Category Archives: Liberalism

There is no Male Privilege Pt 1

Male PrivilegeNow Buzzfeed is to accurate news sources what Ken Ham is to science, it’s hard to find a something further from the truth. Of course, that doesn’t stop them from putting up all kinds of ridiculous leftist “news” pieces, like this one from a self-declared transexual guy who think he has 25 examples of male privilege.  Now I recognize that this would be an extremely long post if I went through them all so I’m going to split it in half and take on part now and part in a couple of days.  He does explain what he means by each of those but I’m leaving that in the original article so by all means, go take a look.  What the heck, I haven’t had a good laugh today, let’s take a look at the first 13 off of his list.  This ought to be good.

1. I’m suddenly funny.

I’m pretty sure you’re not.  Maybe they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you. Maybe they find you sad and are laughing in sympathy.  Or maybe, just maybe, your sense of humor is more in line with things that men find funny and not with what women find funny.  He says he tried old jokes and got a different reaction, who did he try these jokes on?  The exact same people he tried them on before or a different crowd?  Here’s a news flash for you, just gaining a dick doesn’t give you a sparkling personality.

2. Yet I’m still taken (more) seriously.

I don’t buy it at all.  In fact, I’m going to suggest something that I think ties into most of these examples and that’s confirmation bias.  I’d argue that he’s trying to confirm that he made the right decision switching genders and is now seeing positive results in everyday situations whether they exist or not.

3. I rarely get interrupted.

How are you measuring this?  I’ll bet it’s just a personal interpretation and not some objective and demonstrable measurement.

4. I get paid more.

Oh, I’d love to see the evidence of this.  Are we supposed to think that you went to get your operation or your hormone treatments or whatever and the day you came back, you suddenly had a bigger paycheck?  Seriously?  I’m calling bullshit. Maybe, like most men, you’re just working longer hours and that would explain your supposed rise in income.

5. It’s easier for me to be poor.

How are you poor if you’re suddenly getting paid more?  That makes no sense. Besides, he says that it’s easier when the person doing the hiring is a “white guy”, which really has no application to the claims made.  What difference does race make here, except to throw in another typical liberal bugaboo?  Or is it only white males that have privilege?  What if the hiring manager is a black guy or a Hispanic woman?  Is there still white privilege?

6. My clothing is more practical.

And whose fault is that?  Let’s be honest, adults get to choose their own clothing, is it somehow a vast male conspiracy to make women’s clothes impractical and expensive and all of the common complaints that I hear feminists making, or is that something that women choose to wear?  They also claim that women’s products are more expensive, as if the Illuminati are twirling their mustaches and forcing women to buy them.  It is a fact that women are, on average, more willing to pay higher prices for what is essentially the same products as men.  We live in a capitalist society and people are going to charge the most they can get away with.  If women weren’t willing to pay higher prices, they wouldn’t be charged higher prices.  Stop doing it. Likewise, if this guy now thinks that male clothing is more practical, which he’s certainly welcome to think, that’s up to him. There are plenty of impracticalities in male clothing as well though.  Take ties.  I know that only professionals wear them, which is why I do it all the time, but they are totally impractical and pointless, but expected in the business world.  Women have far more latitude in professional clothing than men do most of the time.  Personally, except as required by your work, I don’t care what anyone wears so people should just pick something comfortable to put on in their off hours.

7. I get a ton of free passes.

I doubt it, it is typically women who get free passes in society.  The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 1990 that men had a 20 times higher rate of conviction than women for the exact same crime.  They also found that for men and women convicted of the exact same crime, men typically served 3 times longer sentences than women.  Men represent 68% of the homeless people in America, they commit suicide at a rate 3 times higher than women, and they work significantly longer hours on average.  Women get a disproportionately high amount of spousal support in divorce as well as the vast majority of child custody decrees.  Combat deaths are much, much, much higher for men than women, in fact, workplace deaths across the board are minuscule for women compared to men.  So where are these free passes for men?  I’m just not seeing them.

8. I’m not held accountable for keeping rape from happening.

Guess what?  Nobody except rapists is accountable for keeping rape from happening, just like nobody but bank robbers are responsible for keeping bank robberies from happening.  This is a typical feminist load of nonsense, that men have to be taught not to rape when only a minuscule number of men actually do.

9. I’m very likely to arrive home safely after walking alone at night.

And so are virtually all women.  More violent crime happens to men than it does to women, particularly violent crime committed by strangers, which you’re much more likely to encounter walking home at night.  A majority of rapes, which seems to be the perennial feminist complaint, are committed by people the woman knows.  According to rape statistics, only about 10% of rapes are committed by strangers.  The overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated by those known to the woman, in places the woman has felt safe.  It is also a fact that more men than women are victims of partner abuse, according to a study by the CDC.  By changing genders, the author has made himself less safe, not more.

10. I don’t have to worry about keeping an eye on my drink at parties.

And neither do the majority of people, male or female.  Of course, going to parties and acting irresponsibly there, getting drunk, etc. does make you much more likely to be a victim of crime, violent or not.  People need to be responsible for their own actions, something liberals seem to have no concept of.  Of course, this kind of thing is vastly overestimated anyhow, there really aren’t many cases of date-rape drugs being put into women’s drinks, it’s largely an urban legend.

11. I’m not told by strangers (or anybody else) to smile.

I honestly don’t know where this kind of thing comes from.  I have never asked anyone of any gender to smile, nor have I ever seen anyone ask anyone of any gender to smile, except where required by one’s job and there, it’s been evenly applied to both men and women.  It is a fact though that more women than men occupy customer service jobs and therefore, will be told to smile as a component of their jobs than men.  That’s not sexism, that’s workplace professionalism.

12. I don’t have strangers giving uninvited opinions about my body as I pass by.

You could, maybe you’re simply unaware of it?  The author says that he’s short, that’s certainly going to be noticed and commented on, particularly by women.  Also, as I’ve mentioned before, women tend to be much meaner to other women than men are.  Women can be downright cruel, criticizing weight, makeup, clothing, etc. of other women right to their face.  Maybe this could be explained by having changed to hanging around an entirely better class of human being.

13. I’m allowed to have body hair.

Just as everyone else is.  In fact, among feminists, having body hair is pretty typical and nobody within the movement says a word, at least not that I hear.  But there are social expectations and people have a right to pay attention to those expectations or ignore them and there may be consequences either way.  Having pink hair is not typically socially acceptable, especially when it comes to professional careers.  That’s life.  You make your choice and you deal with the consequences.  Welcome to personal responsibility.

I’ve started to notice a trend as these examples have gone on but I’m going to hold my tongue until the very end to see if you can catch it too.  In fact, this trend seems pretty consistent across a lot of radical feminists, which might serve as another hint for those who think about it.  Anyhow, what do you think so far?  Are any of these examples valid?  I’ll be back in two days with the last of the list and my conclusions, hope you stick around.

Liberals Don’t Understand Mythology

Sarcophagus_with_the_Abduction_of_Persephone_by_Hades_(detail)Every time I think that the craziness of radical liberals has gone as far as it can go, I find an even more bizarre story of lefty loons gone out of their minds.  Strap in, here we go again.

The Washington Post reports that students at Columbia University are demanding that classes on Greek mythology need to have trigger warnings because some of the things found in these ancient myths could just be triggering to modern students. According to one unnamed “woman of color” quoted in the article, she was unable to handle reading Ovid’s “Metamorphoses” because it included depictions of rape and sexual assault against Daphne and Persephone.  She was unable to engage with the class, even though she admits that the teacher never brought up those ideas in the classroom.  How horrible!

But I thought these were supposed to be adults who ought to be able to handle such things.  If they can’t these idiots have no business voting or drinking or doing any of the other things that we expect people to be adults to do.  They are just emotionally stunted children in the bodies of young adults and this is the future of this nation?  No wonder we’re so screwed.

It’s becoming clear as time goes on that radical liberals are idiots.  According to Elizabeth Nolan Brown in Reason. “Apparently this discussion of Ovid was so threatening it was a matter of self-preservation to ignore it. If that’s really true — if the mere discussion of rape causes this student to feel panicked and physically unsafe — than she needs help treating severe post-traumatic stress disorder, not a f—— trigger warning.”

Harvey Silverglate wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “What should be the object of derision, a focus for satire, is instead the subject of serious faux academic discussion and precautionary warnings. For this disorder there is no effective quarantine. A whole generation of students soon will have imbibed the warped notions of justice and entitlement now handed down as dogma in the universities.”

Even sex blogger Susannah Breslin says that feminists and other far left idiots are overdoing it, that they are using the term “like a Southern cook applies Pam cooking spray to an overused nonstick frying pan.”  Yet it continues to happen, crazy leftists are demanding that some schools force professors to put trigger warnings on their curriculum and allow people to opt out of classes that may contain “content that may trigger the onset of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

I’m sorry, if you legitimately have PTSD, seek professional psychiatric help.  You don’t need a trigger warning, you need a psychiatrist.  Yet these stories come in from across the country, with more and more demands that no one ever be personally offended by anything for any reason.  They’re even claiming that a classroom filled with white students is a racial microaggression and has to be stopped.  Are these people out of their minds?  The answer is yes and that’s what liberalism does to people.


Excellent Video on Political Correctness

I came across this video, it is almost 25 minutes long, but I promise that if you watch it to the end, you’ll understand what I’ve been saying all along about political correctness and the common liberal victim culture.  He lays out out very, very clearly and shows why this is such a growing problem.  Please, take a couple of minutes and give it your attention.

[youtuber youtube=’′]

The SJWs Lose at the Hugo Awards

Hugo AwardsI know when most rational atheists talk about the idiotic social justice warriors, it’s almost always within the realm of atheism or feminism or race politics, those are probably where they’re the most openly active and most visible for people of a non-theistic bent.  Unfortunately, that’s not at all where they stop, they’re only too happy to stick their sad and pathetic little tendrils into any space that won’t crush them.  Luckily, just about everyone knows that they’re skulking around and either laughs at them or ignores them, despite their shrill whines and now, an increasing number are fighting back.

