Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

Expressions of Honorable Skepticism

Rebecca Watson warns about scammers

Watch this video:

Infomercials featuring techniques for “house-flipping” are often shown on TV late at night. I wonder if we should start protesting such crap. For my own view of “censorshit” on YouTube, see:

https://dalehusband.com/2013/02/20/copyright-abuse/

NOTE: That blog entry is now obsolete; YouTube no longer shuts down questionable videos due to copyright claims so quickly. Here’s hoping they won’t again.

Rebecca bashes another feminist for bullshitting:

Of course, opponents of feminism use such incidents to claim feminism itself is bullshit, so this fact checking is extremely important.

And can we PLEASE have fewer idiots and lunatics running for President of the United States? We already elected one such train wrecker in 2016!

Not to mention her condemnation of former friend Michael Shermer:

Who I wrote about here, here, and here.

She also slams warped and bigoted religious crap:

It is incredible how much alike the two of us are. Could we be siblings?

 

USA Today is Biased Against Progressives

Read this article:

Progressive revolt against Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema is exactly why Trump will win (again)

Progressives want to censure Kyrsten Sinema, the first Arizona Democrat to win a Senate seat in 30 years. Genius idea: Hurtle left, right off a cliff.

A group of Arizona Democrats are demonstrating why President Donald Trump will more than likely be a two-term president.

The party’s liberal wing simply cannot resist the temptation to shoot itself in its Birkenstocks.

Witness the liberals riding in on their unicorn, hoping to censure the first Arizona Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate in 30 years.

It seems Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is just not Democratic enough. So the party’s progressive caucus is asked the Arizona Democratic Party to censure her on Saturday. The party has decided to push the vote to its annual meeting in January.

“We really support Kyrsten Sinema, we want her to succeed, we want her to be the best senator in the country,” Dan O’Neal, state coordinator for Progressive Democrats of America, told The Republic’s Yvonne Wingett Sanchez. “But the way she is voting is really disappointing. We want Democrats to vote like Democrats and not Republicans.”

Sinema won because she’s a centrist

The problem is, that’s not what the people who decided last year’s Senate race — the ones who quite likely will decide next year’s presidential race — want.

Sinema won last year because she ran as a centrist, one who could appeal to moderates who are sick to death of the long-running, never-ending trench war between the Republican and Democratic parties.

Why government needs to pop our bubbles: My social media feeds look different from yours and it’s driving political polarization

She won GOP-rich Maricopa County, as moderates saw in Sinema someone who would abandon the fox holes and go in search of that rare earth called middle ground.

But the progressives complain she’s too quick to throw in with Republicans. They cite her vote to confirm William Barr to be U.S. attorney, among other things.

Indeed, Sinema was one of three Democrats to vote for Barr’s confirmation.

But she also has voted against Trump’s positions 81% percent of the time this year, according to the FiveThirtyEight Trump Tracker.

In June, she voted yes on a bill to provide $4.5 billion in emergency humanitarian aid to migrants on the U.S-Mexico border. In March, she voted to block Trump from declaring a national emergency in order to divert funds on the border wall.

This is no way for Democrats to win

During last year’s campaign, Sinema made no secret of her desire to be seen as independent. She’s more pragmatist than party loyalist.

That was the secret sauce that allowed her to defeat Martha McSally, who hopped into Donald Trump’s hip pocket on the day she announced for the Senate.

Don’t play into his hands: Trump wants you to think he’s racist so you won’t notice he’s corrupt and killing jobs

Rather than taking a lesson from Sinema’s success, the Democratic Party nationally seems determined to do a reverse-McSally, embracing candidates who have pushed even its centrist candidates to the left.

Removing criminal penalties for illegal immigration, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free college, free child care, mandatory gun buybacks, slave reparations and impeachment impeachment impeachment.

Democrats seem determined to hurtle left, right over the cliff.

Just don’t expect Kyrsten Sinema to follow them.

Laurie Roberts is a columnist for the Arizona Republic, where this column originally appeared. Follow her on Twitter @LaurieRoberts.

Infighting within a political party happens all the time. There are many Republicans who are anti-Trump, yet the media pays little attention to them. Why then does USA Today make a big deal out of a few left-wing extremists among Democrats merely expressing their dissenting opinions? They may call themselves Progressives, but I don’t, because I would call nearly all Democrats Progressives or Liberals. The hard-core left is outside the political mainstream of the USA and always has been. In order to win a Presidential election, Democrats MUST appeal to the center. That’s obvious! Appealing only to the left has always been a formula for failure.

This clearly shows the bias among media outlets like USA Today. Because the media paid so much attention to Trump’s laughable campaign in 2015 and 2016, he gained public attention and respectability, enabling him to take over the Republican Party and then America itself. And that seems to be happening again. Quarreling within an opposing party in one state has nothing to do with Donald Trump’s chances of being reelected next year. Shame on USA Today for claiming otherwise! Stop misrepresenting the Democratic Party and Progressivism, USA Today! STOP TELLING YOUR READERS WHO TO VOTE FOR AND WHAT TO THINK!

