faced was that the “memo” was not a stolen document but a forged one. And, while committing fraud to obtain the documents were a problem, the forgery was even more of a problem. He had to find some way to explain how a fraudulent PDF file was produced via what we have to assume was his Epson printer.

That was when he concocted the story that the memo was mailed to him anonymously. Nothing on the memo indicated it was genuine and a cursory reading of it indicated it was not. Whether your like them or not, the warming skeptics, don’t describe their position as anti-science, quite the contrary. Anyone wish to bet that Gleick doesn’t have the original envelope anymore? I suspect that he made no effort to discover the source of this piece of paper because he knew the source. He wrote it. After fraudulently obtaining the Board documents he went through them and found no smoking gun, as he had hoped. But with the genuine documents he thought he could slip a bogus document into the mix and cause trouble for people he hated. That is when I suspect he forged the “memo” and the rest is history.

New York Times writer, Andrew Revkin, himself an alarmist on warming issues, called Gleick an “aggressive critic” of skeptics. He writes that Gleick’s “admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. Revkin also notes that Gleick’s “acts of deception… will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.” He says this means Gleick “has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.” True enough.

I’m wondering how many of the sites that published the original memo as genuine are at least cautioning readers that the indications it was faked are overwhelming, and letting them know a prominent warming alarmist used deception to concoct a scandal that ended up backfiring on himself instead? I suspect the answer is: Not many.

The Climategate leaks made the alarmists look bad. And then a scandal comes along to make the skeptics look bad, but when the truth comes it, it too bit the alarmists in the ass.

Labels: , ,

Monday, February 20, 2012

The Mind-Boggling Standards of Modern Catholicism

Steav Bates-Congdon was hired the St. Gabriel Catholic Church of Charlotte, NC in 2004 as music director. Everyone knew he was gay, including the parish. More importantly, they all knew that he had been in a 23 year relationship with his partner Bill, who was also active in the church in upaid positions.

No one in the church was under the illusion that Steav and Bill were anything but a long-term, committed couple. For eight years he served on staff.

After 23 years together Bill and Steav decided to go to New York and get married, and they went to Mexico for honeymoon. When they returned to Charlotte Steav stopped by the church and was given a note by the pastor, Frank O'Rourke. It read: "Employees of St. Garbriel... are expected to live with in the moral tradition of the Church. ...Your civil marriage stands in direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church, therefore ending your employement with us."

Look at the situation more closely. The Catholic Church, which pretends they invented marriage, knew Steav and Bill were a couple in a long-term relationship. That was also contrary to the teachings of the church. They ignored it. Only when the men made a deep commitment to one another did the church act. Steav and Bill apparently were free to fornicate homosexually all they wanted and were in good standing with the church, but the moment they made a marriage commitment they were chucked out. Apparently the sex and such was alright, what offends Catholicism is commitment and love.

I am also baffled that this music director was so easily fired while priests, many of whom were rapists in the literal sense of the word, continued to operate as employees of the church. Not only that, but this church did its best to hide said priests from the law and to cover-up their crimes. That, apparently was not in "direct opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church" since very such priests were fired. The tactic of the church was to move them to another parish so they could start all over again.

If this O'Rourke fellow only discovered that Steav was gay at this time, I could understand him being consistent and firing the man. But he actually knew quite well that Steav and Bill were a couple for some years.

More bizarrely, O'Rourke was informed of the marriage months before it took place. He was told last June and told Steav "Congratulations, I'm very happy for you. But I can't you give you my blessing." Steav said he didn't expect him to do so. At no time did the priest indicate that Steav would lose his job if he married. Steav says had them been told this would imperil his employment the ceremoney would have been postponed until he retired. But the priest apparently didn't have the decency to tell him that a loving commitment would be enough to get him fired. And, why would Steav assume it would get him fired? After all, the church knew of the relationship and they knew Bill.

The only reason for the firing was the marriage, not the relationship. Of course, this is a sect that thinks no one in the "Holy Family" had sex their entire lives. Yes, Mary, Joseph and Jesus were all supposed to be virgins. This is the ideal family. It is a sect that long thought virgins were more moral than others, that marriage with normal sexual relations was morally inferior to chastity. In their pantheon of womanly virtue chaste nuns come first, widows who have ceased having sex are second, in a distant third are married women who have normal, healthy sexual relations with their husbands. At the bottom are women who have any other kind of sex. This is really screwed up thinking.