The Hugo Awards are given out each year at Worldcon, the World Science Fiction Convention, to recognize the best of science fiction and fantasy literature from the previous 12 months.  It has been going on since 1953 and are considered the most prestigious award that can be given to a science fiction or fantasy author.  It was, as all awards should be, a meritocracy, where people who write the best books get the prizes.  I say was though because in 2013, a group of social justice warriors decided they ought to get involved and force their political agenda on the awards process.

Back then, the Bulletin of the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA), was attacked by a bunch of digital radicals demanding “justice” after a book cover was proclaimed to be too suggestive and not used in publication.  This resulted in two well-known authors, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzburg, being removed from the journal.  The reign of political and social correctness has gone on ever since.  There are people like Nora Jemisin, who says that political tolerance “disturbs” her and Jim C. Hines who wants anyone who disagrees with and satirizes political or religious thought to be bodily thrown from the SFWA.

This has continued on to the Hugo Awards, which can only be voted on by people who pay to attend Worldcon.  This has resulted in a considerable uptick in attending memberships which may, or may not, actually increase the number of attendees. Many, it seems, are only trying to get their politically motivated votes in the ballot box and don’t even care about the Awards, and perhaps even science fiction or fantasy literature at all.  It’s a move for political correctness, not literary worthiness.  It no longer matters what you write, it’s who you are and what you write about that makes a difference.  Non-leftist writers have been ostracized because they might just say something that our liberal control freaks don’t like.  At the 2014 Hugo Awards, Jonathan Ross was forced to cancel his appearance because liberals feared that he might… MIGHT… make a fat joke.  Seriously, these people are out of control.

But all is not lost, earlier this year, writers Larry Correia and Brad R. Torgersen started the Sad Puppies campaign which sought to bring attention to this social justice warrior brouhaha and break the political and social intolerance that liberals have brought to the awards in recent years.  Luckily, now that the Hugo Award Nominations have been announced for 2015, it’s clear that they have been overwhelmingly successful and most candidates put forward by the Sad Puppies have been nominated. The liberal world exploded because many of the candidates self-identify as libertarians and conservatives, something that they simply cannot tolerate in their little echo chamber.  Members have gone so far as to block members of the Worldcon committee on Twitter and Tumblr for daring to ignore their liberal demands.  It’s really kind of sad.

Yet the fight goes on, many sci-fi and fantasy authors are being openly discriminated upon and excommunication from the science fiction community.  David Drake, David Weber, L.E. Modesitt Jr., Kevin J. Anderson, Eric Flint, Orson Scott Card, Brad R. Torgersen, Larry Correia and Sarah A. Hoyt, among others, are suffering attacks because of their politics and not because of their skills.  They’ve coined a word for these liberal asshats,  CHORFs – Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics.  That pretty well describes the far-left social justice warrior.

There is a lot in common here between sci-fi fanaticism and #Gamergate.  Vox Day had this to say about the similarities:

The connection between Sad Puppies and #GamerGate is that both groups are striking back against the left-wing control freaks who have subjected science fiction to ideological control for two decades and are now attempting to do the same thing in the game industry. #GamerGate has shown people in science fiction, in fantasy, in comics, and even in journalism that you don’t have to hide what you truly think anymore because SJWs are going to attack you and try to drive you out of a job. You can read, write, develop, and play what you want without fear of their disapproval.

It is time that people rise up against this kind of absurd liberal oppression, where it’s political correctness that means more than actual merit.  The Hugo Awards were not designed to award people for their social consciousness, but for their work in the field of writing science fiction and fantasy.  It doesn’t matter what you think, it matters what you write.  The same is true of television and movies, where it shouldn’t make a difference what a director or an actor or a producer thinks, only the end-product of their labors.  Unfortunately, these liberal idiots get butt-hurt because someone doesn’t follow the social justice collective and they must set out to call them names, harm their careers and deny them their due for what they’ve actually done with their lives.  Is it any wonder there’s such a backlash against liberal stupidity these days?  Here’s hoping it keeps up and picks up in the future.

SJWs Don’t Understand Comic Book Movies

avengers-age-of-ultron-collageGranted, I haven’t seen the new Avengers movie yet, I won’t see it until it comes out on Blu Ray,  but already the crazy SJWs are out whining about how bad it is.  Joss Whedon walked away from Twitter entirely because he was getting abused, some people thought it was the radical feminist idiots that pushed him away, although he’s denied it, I suspect because he’s a self-identified feminist and he doesn’t want to make the whole movement look bad.  However, it isn’t just Joss Whedon that has made this whole thing so absurd.

I ran into a SJW on a forum who was whining long and hard that Avengers: Age of Ultron was a horrible movie and no feminists or other liberals ought to see it because the Maximoff twins, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were not Jews, as they were in the comic books, but now they were white and white people suck.  I kid you not.

Of course, in the comics, they are the kids of Magneto, but in the movies, FOX owns the rights to Magneto with their licensing of the X-Men franchise.  However, in the X-Men films that Ian McKellen has appeared in, even though the first X-Men movie tells his backstory as a Jew in a Nazi death camp, McKellen isn’t a Jew at all.  He’s a white guy.  A British gay atheist white guy in fact.  Are the feminists screaming about that?  I rather doubt it.  But since Magneto doesn’t exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, there’s really no reason to make Wanda and Pietro Jewish because their parentage is the only place that it comes into play.

And besides, if you want to demand comic correctness, Nick Fury was a white guy in the comics for decades, nobody is complaining that Samuel L. Jackson is playing him in the movies.  This isn’t about comic accuracy, it’s about liberal racism.

Personally, I don’t give a damn what race anyone is in the movies.  It’s irrelevant.  I care if the movies are good.  That’s all that ought to matter.  Movies are not social commentary, they are entertainment.  That’s not what liberals care about though, they only see race, they only see gender, they only see sexual orientation, they can’t just sit back and enjoy the show.  That’s why everything turns into some kind of political, social debate instead of just a movie, just a TV show, just a discussion, it’s always war.

Maybe that’s why so many of us just stare at the SJW’s like they’ve got a third eye, they can’t just be normal people, they always have to be on the lookout for anything they can use, fairly or not, to push their political and social agenda, even when it’s a comic book movie.

Utopian Dreams

utopia2It wasn’t too long ago that I wrote about the failure of liberals to recognize their own faults and short-comings, but these things keep coming up and I find it important to address them.  I really find this funny but when I talk to liberals about personal and fiscal responsibility, the first thing they say is “not everyone is responsible” as though that’s a reason not to push for a world where people actually are.  I’ve had them call me a dreamer, implying that all I’m doing is engaging in wishful thinking, but isn’t that the same thing they do on a regular basis?  After all, if the world really was the way that anyone wanted it to be, why would they keep fighting to change it?  If everyone was responsible, what would be the point of advocating for it?  It’s a goal, one that I think that if it were adopted, would solve many of the problems we see in society today.  I don’t pretend that we already have it, nor that it will be an easy position for society to accept.

But isn’t that the same thing that liberals do when they push for their “color-blind, gender-blind, orientation-blind” utopia? They want something that does not currently exist.  Is it a rational response to say “not everyone is non-sexist or non-racist” and leave it at that?  If makes no sense whatsoever to say that because some people are irresponsible, that we ought to throw up our hands and concede defeat.  We don’t do that with murderers.  We don’t pretend that because some people are going to kill others, that we shouldn’t try to do something about it, at the very least, punish these people who violate social dictates.  We don’t do that with child molesters.  Yes, a certain minuscule percentage of people are going to always molest children but we hold the ones that do accountable for their actions and punish them.  Why shouldn’t we hold the irresponsible accountable for their actions as well?  Liberals don’t like that because they don’t want to hold anyone accountable, except for the imaginary crimes of wealthy white men, those people they’re willing to point the finger at whether they’re actually demonstrably guilty of anything or not. The fact remains, we don’t have a utopia where nobody murders and nobody molests children.  Most of us would like to live in such a world and we do make efforts to get closer to that utopian paradise, even if we’ll never actually get there.  These are dreams, but they are dreams we all have and they are not unreasonable to want.  So why is it so absurd to suggest that we should be working toward a culture where people are held accountable for their actions and the expectation is personal and fiscal responsibility?  Why is it a pie-in-the-sky fantasy when conservatives do it but not when liberals do it?

Because they’re totally blind to their own failings and hypocrisies, that’s why.  I don’t see that changing any time soon.

The Liberal Hypocrisy Continues

Liberal Experience

Although it’s rare these days, the only blog I ever look at over on FreeThoughtBlogs is the Atheist Experience blog, just to see what people say about the most recent episode of Atheist Experience.  Of course, it’s filled to the brim with a bunch of ultra-liberal whack-a-loons, but what can you expect?  Recently, on this post, someone named Robert, not Bob said that “the real problem seems to be how to tell people their most fundamental mental assumptions are wrong. I’ve run into this with anti-Feminism, conservatism of all stripes, and New-Age woo (as well as religion). I don’t know if there is a solution: there’s nothing more guaranteed to bring up the defenses.”

Of course, neither he, nor any of the other posters, recognized that the exact same thing happens with liberal ideas too, such as feminism (which he capitalizes for some reasons, as though that makes it important), liberalism of all stripes and any number of liberal woo causes.  It seems that when it’s absurd, woo-driven bullshit that they don’t like, they can see the failures and faults in the process, but when it’s absurd, woo-driven bullshit that they do like, it suddenly becomes invisible.