Especially with crap like this:

Removing criminal penalties for illegal immigration, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, free college, free child care, mandatory gun buybacks, slave reparations and impeachment impeachment impeachment.

Implying, of course, than only the left-wing extremists advocate these things. No, mainstream Democrats do too. Including me! They only look extremist if you are a hard-core conservative bigot.

The far left in America must be defeated forever

As dedicated as I am to left-wing, liberal, and progressive politics, it is obvious that the extremism of some on the left has in turn enabled right-wing extremists under Donald Trump to take over America and start running it into the ground.  We simple cannot afford a repeat of what happened in 2016……EVER! And therefore, we must defeat those who have unrealistic and even treacherous positions and tactics among the American left.

Continue reading

A Suspicious Story about Katy Perry

Katy Perry is one of the world’s biggest pop stars. Early in her career, before she became really respectable, she put out a song that struck me as profoundly stupid and this video of her performing it live didn’t help:

MALE peafowl have those massive tail feathers, not the females. And the song is clearly a metaphor. Buckley figured that one out fast enough. Jump ahead about nine minutes on this video and watch the Peacock song, referred to there as 2nd Place on the list:

Continue reading

Better late than never!

As increasing amounts of damning evidence of Donald Trump’s corruption, incompetence, and cruelty as President of the USA piles up, it is finally starting to have an effect upon even his most loyal supporters and the critics of the previous President, Barack Obama.

Read this blog entry. I will copy passages from it in green italics and my responses will be in blue bold.

Continue reading

My Spiritual Odyssey

On October 20, 2018, I gave a talk about 50 minutes long at Westside Unitarian Universalist Church of Fort Worth detailing my life and religious and political views and how they evolved over the course of my life. I spent the first half of the discussion merely speaking for myself in general, and the last half answering questions from the audience to focus more on specific topics.
For a short version of that story see:

My Spiritual Journeys

I made reference to other issues that I have also dealt with on this blog, including:

An Honorable Skeptic

 

Why more people should join the Unitarian Universalists

 

Why I Abandoned the (Haifan) Baha’i Faith

 

Spiritual Orientation

 

Radical Reincarnation

 

Misdefining terms for purposes of propaganda

 

A bitter rant about Ayn Rand

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is kicking @$$ in Washington D. C.

For most of American history, the federal government in the USA, including its Congress, has been a haven for elitist jerks with no interest in relating to the average American. Most members of Congress are millionaires, after all.

Enter Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young New York woman who was a waitress only a year ago, but who this year upset all expectations by overthrowing a member of the Democratic establishment in the primaries and then went on to win a seat in the House of Representatives. And what is she doing now to change things?

Continue reading

The Foundational Lie at the Center of all Conservative Politics

One of the biggest problems with our modern society is the limited vision far too many people seem to have and their unwillingness to look beyond that vision and outside their comfort zone to see all of reality and what it involves.
For example, the average white person in the USA rarely deals with black people on a personal level and thus has no idea of how racism affects blacks on a frequent basis. Because their dealings with police are usually pleasant or at least respectful, they assume that blacks are treated the same way by police. So when they hear of cops shooting unarmed blacks, they assume that the black suspect must have provolked the cop in some way. But even if that were true, being defiant towards a cop should not merit the death penalty, so the excusing of the killings is racist on its face.
Let me emphasize one important point about those in the media who defend the political status quo and those who are privledged because of that status quo; they are ALL liars. Because those in power want to feel comfortable about their power, these media thugs rush to tell their followers what they already assume to be true, thus the followers express confirmation bias rather than looking for objective truth to take all the facts into account.
Rush Limbaugh is a liar.
Ann Coulter is a liar.
Bill O’Reilly is a liar.
Shawn Hannity is a liar.
Michael Savage is a liar.
Dinesh D’Souza is a liar.
I could go on with dozens more names of media personalities as well as hundreds of names of officials in our various federal, state, and local governments, but you get the point, right?
And what are all these different conservatives lying about? One basic concept, which can be summed up as follows.
“There is no need to reform or improve society, what we have right now (or had in the past at some point) is what we should have forever in the future, because change will be too painful for us to endure.”
Doesn’t that sound like self-serving cowardice to you?
In the 1960s, there was a tremendous struggle over civil rights for blacks in America, especially in the south where they were kept in dire poverty and even denied voting rights in most cases, as well as cut off from the same opportunities whites enjoyed. The U S Supreme Court ruled against these racist institutions and forced most of them to change. Afterwards, most whites across America thought the racial problems had been solved. But the white supremacists, while they were down, were certainly not out and they began to strike back.
Indeed, I have come to believe that the Religious Right of the 1980s and the Tea Party that rose up in response to Barack Obama becoming President were both scams that enabled white supremacists to sneak into and take over the Republican Party and then through that to grab control of the entire political apparatus of the United States federal government, not merely taking back control of the southern states. And with Donald Trump they have finally succeeded.
Why is conservatism so harmful to society? Because human nature is corrupt and abusive. When people allow themselves to act according to their default biological programming, the result is always tribalism, the placing of members of your own group above outsiders instead of promoting equal justice for everyone.
Ironically, Christianity, which most American conservatives claim to believe in, teaches this very thing, that we are all sinners who can’t be trusted to control ourselves without guidance from above. However, it is clear that even authorities in conservative forms of Christianity can’t always be trusted; they promote religious bigotry rooted in the past instead of ethical standards that fit the real needs of real people in this present age (ironic, considering that Christianity itself started as a rebellion against Jewish legalism). That’s what secular humanism does. And democracy is a humanist ideal.
Whenever people believe, for any reason, that society is good enough and needs no improvement, they actually open the door for society to become corrupt and abusive later; the only sure way to protect the people is to constantly look for ways and means to improve society. I am therefore a champion of “perpetual revolution”; the American Revolution of the 18th Century was only the beginning of reforms and progress and should never end as long as we have viable societies of any kind. There should be NO place whatsoever for Conservatism in American politics, period. To be consistent, the aforementioned conservatives in the media should be bowing down to the British government that Americans rebelled against in 1776, but they don’t because they are hypocrites.