The Catholic view of sex is literally perverse and unnatural. It goes against actual human nature. Yet they promote the unnatural state of life-long chastity as the moral ideal. That really has to warp people.

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Conservatives Shouldn't Drink and Drive Gay

Houston police have an incident report ID 32377, regarding an "INCIDENT INVOLVING A PROMINENT CITIZEN." The prominent citizen in question was Right-wing radio pundit Michael Berry, a fixture in the Houston area.

Berry goes into fairly typical right-wing rants on his show, including those which demand that some groups of Americans have their right curtailed for the betterment of society. Various sources in the Houston area say that Berry has gone into anti-gay rants on his show, but I will continue to to attempt to pursue that. I prefer firm facts and will report more if I can find it.

What we do know, from the police report, which I have in front of me, is that Michael Berry, was leaving a bar and hit a car while pulling out. The car belonged to the bouncer for the bar. This took place on the 2400 block of Converse. The bouncer saw an SUV back into his car. The bouncer, with a flashlight in hand, walked up to the car and got a good look at his face. He also got the vehicle's license place. The driver looked at the bouncer and fled the scene. Police ran the plate and it belongs to Berry. So the plate confirms Berry's car was there, the bouncer say Berry there and security video confirms his presences inside the gay club as well.

The bouncer said the driver had just left the gay club minutes before and security tape from within the club confirms that ultra-conservative Berry was inside the gay venue. Berry is refusing to say anything about the incident. The bouncer thinks that Berry is being silent because, "If you're going to stand up and say anti-gay things and be conservative and be Mr. Good Guy, and then when something happens that points you out and puts you in a place with the exact business that you aim to shut down, it kind of makes it seem like I need this to go away and I need it to go away quickly." Berry continues to refuse to speak to the incident. He would not only have to explain his visit to his right-wing listeners, but also to his wife.

Now this blog doesn't know how gay Mr. Berry may or may not be, but the evidence at least shows he can't drive straight. In case you have doubts about the club, here is one of their flyers. Berry knew exactly where he was going.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Sad numbers prove Religious Right wrong.

Sadly, one of the dominant features of the Religious Right today is their unabashed tendency to lie to the public in order to promote their own agenda. Even when the facts are documented and easily discoverable, or even pointed out to them, they deny them and continue with their lies. When falsehoods are repeated, even when evidence proves them false, then the issue is honesty, not error.

You may remember the Republican state senator from Tennessee, Stacey Campfield, who went into a little rant about how only gays get AIDS and that they caught it from having sex with a monkey and infected the heterosexual community. This was all invented by his hateful, little mind. In fact, none of that is true. He also said that it is almost impossible for heterosexuals to contract the disease. Here are some sad statistics from the good people at the South African Institute of Race Relations.

The population of South Africa is just under 50 million, but the round figure will do. The United States, in comparison is about 311.6 million. South Africa has approximately 5.58 million HIV infections while the significantly larger United States has 1.1 million cases. The population of the US is 6.2 times larger than that of South Africa, yet their HIV infection rate is 5 times larger.

Who is it that suffers from HIV in South Africa? As is often the case, it is mostly women and children. The SAIRR says that 53% of the cases in South Africa are among women ages 15 t0 49. Now, you have to understand that HIV infection as a result of sexual contact between women is extremely difficult. It isn't impossible, but it is very, very unlikely. These women contracted the disease from men, and not from gay men. About 8% of all victims are children under the age of 14 years old. The vast majority of them were born infected because their mothers were infected.

Only about 0.6% of all HIV cases are in North America (Canada, the US, and Mexico combined). In Western Europe the infection rate is close around 0.2%. These are the parts of the world where the gay community was hit hardest—and they are also the parts of the world with some of the lowest infection rates around. There are an estimated 34 million people, world-wide, with HIV—and about 67% of those cases are in Subsaharan Africa. In the West the total number of infections is about 2.1 million, a fraction of those cases. And while South and South-East Asia has relatively low infection rates they account for 4 million cases, more than double those in Europe and North America.