Another poster, Peggy, responded with ” And not just their defenses but their offensive position, too. It feels rather tribal. And, yes, saying that I’m happy now and glad to be out can’t help but sound pretty insulting to those who consider being “in” a virtue, no matter how it’s said. I just really didn’t expect the pure meanness, I guess.”  Sure, this coming from the liberal side, characterized by Richard Carrier with “There is a new atheism brewing, and it’s the rift we need, to cut free the dead weight so we can kick the C.H.U.D.’s back into the sewers and finally disown them, once and for all.”  Lack of tribalism on the liberal side? Hardly.  These are the people who form cliques and write BlockBots and try to harm their opponents by doxxing them and trying to get them fired from their jobs.  I’ve rarely seen anyone on the other side try to do that.  Liberals aren’t only fanatics, they’re mean fanatics who are utterly blinded to their own faults and failures.  They can point fingers, they just can’t see when the fingers are pointing back at them.

Another one, JD and Co., seems to think that people on the other side just react badly for no reason at all, such as when he became a vegetarian.  Now I can’t speak to that particular case, but in another recent debate, someone popped on, said they were a vegan, and immediately started moralizing about how horrible anyone who eats meat actually is.  This seems to be quite normal for the vegetarian crowd who can’t help looking down at those who don’t abstain from animal products.  Again, I have no idea what happened with JD and Co., but I can’t say I’d be surprised if he did the same thing, it seems very common.  When you attack others, they have every right to turn it around on you.  Liberals are totally blind to this as well.  Try telling one of them that you’re not a feminist and watch them shit their pants.  I’m sure they’ll tell you that you’re intolerant too, tolerance only goes one way in the liberal worldview. just like racism and sexism and all the rest does.

It constantly amazes me just how similar liberalism and fundamentalist religion are.  They both operate on pure and completely blind faith.  Both of them point fingers at their opponents and accuse them of “heresy”, insisting that their enemies are acting wrong-headedly, while entirely ignoring the exact same things within their own ranks.  They share the same penchant to twist and turn words to get the best effect from them, even if they’re guilty of misquotes and misrepresentations of their sources.  They redefine terminology so that they can sound reasonable, while taking the opposition to account for doing the same thing.  They’ve gotten so absurd that now, they’re co-opting the definition of “egalitarian” for that of “feminism” because they’re tired of people attacking them for only caring about the rights of women.  Feminism is now the same as egalitarianism unless you’re talking about equality for white men, at which point you’re sexist and racist.

When is this liberal stupidity ever going to end and when are we going to hold the people who act emotionally, irrationally and stupidly accountable?  My prediction?  Not any time soon.

Feminist Stupidity Rages On

Black PussyEvery time I think that radical feminists can’t get any more stupid, I’m unfortunately proven wrong.  Take this case, where feminists are petitioning a band, an all-white, all-male band, to change their name because somehow, it’s racist and sexist.  The name of the band?  Black Pussy.  Feminist heads have now officially exploded.

You know, there was a time when if you didn’t like something, you just didn’t pay any attention to it.  If there was a band I didn’t like, I just didn’t listen to their music. If there was a TV show I didn’t like on TV, I didn’t watch it.  It was a simple and elegant solution.  But no, modern liberals can’t do that, they have to turn everything into a mission for the social justice warriors, because everyone is a professional victim who thinks the world can be changed by putting up a poll on

The band, of course, doesn’t give a damn, I would imagine they think it’s funny and are celebrating the free advertising that they’re getting.  It probably results in more success for them, just like the Christian outlash against Last Temptation of Christ made it a much bigger movie than it ever would have been on it’s own.  And the band isn’t trying to be offensive, the band name came from the well-known Rolling Stones song “Brown Sugar”, which was originally named “Black Pussy”.  According to the band, they consider the name to be appropriate because it “encapsulates exactly what the band is: a sex-charged, ’70s-influenced, hide-your-daughters-because-they’re-coming-to-town rock ‘n’ roll band that sounds like Tarantino directing a Thin Lizzy video in the low desert.”

But no, feminists are just shitting themselves because something they don’t like exists out on the planet somewhere and damn it, they’re going to stop it or drop dead trying, and even if they did, it would be some old, white man’s fault, wouldn’t it?

The band has put up a statement on their website that reads:  “Black Pussy does not condone or endorse any sexism, racism, ageism, violence, or any other douchebaggery that has been spoiling the party since the party started. If you are offended by the band’s name, please refer to the following video…“.  It’s probably easier to just present the video here, it’s by comedian Doug Stanhope and is a good idea for these crazy feminists to listen to, although let’s be honest, they won’t because it falls outside of their absurd dogma.

[youtuber youtube=’’]

So any votes for what the next load of feminist stupidity will be?  What kind of thing are they going to get whiny and bitchy about next time?  I mean there’s a whole world of crap they can pretend is offensive, it’s anyone’s guess what they’ll pick, then decide they have the power to make everyone else change so their precious little feelings aren’t hurt.

Well fuck you all.  Fuck you all.


Who Didn’t Know This about Narcissism?

Too much praiseResearchers get paid altogether too much money to tell us things that anyone with an ounce of common sense already knows. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that, by studying more than 500 children in the Netherlands, researchers found that parents who praise their children too much may encourage narcissism.

No shit, you don’t say!

Parents who described their children as “more special than other children” had a much, much higher percentage of spoiled, narcissistic kids than parents who simply loved their children.  Researcher Brad Bushman, professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University, says “That may not be good for them or for society.”  Well duh!

It isn’t like they had no clue what they were  getting themselves into, people like me were pointing out the utter absurdity of this years ago, back before schools were giving out trophies for just showing up and parents were flying their personal helicopters around their delicate little darlings 24/7, we pointed out that doing this was going to give you a generation of entitled, spoiled-rotten brats who expected everyone to treat them like princes and princesses.  It isn’t like nobody told these idiot liberals, they knew, they just didn’t listen, or more likely didn’t care.  I think that’s closer to the truth, they don’t care because the only thing they want is to make themselves and their constituents happy, even if it’s going to cause problems down the line, because happy voters are pliable voters.

So you had hordes of lefty lunatics writing self-help books telling parents never to spank their kids, never to raise their voices to their kids, to treat their kids like they’re something special and essentially to let the kids raise themselves.  This is at a time when liberal parents were too busy getting drunk with their friends, too busy being occupied with other things to bother actually being parents.  Try to make up for failures in parenting by piling on unearned praise that makes these liberal asshats feel better about their pathetic inadequacies.

Now what’s going to happen in another decade or two when the ridiculous crap that the liberals are pushing today comes home to roost?  It’s clear they’re not going to pay any more attention to those who are pointing out the enormous pitfalls they’re blindly stumbling into because liberals are all special.  You know, short bus special.  I hate to say we all told them so, but we’ve spent a fair amount of time doing it and they never learn.


Racism: Gotta Start ’em Young

Radical BrowniesOnly in a place like San Francisco would you find such an absurd liberal load of horse shit taking place.  We’ve all heard of the Girl Scouts, right?  And their younger counterparts, the Brownies?  Well here’s a group, based in Oakland, right outside of San Francisco, one of the major hubs for liberal lunacy, who isn’t out in front of Walmart selling cookies, they’re out selling social justice, and racist social justice at that!

Yes, these little girls are spreading the “black people are better” message that racist liberals are so good at and, like religion long ago realized, if you get these kids young, when their rational mind isn’t developed, you’ve got a disciple for life.  Get ’em thinking about racism and sexism and other liberal chestnuts quick!

And seriously, who the fuck names these idiots?  What imbecile would name their kid “Coatlupe”?  Only a loony liberal.

This is just more evidence that these idiotic social justice warriors are little more than a political cult, they’re indoctrinating young children into their mental poison and these little girls today are going to be the S.C.U.M. of the next generation. This is where radicalism starts folks, it’s no surprise that these are named the Radical Brownies.

But of course, you get the loony liberal atheist fringe who decry religious indoctrination at a young age, yet are standing on their chairs and cheering when this kind of stuff goes on.  It’s like the Christians who complain about Muslim madrassas and then stick their kids in religious schools and dump them at Sunday School every weekend.  Now certainly, most everything that parents do when their children are young is indoctrination, it’s how we teach language, inculcate them into societal norms and educate them through schooling.  The first few years of a child’s life, they are an open sponge that soaks up knowledge. Complaining about one form of indoctrination while engaging in another is a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?  Of course, there ought to be limits and we ought to be doing what is best for the child’s future life and development.  I don’t think having a bunch of girls pushing social justice outside of Walmart is doing what’s best for the kids, it’s just stroking the egos of the idiot parents.  Oh, and note that in the story, nobody mentions the fathers of these girls.  Think any of them are in the picture?  Me either.


More Feminist Stupidity from FtB

liberalracistsexistWay back when, I made it a New Year’s Resolution to entirely walk away from the stupidity that is Atheism+ and I think that for the most part, I’ve done pretty well keeping that resolution.  As a part of that, it meant virtually abandoning several blog networks including FreethoughtBlogs, Skepchicks and, on the other side of the spectrum, the Slymepit.  I can honestly say, I have never regretted the decision, nor have I had the slightest interest in ever going back.  Being free from extremist feminist stupidity is like a breath of fresh air and I heartily recommend it.

However, while I’ve been gone, the stupidity has gone on unabated.  I sometimes see things on the periphery, reported on other blogs or podcasts that I listen to and sometimes, there are things so utterly idiotic, so abjectly stupid, that I have to step in and make some comments to get it off my chest and keep me from headbanging the desk.  This is one of those cases.

Over on a FtB site called Heinous Dealings, a blog by Heina Dadabhoy, she writes the following post about “Excluding White Male Authors”.  It is so full of feminist idiocy, I haven’t got any idea where to start.  I guess the only place to begin is at the beginning.

I recently announced something I’d decided on ages ago: That I’d exclusively be reading non-male authors in 2015 and non-white authors in 2016.

That seems extraordinarily stupid, truth be told.  Isn’t the point of reading anything to gain information, not to bask in the author’s gender or skin color?  I read for content, not political correctness.  It doesn’t matter to me who writes a book, only if I enjoy reading the book.  I really have no idea the gender or skin color of most authors, given that any of them could easily be using a pseudonym.  I also don’t care.  It never enters my mind to give half a shit about the physical characteristics of the author, but then again, I’m not a racist or a sexist.  Radical feminists like Dadabhoy absolutely are both.