What will it take to end the abuse?

Look at this disturbing news story:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/04/america-minority-rule-voter-suppression-gerrymandering-supreme-court

Rigging the vote: how the American right is on the way to permanent minority rule

Underhand Republican tactics – gerrymandering, voter suppression, more – underpin a vice-like grip on power

The American right is in the midst of a formidable project: installing permanent minority rule, guaranteeing control of the government even as the number of actual human beings who support their political program dwindles.

Voter suppression is one, but only one, loathsome tactic in this effort, which goes far beyond just winning one election. Minority rule is the result of interlocking and mutually reinforcing strategies which must be understood together to understand the full picture of what the American right wants to achieve.

Examples are everywhere. Take North Dakota. In 2012, Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, won a surprise victory in a Senate race by just 2,994 votes. Her two largest county wins were in the Standing Rock and Turtle Mountain Reservations, where she won more than 80% of the vote. Her overall vote margin in counties containing Native reservations was more than 4,500 votes.

Observing that Heitkamp literally owed her seat to Native voters, North Dakota’s Republican legislature enacted a voter ID law that requires voters to present identification showing their name, birth date and residential address. There’s the rub: many Native voters do not have traditional residential addresses, so this law effectively disenfranchises them.

Or take Georgia, where the Republican nominee for governor, Brian Kemp, is the secretary of state and in that capacity has placed more than 50,000 voter registrations on hold, many from urban areas with high black populations. That is in keeping with Kemp’s privately expressed “concern” that high voter turnout will favor his opponent – Stacey Abrams, running strongly to be the first black female governor in US history.

Exacerbating voter suppression is the ongoing partisan gerrymandering effortthe redrawing of electoral maps to favor one party over another. After the 2010 census, the Wisconsin legislature (controlled by Republicans) drew a map for the state’s legislative districts explicitly designed to ensure they would retain control of the legislature even if they received a minority of votes. It worked: in 2012, despite receiving only 48.6% of the vote, they won 60 of 99 seats. Democrats won an outright majority of votes cast but secured just 39 seats.

To this, Wisconsin added a voter ID requirement designed to make it harder to vote at all. Voila: voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election was the lowest since 2000 and Donald Trump carried the state. (To be sure, there were other factors at work.) The combined, national effect of partisan gerrymandering is such that in the 2018 midterms, the Democrats might win the popular vote by 10 points and still not control the House.

Legislative maps designed to promote minority rule plus voter suppression of the constituencies opposed to it is a potent combination. And there’s more.

The two most recent Republican presidents have entered office despite receiving fewer votes than their opponent in a national election, thanks to the electoral college, which systematically over-represents small states. (California gets one electoral vote per 712,000 people; Wyoming gets one per 195,000.) With the presidency in hand in the run-up to the 2020 census, minority rule will be further entrenched by adding a citizenship question to the census. This will result in systematic undercounting of the population in heavily Democratic areas, which will in turn further reduce their influence as legislatures draw maps based on the data.

Then there’s the Senate. Because of its bias toward smaller, rural states, a resident of Wyoming has 66 times the voting power in Senate elections as one in California. Thus, in 2016, the Democratic party got 51.4 million votes for its Senate candidates. The Republicans got 40 million. And despite losing by more than 11 million votes, the Republicans won a supermajority (22 of 36) of the seats up for election, holding their majority in the chamber.

The hideously malapportioned Senate and electoral college permit the last piece of the minority rule puzzle to snap into place: the supreme court. In 2016, after losing the contest for the presidency and the Senate by millions of votes, the Republicans were able to install two supreme court justices. There may be more.

In fact, when the Senate confirmed Trump’s first nominee, Neil Gorsuch, it was a watershed moment in American history. For the first time, a president who lost the popular vote had a supreme court nominee confirmed by senators who received fewer votes – nearly 22 million fewer – than the senators that voted against him. And by now, it will not surprise you to discover that the senators who voted for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh represent 38 million fewer people than the ones who voted no.