Of course, not even all those 1.1 million cases in America are among gay men. Of the 1.1 million Americans with HIV about 300,000 are women. Again, they caught the disease by heterosexual contact (66%) or sharing infected needles (32%) during drug use. That leaves around 800,000 men with HIV infections. It is estimate that 488,000 men contracted HIV through gay sex. Another 80,000 might have, but were also injection drug users which is a more potent means of infection. About 232,000 were men who contracted the disease either through needle usage or heterosexual sex. So, even in the United States, where HIV hit the gay community early on, most of the infections are among heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

And, in those areas of the world with higher infections rates than our own, the overwhelming majority of cases are due to heterosexual infections. In those countries infections among heterosexuals is significantly higher than in the United States. Given that most the worlds infections are in those countries, and given that a significantly higher percentage of them are among heterosexuals, this means that the percentage of HIV infection caused through homosexual contact, worldwide, is relatively small—far smaller than it is the United States.

These are all sad numbers. It really shouldn't matter who is infected, or how they are infected. HIV remains a crisis for the world and is killing millions of people. What is sadder is how the Religious Right distorts the numbers to try to convince the public that hating homosexuals is somehow a rational thing because of the tiny percentages of HIV cases in the US, the majority of whom are heterosexuals.

What is really awful, if you pause to think about it, is that the disinformation that these religious kooks spread about HIV actually gives people a false perception of the risks. And, if they buy into the "hate the homosexual" message that these fanatics are pushing, and assume that most HIV victims are "evil gays" then the response to this crisis will be far less than what it should be. If these Christians come to believe that most HIV victims are gay men, and are thus less inclined to want to help end the crisis, the people who suffer as a result will be overwhelmingly heterosexual.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, February 09, 2012

Beware, diabetes cause police brutality.

Watch his video. Now here is the full story behind this scene.

Adam Green started going into a diabetic shock while driving. Police pull him over. He is first ordered to stay in the car but also ordered to get out the car. A Highway Patrol gang member approaches the car with his gun already drawn. The gang member kicks the car window and four of his fellow gang members pull the unresponsive man from the car. He is unresponsive because he is in a diabetic shock.

They pile on the man and begin kicking and beating him while yelling "Stop resisting." Trust me, these thugs will always yell "Stop resisting" because they routinely lie that people are resisting arrest, as an excuse for their thuggery. But Mr. Green was unable to resist. Watch these thugs get their jollies kicking a man who can't move. One kicks him in the ribs. Another criminal in blue kicks him in the face.

You will see them searching through his pockets when one of the officers says, "He's got insulin." You hear one of the mentioning medical and saying the man is semi-conscious. The officer is very concerned if any of the officers, who beat the unresponsive man, were hurt. The officer says: "Let's get medical out here. He's a diabetic. Probably in a shock, semi-conscious." Don't you think this thugs should have tried to determine this BEFORE they beat the shit out of a sick man who did not "resist" and had didn't act violent? Then after they got the adrenalin kicks they laugh about it and the lead thug says, "I could have probably taken him by myself."

Between the city of Henderson, NV, who thugs in blue were involved, and the Highway Patrol, Green was paid almost $300,000 in compensation for the assault on him for the crime of diabetic shock. According to the successful lawsuit one of the officers told Green they were sorry for beating him up. Greene sufferece from bruises, abrasions and broken ribs inflicted by violent police officers to a man who had done nothing more than go into diabetic shock, as the video proves.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes that in 2008, Dr. Ryan Rich was diagnosed with a seizure disorder and was on medication for it when he crashed. Police pulled him from his car and saw he was confused and disoriented, a result of the medicine or of a seizure. They used their Taser on him five times and killed him. Count officials said the police attack on Dr. Ryan was justified.

But the adrenalin high that violent police officers work for is clear in the voices at the end. You hear the exhilaration and joy from a gang attack on a semi-conscious diabetic. There is is relief, laughter and pleasure.

As far as anyone can tell all of the violent offenders in blue remain with the police department and none of them suffered any penalties for their violent assault on a sick man. That is typical of how police are treated—they are the only criminal gang that is above the law—they know it, and they act like they know it. Beware, that being in close proximity to a police officer is dangerous to your well being.

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 02, 2012

The Little Engine That Couldn't

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.

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.