The moment of resolution happened when my horrified eyes beheld my reading record on gender. Not only were my percentages far less than 50/50 (favoring male authors) but also most of the female authors on record for me reflected books that I’d read as a child and younger teen. From the time I started university until now, I’d mostly read white male authors.

Maybe because the content you wished to consume just so happened to be written by white male authors?  Why does it matter? Does the content change because the gender of the person writing it changes?  Apparently you never thought so in the past because it took you a very long time to realize “your mistake”.  So why, other than your radical feminist credo, do you care now?

Furthermore, the works by the relatively few authors of color I’d read were on racial issues and the non-male authors I’d read were writings on feminism.

Then it sounds like you had a very limited literary spectrum, doesn’t it?  There are plenty of female authors who write about things other than feminism and tons of non-white authors who write about things other than race.  I guess you’ve just  been confined within your liberal hidey hole for far too long.  I’ll tell you what, I don’t read any books about race and I don’t read any books about sex and I read books by people of every color and every gender.  Maybe you need to expand your horizons beyond the liberal echo chamber you inhabit.

How did this happen to a voracious reader who graduated with a double degree in the Humanities, an area of study widely reviled as diversity-obsessed? The short answer is that I paid no attention to gender or race in my reading, and not caring is a recipe for bias in a world riddled with inequality.

Nor should you.  I thought the whole point of liberalism is to establish equality, to go beyond race and sex into a race-blind and sex-blind society.  Not so when it comes to radical liberals, they can only see the world in terms of sex and race and privilege. Everything comes down to that, nothing else matters and it can take someone who is supposed to be “diversity-obsessed” and make them a complete sexist, racist asshat.  I’m a voracious reader too, I just don’t segregate my book shelves into books by a particular gender or a particular race.  A book is a book.  Read it or don’t.  It doesn’t matter what the person behind the pages has between their legs or how much melanin they have in their skin.  But I’m not a racist or a sexist, people like Dadabhoy are.

A common argument against discussing or taking conscious care when it comes to matters of race and gender is that calling attention to the issue will exacerbate matters. Why not focus on the common humanity we all share rather than our differences?

Yeah, why not?  That would make perfect sense.  Of course, we have to deal with cases of overt racism and sexism, but once you get beyond that, why not just let everyone else compete in the forum of ideas and see who can rise to the top.  Oh wait, to a liberal, it’s not about equality, it’s about putting the “downtrodden” on top and punishing the successful.  It’s all a giant conspiracy!

Unfortunately for the anti-victimhood brigade, that attitude does not accurately reflect the world in which we live. Seemingly “equal” and “unbiased” behavior doesn’t lead to equal and unbiased outcomes. Because of intrinsic biases, behaving as if equality were already acheived leads to the reinforcement of the status quo, which is certainly not equality for all.

No, it doesn’t accurately reflect the world that liberals *WANT* to live in.  Here she points out the same problem with liberalism that I’ve pointed out time and time again.  They don’t want equality, they want specific statistical outcomes. You have to have quotas, forced by the government, to ensure that exactly half of the writers are male and exactly half are female. There has to be a law that a certain percentage of writers are black, another percentage are Hispanic and another are Asian. Some have to be straight, some have to be gay and some have to be transgendered.  That’s not equality, it’s just playing number games.

Bias doesn’t magically correct itself when we ignore it in favor of pretending like all that matters is that we are human. If that were true, there would be a lot more balance in my reading history. If a voracious non-male reader of color like myself managed to read so few non-male and/or non-white authors, then active correction is the only solution.

Bias doesn’t magically correct itself when you, yourself, are biased.  Bias only goes away when it goes away on all sides. It won’t happen when the side screaming about bias is more biased than anyone else in the equation.  The only correction she needs to make is stop giving a damn what the  color or gender of her authors are and only pay attention to the quality of the writing itself.

As uncomfortable as it can be to admit you have biases and to actively work to correct them, the implications of letting the biases simply be are far more uncomfortable.

But it doesn’t seem to stop her, does it?  She wears her biases on her sleeve proudly.  Now I suppose she could be totally unaware of how biased she and her lefty cronies actually are, it’s just more cognitive dissonance, but maybe someone needs to educate her on the facts of reality, outside of the liberal factory she’s spent far too much of her life inside of.

That means either one of two things:

  1. That I have a bias in my reading and I’m interested in correcting it; or

  2. That there are few-to-no non-male and/or non-white authors worth reading.

Or 3. That you’re paying attention to things that are wholly irrelevant except inside of your liberal echo chamber.  You do not have a  bias in your reading, you read books that come out and that you enjoy.  You didn’t specifically select those books because they were by white, male authors.  You selected those books because the content looked interesting and apparently, you enjoyed them on that basis.  She’s not correcting a bias, she’s developing a bias.  She is becoming biased against white, male authors, not because of what they write about, but because of what they are.  That is the epitome of racism and sexism that liberals whine about so often.  Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

The only rational thing to do here is not to toss out white authors or male authors, it’s to include more non-white and non-male authors if it bothers you so much.  Increase your diversity.  But no, a “diversity-obsessed” liberal would never do that!  That would mean that they’d actually have to do what they claim they want to do.  What a bunch of hypocrites.


History Isn’t Sexist

intolerant-liberal-hypocriteI recently had a kerfluffle with an Internet liberal feminist, although even though she self-identified as a feminist first and foremost, it could have been with any number of social justice warriors on the far left.  I responded to her demand that we as a society do more to recognize and celebrate the contributions that women have made to history and science.  I questioned her further and she also agreed that “people of color” and “homosexuals” ought to be equally lauded for what they’ve done for the world.  Hey, great, I have no problem with that, we ought to celebrate everyone who makes their mark in the world and helps the planet be a better place to live.

That was, until I asked her what skin color, gender and sexual orientation actually had to do with some of these discoveries. Take Alan Turing for example.  He was a brilliant mathematician who became the father of modern computer science. I probably couldn’t be writing this article if it weren’t for Turing.  There is no doubt that he was a genius and set the stage for significant improvements and innovations for mankind, but… what did his sexual orientation have to do with his work?  What is it about the work he did that couldn’t have been done had he been straight.  His homosexuality had absolutely no bearing on his historically significant work.  So why do these liberals spend so much time focusing on things that had no impact whatsoever on the ideas, inventions and innovations that we remember them for?

The same can be said of famous black scientists whose scientific accomplishments had fuck all to do with their being black.  Or female historical figures whose gender meant nothing to their feats.  These people are remembered fondly for their actions, not their genetic attributes.  The idea that we have a “Black History Month” or a “Woman’s History Month” or whatever to pay special attention to the skin color or gender of people whose actions had nothing whatsoever to do with their skin color or gender is really quite absurd.  When do we get to have a “Mustache History Month” to pay homage to those who were historically notable and just so happened to have a mustache?

Of course, this was right about when she started calling me a racist and a sexist and ran away to be comforted in some feminist “safe space” where she didn’t have to actually think about the absurdity of her belief system.  That doesn’t make my questions invalid though.  We don’t give special attention to people with blue eyes or big feet, why should we give special attention to people with dark skin or who are attracted to the same gender?  You know, for people who proclaim that they want equality for all (even though they clearly don’t), they sure want people on their side to feel special and get extra recognition.

The fact is, history is made by people.  Not black people, not white people, not males and not females.  It isn’t made by gays or straights.  It’s made by people who went out and did something worthwhile.  Marie Curie didn’t discover radium because she had a vagina.  George Washington Carver didn’t discover amazing things to do with peanuts because he was black.  His brilliance came from inside, not from his skin color.

I honestly have no idea why the liberal SJW crowd can’t get this through their tiny little heads.  To them, everything is race. Everything is gender.  Everything is sexuality.  They cannot imagine a world where people are not seen first and foremost for their physical characteristics instead of being acknowledged for their skill and intelligence and ingenuity.  That doesn’t matter to them, no matter how many times they pretend that it does.  They spend all of their time looking for excuses to blame racism and sexism, to proclaim that there must be discrimination against those who do not perform well instead of just acknowledging that when it comes to merit, you actually have to earn it.  These people don’t want to earn anything, they just want to be granted special rights and abilities and recognition because of how they look.

If you want to know the real racists and sexists and bigots, you have to look no further than the social justice warriors in the liberal camp.  History isn’t sexist or racist, you liberal morons, you are!

What Do I Like About Liberalism?

LiberalismRecently, someone on a forum posted a challenge for people to take a look at their political polar opposites and post what they liked about that political philosophy.  I stared at the screen for a long, long time because I realized that I really don’t like anything about liberalism.  Oh sure, I have friends that are moderately liberal, I can find things about them to like, but not about their politics.  I literally cannot think of a single thing that I like about what they want, or more particularly why they want it. Sure, they ostensibly want to help people, but at the end of the day, they don’t really care about helping people, they just want to make them reliant on the government.  I want to help people too, I just want them to be self-reliant and responsible for themselves.  They claim to want some decent things, I guess, but in truth, the end just doesn’t justify the means.  In fact, the end doesn’t satisfy the initial claims.  The people who they claim to want to help don’t end up being helped.  The equality they claim to want to achieve doesn’t get achieved.

Don’t get me wrong, the neo-cons are just as bad.  I’m not on their side either, in fact, I’m not on the side of any organized political party in existence in modern-day America.  They all suck.  I can’t say my side is better than your side because I don’t even have a side.  My side died in America 50 years ago and we’ve gone down the wrong path ever since.

Someone else asked what was better politically, 1985 or 2015.  My answer is neither.  To get a decent year, you’d have to go back into the mid 50s to early 60s, back when we had actual conservatism in this country, before the late 60s turned the nation to idiotic liberalism.  So long as we stick to politics, 1985 sucked every bit as bad as today does.  Sure, you had one of the last pseudo-conservatives in the White House, but he was still sticking everything on a credit card, the very antithesis of fiscal responsibility.