With the supreme court in hand, all those other tactics – partisan gerrymandering, voter ID and the rest – are protected from the only institution that could really threaten them. But it doesn’t stop there. The supreme court can be used to do more than approve the minority rule laws that come before it. It can further the project on its own.

In 2015, the court came within one vote of holding that independent redistricting commissions (which reduce partisan gerrymandering) are actually unconstitutional. The swing vote in that case, Anthony Kennedy, is gone. And the court in 2013 famously invalidated a major portion of the Voting Rights Act which put checks on voter-suppression efforts of the kind now taking place all over the country.

Taken together, this is a powerful set of tools. Draw maps that let you win even when you lose. Use the resulting power to enact measures to suppress the vote of the other side further. Count on a minority rule president to undercount your opponents in the census, and a minority-rule Senate to confirm justices who will strike down any obstacles to the plan.

With the deck this stacked, it isn’t enough to win. Wresting control back from the entrenched minority will take overwhelming victory. It may take, in other words, a genuine political revolution.

  • Ian Samuel is Associate Professor of Law at Indiana University Bloomington’s Maurer School of Law. He is also the co-host of @FirstMondaysFM
In short, the USA is  becoming the 21st Century version of South Africa under apartheid.
Which brings up the obvious question: Who will be the American version of Nelson Mandela? Who will be willing to fight, to be imprisoned, or even to die to put an end to the Republicans’ efforts to destroy democracy and freedom among us?

We can start here:
Then proceed with:
More details on gerrymandering:
And also see:
Unless and until people of all colors, both genders, various religions and even different social classes are finally willing to rise up and OVERTHROW the Republican Party and its march towards fascism, we won’t have freedom, period. We can only truly be free if we fight for it.

 

Debunking Libertarian Economic Bogosity

The title of this blog entry refers to this earlier one:

Shane Killian sells out!

It’s time to revisit that issue. Look at this meme:
37211526_10211829385762290_2164135833207046144_n

The whole premise of that meme is a lie. Capitalism and corporatism are one and the same and have been for at least 300 years. The attempt to make a distinction between them is profoundly dishonest, implying that “real” capitalism does not exist. If so, it never did and never will. The only real alternative to crony capitalism is Democratic Socialism, period.

Here’s what really happens:

A individual has an idea.

That individual forms a company and makes a product with that idea.

Consumers give the company money for the product.

The company becomes successful.

Someone else has a better idea and creates a better product.

The first company uses its money to buy out the new product from its inventor and sells it in addition to or even instead of the original product, increasing its profitability and leaving the actual inventor with almost nothing later.

As a result, the company makes money no matter what product it sells.

Always remember this:  Those who already have a lot of money will always have an unfair advantage over those who don’t.

Government corruption does NOT produce corporatism. Tyranny and abuses can also come from economic forces too if government does nothing to stop them with policies such as “trust-busting” and progressive income taxation, among other tools at government’s disposal to redistribute wealth. That is why Libertarianism is worthless.

“Good Guy” vs. “Strong Guy” Dichotomy

In my younger days, I was often rejected by girls and young women even though I tried to be as loving towards them as possible. I assumed that it might have been because they thought I was ugly or weak. But the real issue seems to be something I often see in politics too.

Women naturally want men that are strong to protect them and their children, and our culture seems to depict men that have a strong sense of empathy and compassion for others to be “weak”, therefore such men are not considered as suitable for a domestic partnership as men that are highly aggressive towards others.

Likewise, people generally want a leader that is highly aggressive for the same reason. That explains why George McGovern lost so badly to Richard Nixon in 1972 despite having a much better character and this was repeated with Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Donald Trump winning his election in 2016.

But what people often fail to consider is that the same aggressive attitude that makes a man look strong can be twisted to hurt or abandon the very ones the man is supposed to be protecting, including his love partner and their children. By contrast, a loving, empathic man can encourage a woman to stand up for herself rather than just let a man fight for her. And he would not leave her as long as she loved him just as deeply.

I have known several cases of women who used to see me as just a friend who after being abused and/or neglected by the men in their life, later took another look at me and decided I would have been the better partner for them after all. And I would consider it an honor to help care for them.

Likewise, I am hopeful that the American people will stop being seduced by the mere appearance of strength and seek in future Presidents the most powerful character trait anyone can have: LOVE! Its being seen as weakness is sheer ignorance. Have you ever seen a mother bear fight to protect her cubs?

My political beliefs

I would like right wing conservatives to read the following. It explains my beliefs in a nutshell and in an even tempered, logical way.

Let’s break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I’m getting a little tired of conservatives lying about what liberalism is or should be. Spoiler alert: Not every Liberal is the same, though the majority of Liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period. No one is disposable, period!

Continue reading

The Articles of Confederation and the beating down of Libertarianism on YouTube

In an earlier blog entry, I referred to the Articles of Confederation as the ultimate expression of Libertarian thought and noted their complete failure. Of course, the term libertarian was not used back then; what we call Libertarianism now is merely a repackaged form of “classical Liberalism”, much like today’s Tea Party is merely a repackaged form of the “Religious Right” that plagued American politics in the 1980s. Same shit, different label. Now two channels on YouTube, Extra Credits and the Alternative History Hub, have teamed up to give the Articles of Confederation the public beatdown they so deserved but never seemed to have gotten. Why not? Perhaps because their failure shows that the Founding Fathers of the USA were not after all the nearly infallible saints they are often depicted as, though I suppose George Washington comes close. Anyway, here are those videos:

Continue reading

Brexit, a retreat from a global economic reality.

The same idiotic impulses that drove American voters to elect Donald Trump to the Presidency seems to have fueled the vote last year in the United Kingdom over “Brexit”, the possible departure of the UK from the European Union. The EU was formed to promote free trade and end travel and residence restrictions between its members. Many British people hate the EU because it seemed to be a threat to British sovereignty. But just as the rights of INDIVIDUALS in the USA should be more important than that of its STATES (that’s what the American Civil War was all about), so should that same issue be in Europe! People matter, countries do not!

Some in Britain may have realized that and are making  a backlash against that earlier vote. Read this story:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/08/europe/uk-general-election-2017-live-updates/index.html

UK General Election: Political turmoil awaits after shock results

London (CNN) UK Prime Minister Theresa May’s future is looking uncertain after her election gamble appears to have backfired. The opposition Labour Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, has performed far better than polls indicated and has cost May her majority in the UK Parliament.

Britain has been plunged into political chaos overnight.

Theresa May favored Brexit and she is clearly a moron for taking so strongly a position that made her country look like a hotbed of bigotry.

Meanwhile:

Record number of female MPs

As well as being an astonishing election, it has also been a record breaking one with more than 200 women elected to Parliament, the highest number in history.

In 1918 only one of the 707 Members of Parliament (MPs) elected was a woman. That was Sinn Feinn’s Constance Markievicz, who did not take up her seat.

For the curious, Nancy Astor was the first woman to take up a seat at Westminster after winning a by-election in 1919.

In 2012, 145 out of 650 MPs were female, while in 2015 a then record number of 196 women were elected in the general election and subsequent by-elections.

Britain also elected its first female Sikh MP Thursday when Labour’s Preet Kaur Gill won the Birmingham Edgbaston seat.

Women tend to be more liberal/progressive than men, so this shows the actual trend in British politics. But that one woman that is the current Prime Minister has got to go!

Ironically, the overwhelming majority of the people in Scotland voted AGAINST Brexit. Wouldn’t it be fitting if the UK did leave the EU only to have Scotland revolt and leave the UK? What goes around comes around!

13501978_10153675450851179_3782093355309861384_n

Sarah Copus, NOT a typical teen star!

In the past, I have been harshly critical of popular music trends and their being so centered on teens and their shallow interests.

Not to mention the fact that so many young performers have no real talent and are just manufactured and marketed by record producers and labels to make money.

But then I found an incredible exception! Remember these people?
https://dalehusband.com/2016/04/17/the-most-beautiful-couple-in-all-of-texas/

Their daughter, Sarah Copus, is now 13 and has put out a solo album. In addition to singing so beautifully that her voice nearly rips my heart out (Listen to her on a 2002 song here on a YouTube video I made), she can play various instruments, though she seems to prefer the harp the most.

Continue reading

The Myth of Liberal “Intolerance”

A couple of nights ago, some transphobe made a comment on my blog under Transphobics get busted by crime victim they tried to take advantage of.

I rejected it for the filth that it was, but I made a screenshot of it in order to make an example of it.

Transphobe commenting

What an idiot!

First, transgendered people are not trying to be shocking or scary towards anyone; they just want to live their lives without being a target of others’ hate. It is the transphobes who choose to react with hostility to the open existence of transgendered people. If there was no hostility, what would be the problem?

Second, who the hell made this guy an expert on mental illnesses? Most psychologists decades ago classified homosexuality as a mental illness, but they eventually stopped doing that once it became clear that the mental disorder that supposedly caused homosexuality could not be clearly defined and treated. The same may well be true of the transgendered condition. If being homosexual or being transgendered are not themselves harmful, why call them illnesses at all?

Third, if people’s rights are being violated, it does not matter if it is 50% (women) or less than 1% (transgendered). This looks like the reverse of the popularity fallacy, in which there being very few of a non-privileged group somehow justifies discriminating against them. If 100 transgendered people had been exterminated by the Nazis during World War II instead of six million Jews, it still would have been a horrible thing for them to do.

How nice of the asshole to use the slur for transgendered people that is the same as “nigger” for African-Americans!

I am a champion of tolerance for gays, lesbians, and transgendered people. Ironically, that means I have to be INTOLERANT of conservatives who express bigotry towards those types of people. Does this mean I am a bigot towards conservatives? Of course not!