So seriously, what is it that I’m supposed to admire about liberalism at all?  Please clue me in.  I’m just not seeing it.

Even Environmentalists Are Skeptical

Church of ClimatologyThe crazy liberal climate change idiots have been screaming for decades that the sky is falling and it’s all our fault. They claim that the ice caps are going to melt, that the beach-front property is going to flood, that there will be terrible tornadoes and hurricanes, fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!  Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave!  Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

But you know, when they even have people on their own side going “hey, it just doesn’t add up”, it’s clear that they’ve got issues. Recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore came out and admitted that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t make any sense.

Patrick recognizes something that I’ve pointed out many times in the past, that climate is cyclical, it changes naturally, no matter what we do to it.  We have heating trends and cooling trends which are often brought on by differences in solar radiation and volcanic cycles.  We can study the past and find ice ages and heat waves that occurred long before humanity was putting a drop of CO2 into the atmosphere.  In fact, Dr. Moore has now come to the conclusion that human industrialization has saved the planet by replenishing CO2 in the atmosphere that has been absorbed by millions of years of plant growth.  We’ve gone from 3,000 parts per million in the atmosphere to 282 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution.  An optimal level is 1,500 parts per million, something we currently rest at a quarter of.  Here’s Patrick Moore’s speech at the Ninth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[youtuber youtube=’’]

So why does this keep going on and why do so many people buy into it?  The problem is, this has been going on for many decades now, the whack-a-loon environmentalists screaming that man is ruining the planet, yet the planet continues on just fine.  From the “global cooling” in the 60s and 70s to the “global warming” of the 2000s and now to “climate change” when they realized neither of their previous battle cries could be taken seriously, they keep getting everything wrong, yet they still keep making new claims because this is a religion, not a genuine scientifically valid position.  You can start with Paul Erlich’s crazy predictions, made in 1975 at a speech at the British Institute for Biology, where he argued “by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people. If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today.”  He was entirely wrong.  You can look at the claims made by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 2005 which claimed that imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions and that by 2010, more than 50 million “climate refugees” would need to be rehomed elsewhere as those portions of the globe became unlivable.  They were entirely wrong.  Or the Pentagon report in 2003 called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security” that claimed man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern” and predicted that within 10 years, California would be flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands would be entirely unlivable, the polar ice would be all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures would destabilize the weather system.  That was completely wrong too.  In 2000, David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), predicted that snow would become virtually unheard of in England and that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”  Of course, since then, snowfall, both in the UK and abroad, has been quite healthy, making Viner’s words absurd at best.  Let’s not forget Al Gore’s dire predictions that the polar ice caps would be entirely free of ice by 2013, which is simply not the case.  I can go on and on and on but I think this suffices to show just how ludicrous these claims of anthropogenic climate change really are.

Well, I suppose I ought to address the claims made that scientists all agree that global climate change is happening.  It isn’t true.  Forbes magazine wrote an article where it detailed that the number of wildfires, a typical prediction made by the global warming fanatics, has has fallen more than 15 percent since 1950 and according the National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue to fall for decades. On droughts, a 2012 study published in Nature admitted there has been “little change in global drought over the past 60 years.” The UN’s own climate “specialists” had to admit that in many regions of the world, “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter.”  Hurricanes and tornadoes and other severe storms are top of the Chicken Little routine for climate fanatics, but even those aren’t bearing out their claims.  Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado points out,  “when the 2014 hurricane season starts it will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S. intense hurricanes since 1900.” The reality is, “global warming” actually stopped about 18 years ago but the fanatics are still running around the field waving the flag for their cause.  The UN had 73 “climate models”, every single one of which has been soundly discredited.  This isn’t a scientific position, it’s an emotional one, brought on by liberal self-loathing.

It’s also dishonest.  Liberal environmentalists have blind faith that this anthropogenic climate change is happening, just like theists have blind faith that their gods are real.  No matter what happens, it’s evidence for their fanatical beliefs.  If it gets hotter, it’s climate change.  If it gets colder, it’s climate change.  If it stays the same, it’s “climate change pause”.  More storms? Less storms?  More ice?  Less ice?  It’s all climate change.  Reality has no chance of changing their beliefs.

For people who don’t know, “climate change” is a massive business, clocking in at more than $360 billion dollars worldwide every single year.  Liberals have every reason to push it, it makes them money. The whole “green revolution” is a massive money-making campaign to make people feel guilty about the way they’ve been doing things so they can spend way more money on whole new technologies that really aren’t any better than the ones that came before.  Take electric cars.  I’m not going to talk about their inefficiency, I am going to point out that they are not better for the environment than gas-powered cars. The manufacturing of the batteries alone is much, much worse for the environment than just driving your regular automobile and the energy required to charge them comes mostly from coal-fired power plants.  The reality is, it not only isn’t better, it’s arguably worse for the environment but we’re talking about high-emotion and low-information consumers who listen to what their political ideologues say and don’t think a moment before whipping out their hipster wallets.  Politicians are only too happy to pass all the “carbon taxes” they can, they get more money to play with, plus it buys votes from the gullible.

We have environmental issues on this planet to be sure, we need to deal with them as best we can, but running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off, spouting liberal alarmist drivel, doesn’t actually fix any of the problems we actually have.  Maybe it’s time to take a deep breath, take a look at what the data actually says rationally, without all the emotional mumbo-jumbo that typically goes along with these discussions and see what’s actually true and what’s just not justifiable.

Obama Lies About Islam Again

obamalies1To be fair, it isn’t only Obama who does this, seemingly the majority of the liberal left operates like this, including a lot of people within the so-called “atheist community”.  This is a complete falsehood and there is no conceivable way that he cannot be aware that he’s vomiting a load of horse shit, but I guess when you lie as much as Obama does, he forgets what it actually feels like to tell the truth.

In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN, he says Lindsay Graham said that he was bothered that Obama won’t admit we’re in a religious war with radical Islam.  He points out that the White House goes to great pains to never use the word “Islamic terrorists” or do anything to refer to the religion at all.  Obama came back with the following statement:

But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for. Order, peace, prosperity.

But this is simply not true.  How  do we know this isn’t true?  We just have to ask Muslims what they actually believe!  In a Pew survey of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan in 2013, they found that 64% of Muslims polled said they supported the death penalty for leaving Islam.  And before you say I’m arbitrarily picking the top numbers, I’m not.  Muslims in Afghanistan top the list at 78% who want infidels killed.  These three countries, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan are nominally allied with the U.S., yet the majority of Muslims there think that leaving Islam, or not being a Muslim in the first place, is a capital offense.  Sure Obama, tell us another one!

But, to be fair, the poll numbers show that people in these countries are also more worried about radical Muslims in their own countries than they are about radical Christians.  Certainly, I can understand that radical Muslims are only too happy to kill other Muslims who fall outside of their extremist sects.  However, I find it worrying that the number of people who fear radical Islam in Egypt, 67%, are almost the same number of people who want to kill non-Muslims, 64%.  I guess extremist has a different meaning depending on what questions you ask.

Yet Obama is saying that it’s only a small percentage of Muslims in certain communities around the world that have “perverted” Islam.  No!  No they have not!  In fact, there’s something that these people are really missing.  It isn’t the radicals who have perverted Islam, it’s the rest of the people who are not taking what the Qur’an says seriously!  It’s the “radicals” who are doing it according to their holy book.  The same goes for radical Christians.  Those are the people actually following their religion, not the people who pick and choose what to believe, based on their personal whims.

I’m not saying I think more people ought to closely follow these primitive religions, I think that everybody ought to grow up and give up on this superstitious nonsense, but to claim the people who barely follow the teachings of their religion are the ones doing it correctly?  That’s absurd!

But what can you expect from Obama and his crew of leftists?  Honesty isn’t something they’re well versed in, spinning reality to fit their agenda is part of the status quo.  The rest of us shouldn’t be at all surprised.

Americans Are Too Reliant on the Government

Government DependencyI came across this list of 21 facts that prove that dependence on the government is out of control in America and while I recognize that it’s a bit of an extremist site, the facts don’t lie.  We have gone way too far over to the liberal side in this country and that’s primarily why we, as a nation and as a people, are struggling.  I might not agree with all of the conclusions provided, therefore I wanted to take a look at these 21 items myself and give my take.

1. According to a Congressional Budget Office study that was just released, approximately 60 percent of all U.S. households get more in transfer payments from the government than they pay in taxes.  Here is more about this stunning report from Mark J. Perry’s Carpe Diem blog

This is just basic bad mathematics by the government, you cannot have a stable economy if you spend more money than you take in.  It doesn’t work for business, it can’t work for government either.  That’s why China owns more than $1.3 trillion dollars of our debt and it’s increasing all the time.  Other countries like Japan, Brazil, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Russia own significant portions of our debt as well and there’s really no sign that we will ever be able to pay much, if any of it back.  We are not fiscally responsible in this country, neither the people nor the government and it’s not just the Democrats, the Republicans, which are just religiously-zealous liberals today, are just as bad.

2. About 70 percent of all government spending now goes toward dependence-creating programs.

Americans are becoming much more reliant on the government than they have any right to be. The government has an absurd amount of control over people’s lives and a ridiculous amount of input into their ability to make a living. For a majority of Americans, some form of welfare check arrives every month, there aren’t that many of us who eschew all government help because we believe we are personally responsible for taking care of ourselves and our families.  Personally, if I qualified for any government program that I hadn’t paid in for, and I don’t mean paid taxes, I mean paid specifically for, such as Social Security, I would never sign up for that program, no matter how hard things got.  I would be embarrassed.  There isn’t any such thing as shame in this country anymore.

3. From 2009 through 2013, the U.S. government spent a whopping 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs.

That is utterly absurd.  Compared to other programs that are more important, including transportation, NASA and education, the United States government spends almost 5x as much on welfare programs than those others put together.  What’s worse, many of these social programs are so utterly fragmented, food stamps, for instance, are just one of 15 federal programs that feed the poor and this doesn’t include state-based food programs that may overlap federal efforts.  It is impossible, with so many fingers in the pie, to oversee the absurd waste in these programs.  We know we’re throwing away money, the government isn’t interested in cleaning up it’s own mess.

4. The percentage of the U.S. population that gets money from the federal government grew by an astounding 62 percent between 1988 and 2011.

More than 42% of Americans receive some sort of government check each and every month, an increase of 62% over the 24 year period between 1988 and 2011.  In fact, it is suspected that these numbers are actually conservative, that many more people may suck on the government teat.  Some say that the Census Bureau Current Population Survey is “well known to undercount those receiving Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Children’s Health Insurance, higher-education support, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”

5. According to an analysis of U.S. government numbers conducted by Terrence P. Jeffrey, there are 86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States paying taxes to support the government, and nearly 148 million Americans that are receiving benefits from the government each month.

This is just a failure of the system.  It is mathematically impossible for 86 million people to support 148 million people, fully or partially while fully supporting themselves as well.  More than 103 million people work full time in the United States.  Of those, 33,212,000 work for the government in some capacity or another.  That means that nearly 1/3 of all people employed full time in America are effectively being paid out of tax money.  They do not produce any saleable products or provide any saleable services.  They are all leeches on the American taxpayer.  Certainly, we need some of them, but 1/3 of all workers?  Seriously?

6. According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.  Sadly, that figure does not even include Social Security or Medicare.

It would be bad enough if we counted Social Security or Medicare, but we’re not.  We’re talking about means-tested welfare programs.  That is over 1/3 of all Americans that have their hands out to the government and it’s still climbing.  Since Obama got into office, the numbers have skyrocketed and this has nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis, Obama and his party simply want to  buy votes by handing out money to those most likely to check “Democrat” on election day.

7. Currently, there are somewhere around 40 million senior citizens in the United States.  By 2050, that number is projected to skyrocket to 89 million.  Supporting all of those senior citizens is going to be extraordinarily expensive.

But there isn’t really anything that can be done about it without resorting to Soylent Green.  The problem here is threefold. First, people are living much longer than they were before and that dramatically increases costs on an already overburdened system.  Certainly, there’s nothing that can be done about this. Secondly, politicians have stolen from Social Security for so many years, leaving the system gutted, even though they knew that the Baby Boomers would be reaching old age and would require much more funding to cover than earlier generations.  This ought to be criminal neglect, but the government cannot and will not ever replace those funds.  Third, however, is the unfortunate fact that so many people have failed to plan for their own retirement, they expect Social Security to cover their costs and that’s not what it was ever intended to do.  Social Security was meant  to be a safety net, not a panacea.

8. Right now, more than 64 million Americans are receiving Social Security benefits.

Now I don’t necessarily have a problem with that because Social Security is, by and large, paid for by the people who receive it. Where this does become an issue are people who have never paid much, if anything into the system, yet are getting out of the system.  That’s an entitlement and I am opposed to entitlements.  Unfortunately, I’ve seen plenty of people who can get doctors to claim that they are permanently disabled so they get a check for the rest of their lives without so much as lifting a finger. A lot of these people are perfectly able-bodied, they work under the table in addition to taking tax money.  Fraud in the social security system is rampant, yet nobody wants to actually do anything about it.

9. Right now, more than 54 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare.

Now I’m not going to say that people ought to be thrown out into the street because they cannot afford insurance, I think that a very basic system where anyone can get low-cost medical treatment for the poorest Americans is fine.  It’s good for public health and safety, it keeps the poor from being breeding vectors for disease.  It’s good for everyone.  However, that money has to come from somewhere and at the moment, there isn’t enough tax money going into the government to cover the amount of money coming out.  Add to that the unmitigated disaster that is Obamacare and you’ve got a massive problem on your hands.

10. Right now, more than 70 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid.

The same goes here.  More than 22% of the American population is enrolled in Medicaid.  While the latest mass increase was in response to the 2008 economic downturn, as the economy recovered, things haven’t slowed.  Financial responsibility anyone?

11. The number of Americans enrolled in the Social Security disability program now exceeds the entire population of the state of Virginia.

The disability program is horribly corrupt.  As people reached their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, they just found doctors who would certify them as disabled so they can get on another kind of government handout.  The sad part is that a lot of people are receiving government disability for being obese, yet there is no requirement by the government that they do anything at all to lose weight.  There are people out there who know exactly how much they have to weigh to keep getting that check and make sure they don’t drop below that threshold.

12. If the number of Americans on Social Security disability were gathered into a separate state, it would be the 8th largest state in the entire country.

I really don’t know how much more there is to say here.  There are people who absolutely deserve disability benefits because they are legitimately disabled.  There are a ton more than absolutely do not.  In 1968, there were 1.2 million Americans on disability.  Today, it’s nearing 5 million.  Are we really supposed to think that 3.8 million more people have become disabled in the past 45 years?  Seriously?

13. In 1968, there were 51 full-time workers for every American on disability.  Today, there are just 13 full-time workers for every American on disability.

Explain that one away, liberals!

14. At this point, the federal government runs about 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years.

I hate to feel like I’m blaming the liberals because frankly, the neo-cons aren’t any better.  They’re just spending money on corporate welfare, which I oppose too.    It’s all about buying loyalty, not at all about being fiscally responsible.

15. The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 46 million today.

It’s really sad, I remember not more than a couple of years ago, commercials run by the California welfare people on the radio, telling everyone, even if you had money to buy food, to get on the state-run food stamp program.  It actually said that, even if you can afford to buy food, get on the program and get a card.  I’m sure California isn’t alone, they know that the federal government will send them money if they get people to sign up.  This is your government, people.

16. Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceeds the number of women that have jobs.

Well sure, liberals don’t really care if women work.  It’s funny that so many of them push for empowered women, then try to sign them up for social welfare programs.

17. Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps.  Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.

I’m sure this has increased in the past year or two since these studies were done too.  The majority of these people are not starving, it’s just more money from the government that they don’t have to spend.

18. Today, the number of Americans on food stamps exceeds the entire population of the nation of Spain.

What’s worse, of the 247 countries and dependencies around the world, only 26 of them have a population greater than the number of Americans on food stamps.  How long until it’s only 25?  Or 24? Or 12?

19. According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”

The costs are absurdly high, in 2011, SNAP cost American taxpayers more than $72 billion, more than twice what SNAP cost in 2007.  That’s more than the majority of states have for their entire annual budget!

20. According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

In 2010, 36% of immigrant households were on at least one major form of welfare, compared to 23% of non-immigrant households.  They tend to lag behind native households in virtually all metrics.  This isn’t being racist, it’s being realistic. I’m not saying that immigrants are stupid or lazy or anything else, just pointing out that the data supports the proposition that there’s a problem.  Immigrants, an estimated 28% of which are here illegally, are a drain on our welfare system, a welfare system that is already dramatically overtaxed.  Can this be fixed?  I don’t know.  For those who come here legally to find a better life, I certainly hope so. For those who just want free education and government handouts, who are working under the table and sending money back to whatever country they came from, those are people we just don’t need.

21. Most Americans are not earning enough to support themselves and their families without government help anymore.  The following are some statistics about wages in the U.S. from a Social Security Administration report that was recently released

It’s a sad fact that so many people live in poverty but it’s not the fault of the wealthy, it’s the fault of the poor.  Instead of having a bell shape for our economy, it’s a slope going down.  There are more poor people than there are in the middle class.  I don’t know how to solve this one, it has happened largely since the 1960s when liberal society started to run rampant and it shows no sign of stopping.  If you go back to the 1960s, the average median income was rising year after year.  Today, it is falling. I can’t tell you why, I’ll leave that to the economists, but something has to be done because soon, there will be nobody left that isn’t in the federal government’s pocket.

These are statistics that should scare every American out there, particularly those Americans who understand the writing on the wall.  We simply cannot continue to borrow and spend money on people who refuse to be responsible for their own lives. We cannot allow our politicians to continue to buy votes and not be held responsible for their actions.  We may already be at a point of no return, where we will never be able to pay off our debts and never be able to force people to get off their asses and get  back to work.  America was made great by hard work and innovation.  Today, we have welfare and most things are made overseas.  If you can’t see the correlation, something is wrong with you.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Liberalism

hypocrisyOn a recent Atheist Experience, the last caller of the day asked about Islam and the validity of hating Islam and Russell and Lynnea both did exactly what I expected. Now given my ongoing disagreement with their philosophical position on a great number of things, this isn’t surprising, in fact, when they launched into an example, I could tell where it was going. They criticized who I am going to assume is Elliot Roger, the guy who shot up a college because he couldn’t get laid, leaving behind links to some MRA websites. Now certainly you can and should criticize the guy for what he did, but they argued that some unnamed people were pointing to this guy’s mental illness and not his imagined “men’s rights” ideology and presumably they thought those people were idiots.  Yet their side does the exact same thing when it comes to radical feminism!  It’s never the ideology, if anyone says something wrong or does something wrong, it can’t be the ideology to blame!  If anyone on their side does something idiotic, as they do so often, feminism could never have anything to do with it!

Of course, none of this is true, the website that Roger had been going to was called PUAHate and in the thread in question, it asked if you could come up with a virus that killed all the men, other than yourself, would you do it.  Presumably this was to give women no chance but to consort with you because you were literally the last man on Earth.  That has nothing to do with men’s rights whatsoever, in fact it’s the exact polar opposite of men’s rights, they’re talking about virtual male genocide.  But hey, tell that to the crazy radical feminist liberals that populate TAE.

Then Lynnea claims that there is an ongoing rash of sexual harassment at atheism conferences.  Really?  Produce one. Show that this is true.  It isn’t.  It never has been.  In fact, all of the classical cases that are claimed are just absurd over-reactions by feminists, starting with Elevatorgate and going onward.  There has never been a single case that I am aware of, and please correct me if I am wrong, where any woman has ever been demonstrably sexually harassed at any atheist conference.  Go ahead. Impress me.  I’m not holding my breath.  Unfortunately, these people consider anything they dislike to be harassment, but that’s liberalism for you.