The concept of bigotry towards someone’s OPINIONS is nonsense. When conservatives accuse their liberal opponents of bigotry towards them, that is merely a silencing tactic. It is the same sort of arrogance that leads to them referring to the “regressive left”. A pathological liar named Jonah Goldberg even wrote a book as right-wing propaganda titled “Liberal Fascism” based on that lame fallacy.

Liberal_Fascism_(cover)

To explain the concept of false bigotry a little more clearly, consider this analogy: “Men fear that women may laugh at them for not being manly, while women fear that men may beat them nearly to death for not being ladylike.” Trust me, being publicly ridiculed for one’s bigotry is nothing compared to being MURDERED for being gay, transgendered or even being in the wrong place at the wrong time if you are black in a mostly white neighborhood and get confronted by a cop or some vigilante with a gun.

SO GROW THE FUCK UP, CONSERVATIVES! I am having NONE of your shit anymore!

Transphobics get busted by crime victim they tried to take advantage of.

I’m against all forms of bigotry, which is simply judging all members of one group as if they all have the same moral failings instead of judging human beings strictly as individuals. I do not assume all Muslims are terrorists, that all women deserve to be sex slaves to their husbands, or that all French people are alcoholics.

Recently, various states in the United States have either tried to pass laws allowing discrimination against transgendered people or tried to repeal laws prohibiting discrimination against them. The rationale behind such absurdities is that all transgendered women are actually still men pretending to be women so they can attack and rape women and girls in bathroom stalls. Where they get that crazy idea from is anyone’s guess, but it actually encourages hatred against all who happen to be transgendered, often making THEM targets of violence. Quite simply, people need to stop equating sexual deviancy with immorality. Just because someone is homosexual or transsexual does not mean they are inclined to violate the personal autonomy of anyone else.

Now someone who was abused TWICE, first by an actual criminal and then by opportunistic transphobes, has decided to fight back against both types of bastards.

Continue reading

Responding to The Future of Freedom Foundation

Freedom is a precious thing, but the best way to promote it is to take all facts into account, not merely the ones that make your cause or extreme positions look good. That’s cherry picking, a classic tactic of denialism and thus dishonesty.

Check out this statement on the The Future of Freedom Foundation website. It will be in red and my responses will be in blue.
http://www.fff.org/about/
Our nation was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, people have the natural and God-given rights to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy or infringe upon, these inherent and inalienable rights.
Note that the Articles of Confederation are not mentioned. This was the first actual Constitution of the United States and was based on pure “libertarian” ideals (then known as “classical liberalism”).  But reality eventually proved the Articles unable to maintain order in the USA. Government that is too limited leads to anarchy, which benefits only would-be tyrants that flourish in a society where they can engage in abuse of others and not fear punishment. Eventually, a tyrant may become popular enough to impose his own law on the society, resulting in despotism. But despotism and anarchy have no provisions for human rights. Only a government can protect them. And if rights are given by God (who is by nature an absolute monarch), they can also be taken away, making the concept meaningless. And rights cannot be natural because animals do not have any, as their behavior shows. Only humans have rights among themselves and those rights only exist when they are recognized by both governments and the people.
For well over a century, the American people said “no” to such things as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public schooling, economic regulations, immigration controls, drug laws, gun control, paper money, the Federal Reserve, overseas empire, militarism, entangling alliances, and foreign wars. Despite the tragic exception of slavery, the result was the most prosperous, healthy, literate, and compassionate society in history.

Wrong! The people did not say no to income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, public schooling, economic regulations, immigration controls, drug laws, gun control, paper money, the Federal Reserve, overseas empire, militarism, entangling alliances, and foreign wars.  Many of these were simply not political issues at all until the 20th Century, the public schooling was done as early as the mid-19th Century, and the first of the foreign wars was the Mexican War of 1846-1848. Slavery was not merely a “tragic exception” (what an insult to the descendants of those slaves); it was a basic part of American society and thus proving that America was not at all the libertarian paradise being implied here. Slavery was ended by federal government force as a result of the Civil War (a denial of property rights of the slaves’ owners) , and more federal government force was eventually required to end the institutional racism that remained in the Southern states. The proliferation of bureaucracies resulted from the people demanding more and more services from their government, which must be paid for.
In the 20th century, however, America moved in the opposite direction—in the direction of socialism, interventionism, and imperialism. The result has been massive infringements on our economic liberty, civil liberties, gun rights, and privacy, along with out-of-control federal spending, debt, and inflation, all of which have reduced our prosperity, damaged our families, and weakened our sense of morality, self-reliance, and voluntary charity.
Again, only because the people have demanded certain things to improve their lives and then we become dependent on them. An example would be the interstate highway system. Without that, trade, tourism, and other matters relating to commerce would be far more difficult and would thus limit our economic growth. And the very reason government welfare programs were established was because with welfare being only voluntary, people still starved. People simply are not generous enough to provide for the needs of all without government intervention and force. If they were, we would not have so many billionaires in America, along with so many that are impoverished, even with government helping the poor. So that statement above is simply absurd!
The time has come for the American people to lead the world out of the statist morass in which it has plunged. The time has come to restore libertarian principles to our land. It is to that end that The Future of Freedom Foundation is dedicated.
We never had the kind of freedom they are calling for, and we likely never will. What they may really be saying is that we need to use force to overthrow the government and have libertarian extremists take over and run it their way – which would negate their entire premise of promoting freedom. If the people WANT an authoritarian government and elect one, via a free and fair democratic process, it is the height of arrogance for anyone in the name of “liberty” to say that is unacceptable.