I really can’t be surprised at this anymore, it happens pretty much any time anyone brings up any non-extreme-liberal position on TAE.  All of a sudden, the hosts start shouting over the caller, refusing to let them speak, threatening to put them on hold and often hanging up on them.  Clearly, they are uncomfortable with anyone who disagrees with their particular flavor of Kool Aid. Isn’t that exactly what theists do?  They just throw things at anyone who disagrees, faster than the other person can answer, they stifle their ability to speak and after they blow off their opponent, they insult them when they can’t be responded to.

You liberals are no better than the theists you pretend to be superior to, but it isn’t just the hosts of TAE, it’s a huge majority of liberals I see on a regular basis.  It’s their modus operandi.   It’s meaningless threats, Gish gallops, authoritarian nonsense and post-discussion grandstanding.  Welcome to the liberal playbook.  Wish I could say I was surprised.

The Idiocy of Extreme Environmentalism

monarch-butterfly-migrationI heard some lady on the radio today complain about a local city who cut down a tree and displaced a large swarm of Monarch butterflies and was pleading for help so that this evil city would stop “harming the environment”.

What’s worse, this crazy lady actually said that she hugs trees.  Seriously.  I mean, for her, treehugging isn’t just a cute label, she actually does it.

These people are idiots.

She also made the argument that lots of species are going extinct and somehow that’s a bad thing.  That’s really what prompted me to write this article, because such claims are ridiculous and illogical on their face.  There are an estimated 8.5 million species on the planet.  There doesn’t have to be that many and there can be more. Species come into existence and go extinct every single day, with or without our help. Extinction is a natural part of the life cycle of this planet, it’s something that goes on whether we pay any attention to it or not.  However, to a lot of hyper-environmentalists, the loss of any species is a travesty.  That’s why they demand extreme measures to counteract the loss of habitat of any species they come across that isn’t doing as well as they’d like to think it should.  There are local desert tortoises which are required, by law, to live in fenced off areas, complete with their own little bridges under the freeway so they don’t get squashed.  There are waterways which cannot be improved  because it might impact local fish populations.  In fact, this story is part of a city’s move to spent $200 million dollars to improve a wetlands area, which this bitch is whining about because the improvement might impact some butterflies.

The reality is, human activity is also part of the natural process.  What we do may very well drive animal species to extinction, but guess what?  That might not be a bad thing for the environment.  It might not be a good thing either.  It simply is a thing. It’s an unfortunate reality that a lot of people think that just because a thing has been the way that it is, that it ought to be the way that it is.

I’m not against intelligent environmentalism though.  Let’s take tigers.  I like tigers.  I had a friend a long time ago who was very outspoken about saving the Sumatran tiger. But the question is why?  If the Sumatran tiger went extinct, what  specific effect would it have on the planet’s ecosystem?  None. But in going extinct, perhaps it would open an ecological niche for another animal to rise in it’s place.  That’s how evolution works. Old species die, new species arise.  Our emotional attachment to any particular species is not rational.  If it dies, it dies.  More are on the way, and if they’re not, if the overall biological diversity decreases, then life goes on.  And if we kill off so many species that it harms our ability to remain on this planet, then we die and the planet resets.  The planet isn’t harmed by humanity, it will go on long after we’re gone, until the sun expands as a red giant and engulfs it.  Outside of that and the occasional rogue planetoid, the Earth has nothing to worry about.  We do.  But we shouldn’t be concerned because we never want anything to change, but because we do things that actually cause demonstrable harm to our own survival.

I’m not saying we should shoot animals and drive them to extinction for no reason, but neither should we cling to every single species of bullfrog and mosquito because they’ve always been here and we’d be uncomfortable not to see them anymore.  There has to be a rational middle ground between living life as the planet’s dominant species and being irresponsible with the planet’s resources.  We have to eat.  If we end up killing off a particular species of deer or cattle while eating, so be it.  If we end up killing off all deer and cattle, there’s probably an issue.  We need to learn and adapt.  We need to set reasonable limits.  We need to accept change, but not purposely cause change for no good reason.  These hyper-emotional environmental types who are hugging trees and complaining about butterflies being inconvenienced, that’s just another example of liberal whining and I am ever so sick of liberal whining.

Payday Loans and Liberal Irrationality

Payday-LoansI know I have to speak very, very, very slowly for the liberals, they don’t actually understand reality well, as comes up a lot in discussions.  This time out, I had a liberal who was complaining that payday loans are horrible for the poor and need to be stopped, especially because they charge over 300% interest.

Except they don’t.  What’s really at play here are people playing number games and others who are gullible enough to believe them.  None of these idiots knows what’s really going on, nor, I suspect, do they care.  It’s just part of the absurd liberal mission to save people from their own stupidity, all the while hurting people in the process.

So how do I know any of this?  A long time ago, I helped a friend of a friend set up one of these payday loan/check cashing franchises, in fact, I was in his store on 9/11, listening to it on the radio.  Before anyone tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about, I invite them to eat shit and die.

What is a payday loan?  Let’s do some history.  Long, long ago, banks used to do low-value, high-interest, no-collateral loans to people but the risk was absurdly high, most never got paid back and the banks stopped doing it because it was a losing proposition. However, just because the banks stopped doing it, that doesn’t mean that the need for the service went away, there were still tons of people who had no credit, no collateral, who wanted money to make it to their next paycheck.  Where there is a desire, there will be a supplier.  That’s how capitalism works.

The whole idea is that someone comes into the store and borrows some money, at what was 15% interest, for no more than 2 weeks, whenever they get their next paycheck.  They leave a check for the full amount plus interest, then they come back, repay the amount of the check and get their check back.  If they don’t return, the store owner deposits their check. Lather, rinse, repeat.

The problem for the store owner is that most of these people are unreliable.  Gee, you don’t say!  Their checks bounce. They run. They hide. They lie.  A certain percentage are there just to scam the store, they have fraudulent phone numbers for their references, jobs and landlords and that’s only been made easier with the modern reliance on cell phones.  They’ll write a check on an account which can be verified, then close the account and off they go with a couple hundred dollars of easy money.

That kind of unreliability makes such customers massive risks.  Store owners do everything in their power to do their due diligence and verify information, but a sizeable number of loans default and run away and need to be hunted down, sued and collected upon at significant cost.  It’s not a business model for the faint of heart.

Okay, that understood, where is the problem?  The liberal asshats are claiming, entirely wrongly, that these industries are charging 300% interest in fees, which is a complete and total lie and an absolute distortion of the facts.  They base this upon the idea that a lot of people can’t repay their loans after 14 days, surprise surprise, because these people are financially irresponsible in the first place, so they “roll over” their loans to give themselves an additional 14 days to come up with the money.  Now I will be the first one to admit that I oppose this, but you have to look at it from the standpoint of the business owner.  This idiot that you gave money to has no money to give back.  You can’t get blood from a turnip.  The only real option is to give them an extension and write another agreement.  Oh sure, they can deposit the check, let it bounce, incur penalties for both the business owner and the customer, that still doesn’t get you any money back in your account.  So the customer hands you the 15% fee, writes a whole new check, gets no more money in return and has another 14 days.  On the store’s books, it looks like they paid their account in full, then took out another loan because, in reality, that’s exactly what happened.  A customer who does this for an entire year doesn’t have one transaction, they have 26 transactions.  This is where it gets important.

The idiot liberals refuse to acknowledge that this is 26 separate transactions, they insist it’s really one transaction where there is 15% interest charged every other week.  This is complete and total and utter bullshit and wholly indefensible.  Nowhere in the contracts that are signed is any term longer than 14 days spelled out.  These are legally binding contracts, they spell out the terms and conditions under which the money is loaned and the requirements for repaying it on time.  That doesn’t work for the dishonest liberals so they spin a whole line of horse shit, complete with fiddly numbers that don’t match the reality, because they’ve got an agenda to defend.

But what happens if they win, if these payday advance places go out of business?  The poor are still going to want that money, that’s why the stores appeared in the first place.  The poor aren’t going to get any more responsible with their money.  But the liberals really don’t want the money coming from private enterprise, they want it coming from the government.  This is just another move to get more tax money handed out to the poor, who won’t have to pay any of it back.  That’s the real agenda here.

We just can’t trust liberals farther than we can throw them.  They don’t care about the truth, only about appealing to emotion. They like to cast payday loan stores and pawn shops as predatory, when they don’t drag anyone through their doors that doesn’t want to be there.  Oh wait, liberalism wants to protect the stupid from themselves, I forgot.  They don’t want anyone to actually have to take personal responsibility for their own finances.  Papa government has to do everything for them.

Is it any reason I hate the liberals and their idiotic agenda so much?

Liberalism is Killing the Social Sciences

Liberalism is a Mental DiseaseIt’s well known that liberals are over-represented in academic and social science fields, that’s something that many liberal academics point out smugly, that conservatives just aren’t smart enough to make it in the educational field.  Of course, they ignore the old canard, “those that can, do, those that can’t, teach” and I think to a large degree, that’s actually the case.  I’ve often thought that there is a very simple explanation for why liberals are so prevalent in academics,  because they spend their time around people who have never experienced the real world and often, they don’t have to deal with reality either.  Liberalism is a problem in academics and the social sciences.

I find it funny that a lot of liberals claim that conservatives ignore reality when it is, in fact, liberals who do so most often. We know that most young adults are liberals, they have never had to make it in the real world.  They get the majority of their expenses paid for by their parents or, by the time they get to college, by government grants.  Most have never had a significant job in their lives, they only know how to sit in a classroom, they don’t actually know how to do anything useful or productive. It’s no surprise that they’re mostly liberal, given their life experience.  Their professors, likewise, have mostly never gone beyond being in a classroom either.  They get paid by the government, they achieve tenure and are almost immune from termination, they don’t actually have to produce anything worthwhile, they just have to keep vomiting the same ideas over and over, year after year.  They just have their hands out for a paycheck from the government  and every once in a while, they might take a sabbatical so they can write another book and prove they can actually produce something, whether it’s valuable or not.