Falsehoods about the “regressive left”

1. Progressives are now using the same subversive and highly inflammatory tactics that they have seen conservatives use against their liberal opponents for decades. But for some reason they are condemned as “intolerant” for this. That’s like going to fight with someone else when you have only a dagger when your opponent has a gun; you should not be condemned for insisting that you need a gun too!

2. Progressives are not a monolith; they are individuals and may disagree with each other as well as with conservatives. If one progressive activist claims something is racist, sexist, or otherwise prejudicial, that only reflects the opinion of that one activist; others may not agree.

3. Criticism is not censorship! If Progressive activists attack right-wing opponents via the media, that is not an indication that they are calling upon the government to shut their opponents down. Unless and until you actually hear the progressive ask for any such thing, you lie when you claim such. Freedom of speech is just that and must apply to all.

4. The media has NEVER been dominated by liberals. Back in the 1960s and 70s, the media simply reported the truth about what was going on in America and around the world, often causing conservatives to look bad. In the 1980s, President Reagan got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, which insisted that all media outlets be fair and balanced. With that gone, corporations could then gobble up or create all sorts of media outlets (like FOX News) and force them to represent only views they could tolerate, resulting in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press becoming a non-issue. Even worse, conservatives made their own “echo chambers” on the internet like Breitbart.com, NewsMax, RedState and others that are just like the Soviet Union’s Pravda. Only a bogus ideology dedicated to corruption and violating human rights needs to do such things.

There is no such thing as the “regressive left”; that very concept is not valid and never can be. Just as there is no such thing as “liberal fascism”. Conservatives have been lying outright about their opponents for decades; we should no longer accept any of that.

Some Right-wing Bigots have NO Shame!

Sometimes Conservatives are so desperate for validation of their extremist crusade against their political opponents that they will grab at straws and refer to things that have NOTHING to do with their politics. Below is an example of this chicanery:

http://www.redstate.com/jimjamitis/2017/01/11/leah-reminis-scientology-fight-front-andrew-breitbarts-war/

How Leah Remini’s Scientology Fight Is A Front in Andrew Breitbart’s #WAR

Please note that RedState is yet another one of those right-wing propaganda mills, like breitbart.com, FOX News, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, and others.

I don’t know any Scientologists that I’m aware of and my only connection to L. Ron Hubbard is having read his bad science fiction novel Battlefield Earth back in the ’80s and later—primarily out of morbid curiosity—watching the even worse film adaptation starring Scientologist John Travolta.

The writer starts off with something that looks completely reasonable and true. If it had stuck to the actual issue of the Church of Scientology vs. Ms. Remini, I would highly recommend it. Instead….the article goes into left field, pun intended!

Last night while watching episode 7 it dawned on me why I am so involved with this show: What Leah Remini is doing is the most Andrew Breitbart-esque thing I have seen anyone do since his untimely passing. Like Andrew did with the Democrat-media complex, Remini is throwing down the gauntlet and challenging a corrupt institution to prove her wrong.

I only met Andrew Breitbart a couple of times, both of which were in chaotic and noisy environments, so I can’t claim to have been his friend or to have really known him personally. Still, he is one of relatively few people I would consider to be personally inspiring to me.

And what did Breitbart do to be so inspiring? Save one or more lives? Create an invention to make millions of lives better? Write a fictional story to entertain and impress readers? Hold public office and push for legislation to make government better for the people?  No, none of these things! He was a writer and publisher of propaganda attacking liberals!

I have no idea what Remini’s politics are. Maybe when you publicly pick a fight with a global cult that has virtually unlimited resources, there isn’t even room for politics in your life. Whether she knows it or not though, Remini’s fight is the same fight for liberty and truth that Andrew Breitbart fought, just on a different front. She is in effect saying to a the cult of Scientology, “I’m going to follow the facts where they lead and if you don’t like it, f*** you. Bring it on. Accuse me of whatever you want, I’m not going to be intimidated. I’m just going to take what you throw at me and use it to show everyone who you are and why you need to be taken down.”

She is executing her takedown just like Andrew would, by telling stories. Data and analysis don’t change people’s minds anywhere near as well as good storytelling.

Scientology is responding with the same sort of tactics the institutional left used against Andrew. According to the people whose stories Remini is telling, anyone who leaves Scientology or speaks ill of it is declared to be a “suppressive person” and is considered “fair game.” Scientologists then use any and all means to intimidate, discredit, or personally destroy those people. They employ private investigators to dig up dirt. They falsely accuse them of crimes. They follow them with cameras in order to capture embarrassing video.  It is like an even more fanatical version of the Saul Alinsky tactics employed by far left progressives.

As I recall, it was Breitbart and his cronies that engaged in disruptive and deceitful tactics against liberals. Like having a guy pose as a pimp to misrepresent how ACORN did its business.

Remember when “Joe the Plumber” tripped up candidate Obama into being honest about wealth redistribution? In just a few days the media investigated the background of a private citizen more thoroughly than they ever did Obama’s. How about when the New York Times crowdsourced their sleazy fishing expedition into Sarah Palin’s emails from when she was Governor of Alaska? Have you ever heard of a black conservative who hasn’t been smeared as an “Uncle Tom?” Or a scientist skeptical about man’s role in climate change who hasn’t been accused of being in the pocket of Big Oil? Racism, sexism, misogyny, are all part of the litany against those who have a different opinion. It’s all the same though. Speak out against progressive orthodoxy and you will be smeared or destroyed. The more effectively you speak out, the more weapons they will bring to bear, not to refute what you say but to silence you from saying it.

Of course, the first two sentences are assertions not backed up with proof. The reference to Sarah Palin’s emails is ironic considering how obsessed Republicans have been about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Hypocrisy much? Also, black conservatives may have sexist (if male), religious (if Christian fundamentalist) or economic (if rich) reasons to sell out the best interests of their own race, much like Milo Yiannopoulos does in backstabbing the gay community despite being gay himself, because he is a white man too. And Big Oil is indeed rich enough to corrupt both governments and scientists; the evidence for man-made climate change is solid. It’s OK to have a different opinion as long as it does not hurt people or render them powerless, as conservative policies often do. And most obvious of all……CRITICISM IS NOT CENSORSHIP! Unless Andrew Breitbart or the others that work for his propaganda site could show attempts on their lives or even death threats sent to them by known liberals, they cannot legitimately claim to be targets of attempts to silence them. That’s just dishonest hyperbole.

I can’t help but think Andrew would be a huge fan of what she is doing. He might even be helping her if he was still with us.

Did he ever attack Scientology before he died? Did he ever attack any extremist cult? If not, that assertion is entirely baseless. The implication that liberals are also members of some extremist cult is nothing but libel.

A Second American Revolution?

Ever since George W Bush served as President of the United States (2001-2009), I have been convinced that if Republicans ever took as much power over the federal government as they did in his first term, it would trigger a second American civil war and/or a second American revolution that would bring down the government and finally force some desperately needed reforms to make American a more ethical, just, and free society. Keep in mind that even though Hillary Clinton got over a million votes more than Donald Trump, the latter still got the most votes in the Electoral College, thus gaining the Presidency. Republicans have also kept control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, just as they had back in 2001, no doubt due to gerrymandering in many states as well as efforts to suppress the minority votes.

In January of next year, Donald Trump becomes the new President of the United States.The Democratic minority in the Senate proceeds to engage in the same sort of obstructionism against the policies of Trump that Republicans did against President Obama, including repeated acts of filibustering that Republicans cannot stop. A frustrated Trump eventually declares martial law over Washington D C  and orders the military to arrest most of the Democratic Senators and perhaps the Democratic House members too after they threaten to impeach him.  In response, the states of California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and perhaps Nevada decide to secede from the union. They are followed soon afterward by Illinois (Barack Obama’s home state), and most of the New England states (including New York, Trump and Clinton’s home state). New York’s defection is especially shocking to Trump for members of his family still reside there. Using the internet as their communication and organization tool, the leaders of the revolt form a provisional government among themselves, name themselves the Democratic Union of America, and accept Hillary Clinton as their leader.

In a rage, Trump orders the military to put down the revolt, but the generals, already angry at having been ordered to arrest members of Congress, turn against Trump and federal troops instead storm both the White House and the Capitol building, resulting in Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence, most of Trump’s Cabinet, and most of the Republican members of Congress being arrested or killed while the Democratic members of Congress are freed. With the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff taking over the capital city, a call is made for delegates to be sent from every state in the union to create a better government to replace the broken one. Most states agree and eventually a new U S Constitution is drafted, ratified by most of the states, and the Union is reestablished. But armed revolts break out in most of the states, which the newly formed government has to deal with over several years.

Two Reasons for Public Ignorance

As I see it, there are two reasons why so many in the general public come across as “low-information”, often appearing to ignore or even deny what seems clear to those who are more knowledgeable.

First, many of us have what I call an ahistorical view. This means that if  you were born in a certain year, like 1969 in my case, anything that happened before that is irrelevant to you and may be ignored. That is why you see so many white people argue, “I had nothing to do with slavery before the Civil War! Don’t blame me for that!” Or, “I did not kill all those Native Americans back then and take their land, it’s not my responsibility for them now!” See this earlier blog entry for an expression of that ignorance by an actual celebrity:

https://dalehusband.com/2015/05/13/john-wayne-great-actor-terrible-human-being/

Continue reading