The people who have moved beyond the nursery of college life, the ones who have gone out into the real world and been successful, those tend to be conservatives.  The overwhelming majority of corporate CEOs are conservative.  It isn’t the conservatives who can’t live in the real world, it’s the liberals.

Likewise, there are a lot of liberals in the social sciences field, for the same reason.  It’s a bunch of talk and very little action. Yet now we’re finding that this political ideological bias is actually harming the field and doing exactly what most conservatives would have recognized all along.  Having mostly liberals involved is resulting in cognitive bias and the suppression of important, but uncomfortable questions.  The paper was written by Jonathan Haidt, a well-known and self-professed liberal, known for his Moral Foundations Theory.  He concludes that the liberal hold on the social sciences is actually harming the effectiveness of the field and points to several different examples.  In one, which I briefly touched on above, a study claimed that conservatives deny reality, then simply interviewed liberal thinkers who agreed with them, declared the liberal ideologues to be spouting reality and anyone who disagreed, most likely to be conservatives, to be “unable to deal with reality”.  As much as I’d like to think that this is an isolated incident, I see this kind of “thinking” again and again in liberal belief.

It’s also funny that for liberals who claim to be so opposed to discrimination, that the liberals themselves are absurdly discriminatory.  In one survey that was conducted among social psychologists, “82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate.”  That’s a ridiculously high number, especially for our social justice friends who claim that any and all discrimination is simply wrong.  Of course, we know they only care about discrimination against them and their allies, not against their “enemies”.  That kind of discrimination is just fine!  We also find that papers that went against liberal sensibilities were rejected from liberal-controlled peer-reviewed journals when they had exactly the same statistical strength and source validity  as papers which agreed with liberal sensibilities and were accepted.  It is clear that liberal-oriented academics are little more than an echo chamber.  They only want to hear what they already accept and reject what they already dislike.

Yet isn’t that exactly what the peer-review process is supposed to avoid?  Isn’t it supposed to let all well-supported ideas through while stopping those that are less-supported?  That’s how it works in the physical sciences, at least, but in the liberal-controlled social sciences, where most of it is just opinion and not experiment, that’s not really the case.  They make up their own rules, then declare their rules to be factually correct, even though they’ve never been through the gauntlet of scientific and rational objective evaluation.  Come on guys, even people on your own side are starting to recognize this nonsense for what it is and calling you out on it.  Are you going to acknowledge that you have a problem or are you going to continue to revel in your self-congratulatory back-slap-fest?


Being Atheist Doesn’t Mean Being Liberal

conservative atheists blazing saddlesI’m kind of kicking myself right now, but I don’t remember where I saw this earlier, but when I tried to go back and look for it, I couldn’t figure it out.  If I find it, I’ll drop a link in here, I promise.  So anyhow, earlier today, I read a blog post, something along the lines that open atheists are more prevalent in more liberal societies, such that atheists clearly want to be part of more liberal societies.


I’m an atheist and I have no interest whatsoever in living in the kind of liberal society that we see in many western nations. I can’t stand liberalism, I find it absurd and abhorrent, I find many of the extremist liberals that we tend to see in atheism to be a joke.  I find liberal ideas to be at the core of most of society’s problems and responsible for the slow but demonstrable slide of America into a socialist morass.  And no, that’s nothing to be proud of.

Unfortunately, this is an idea that doesn’t seem to go over well with most atheists, even though studies have shown that upwards of 20% of atheists identify as secular conservatives as well.  This isn’t a new revelation either, in fact it’s been at the center of my general disagreement of the atheist “movement”, as well as more than one argument with liberals who can’t quite get it through their head that every atheist out there isn’t a far-left booster.  You know, for people who often claim to be rational and skeptical, I see very little of that among many political pundits in the atheist camp.  In fact, I see the same kind of overt emotionalism that I see criticized among the religious on a daily basis.  News flash, if having beliefs based on nothing but wishful thinking and emotional comfort is bad for religion, it isn’t any better for politics.  Claiming to be skeptical and critical only works if you actually are skeptical and critical.  You can’t say one thing and then do something entirely different, yet you see a lot of very vocal atheists dancing on top of their high horses, declaring that if you don’t share their ludicrously liberal views, you’re an enemy of atheism.  It harkens back to the classic Richard Carrier post where he demands everyone abide by the Atheism+ mantra or be declared a C.H.U.D.  Why are there people like this and why are they seen as leaders in the “atheist community”?  They’re certainly nobody I’d ever want to represent or speak for me.  This isn’t an old issue, it’s something I see again and again and again among atheists who can’t stop linking their “Social Justice Warrior” nonsense to their lack of belief in gods.

Can we please just  get back to being atheists and get rid of any plusses?  It is possible to be several different things at the same time, you know.  You’re not stuck with a single label that you have to make mean a bunch of different things.  You’re free to label yourself a variety of different things and advance different views in different venues.  It doesn’t have to be a one-size fits all thing and you don’t have to refuse to deal with anyone that doesn’t fit into your little clique and check off all the same boxes as you.  Finally, if  you want to be a freethinker and a skeptic, you can’t just wear those hats and not follow their creeds.  If we’re rejecting religion because it cannot be rationally justified, why aren’t you looking at your political views the same way?  I know you’re not  because I see it all the time.  I see the exact same irrational, emotional nonsense with atheists as I do with theists.  If we’re to be better than the religious, you actually have to do it, not just declare it.

Maybe if more atheists did that, there wouldn’t be nearly so many liberals carrying the non-religious flag.

Black Crime Kills Black Crime Apologist

David RuenzelWell, today is Martin Luther King Day and, as you know, I really hate to keep bringing up these things like a broken record but once you start having conversations about a particular subject, it usually turns into fodder for a lot of posts on similar subjects. It happens no matter what kind of subject I’m busy debating, be it Christianity, Islam, free will, sexism, etc.  So please indulge me while I bring up a story that came up in a recent discussion that I thought was both tragic and darkly and ironically slightly humorous.

David Ruenzel had made a comfortable life for himself writing about white privilege for the Southern Poverty Law Center. He never missed an opportunity to write about how whites were so bad to blacks and how whites are always going to be racists and white-on-black violence and hatred was endemic.  This is something that the Southern Poverty Law Center is infamous for, it’s something they spend a lot of time talking about because, of course, it’s a harbor for extremist liberal thought.

In particular, David Ruenzel held the position that whites were never at risk from black crime, even though the evidence said otherwise and crime statistics in the Oakland area where he lived and worked continued to grow.  He figured that his own white privilege made him immune from being attacked or killed by blacks, at least right up to the time when two black men attacked him in a park and killed him.

Unfortunately, liberals like Ruenzel tend to ignore black crime and black racism because their liberal outlook makes it impossible for them to consider that blacks can be just as racist as whites.  It’s just not compatible with their Critical Race Theory.  Thus I’m sure that when he was fatally shot by two black men, his last thoughts couldn’t imagine that such a thing could happen.  After all, black-on-white crime wasn’t possible.  Blacks are victims, not perpetrators!  Yet he died, having been a victim of the very same black crime he had spent more than a decade excusing.

Black on White ViolenceCertainly I’m not celebrating the senseless death of Ruenzel, every unnecessary death is tragic and my heart goes out to his family, but there’s a certain poetic irony at work here, one that I’m sure will go straight over the heads of my liberal readers. However, there is a problem here that many liberals simply will not acknowledge because it conflicts with their basic worldview.  There’s a term that we refer to a view that cannot be changed by evidence and that term is “blind faith”.  Atheists among us might remember how well represented that is among theists.  Why would they accept it among liberals?

I bring this up on Martin Luther King Day because I feel certain that if King was alive today, he’d be mad at the black community and the liberal community equally.  Yes, I could have made a joke about King banging on the lid of his coffin but that would be tasteless.  Fully, but tasteless.  I honestly don’t think he’d have any respect for where race relations have gone in this country over the past 40 years.  He had a dream where things improved.  They haven’t improved, blacks have just gotten angry and violent and liberals are only too happy to let them do it and not hold them accountable.  In fact, they’re happy to spur them on.  The fact remains that blacks are 9 times more likely to be killed by other blacks than they are by whites, yet the media only shines a light on white cops who kill black criminals.  The rhetoric is strong but rhetoric doesn’t describe truth, only evidence and reason can do that and the mindless rhetoric of the left has far too little of those qualities.

Can we just admit that there is a problem?  Maybe if everyone can acknowledge that there’s an issue to be addressed, we  can actually work toward solving it.  However, as long as the left remains willfully ignorant of the predicament, how can we ever hope to make it better?

Liberal War on MRAs

tolerant-liberalsI wasn’t going to write about this, I think I’ve spent a lot of time writing about crap that pisses me off on the Atheist Experience, although the majority of it comes from callers and not the hosts.  This time though, it was a host dog-pile on someone who called in and questioned whether atheism and feminism ought to be closely linked.  Earlier in the show, another caller had questioned whether atheism and gay rights ought to be linked as well and my response to both is no.  Atheism is about one thing, feminism is about one thing and gay rights are about one thing.  There is no need to put them all in the same pot and mix well.  I was in the UStream chat room and while there were others who agreed with me, it became obvious that the chat moderator was getting personally emotionally involved and kicking people so I just gave up.

My position, as I’ve said many times before, is that atheism is about not believing in gods, it is not just another word for liberalism.  Atheism+ is an idiotic idea, you have atheism and then you have other things.  You don’t have to Krazy Glue all of your personal positions together into a single overarching label.  You can be an atheist and a feminist and a gay rights supporter and a stamp collector and a baseball enthusiast, all without having to push them under the same umbrella.  I have no idea why so many liberals and atheists can’t understand that simple point.

I’ll be honest, I virtually never engage anyone in the Atheist Experience chat, both because I find UStream’s software obnoxious and I find that the moderators are entirely inconsistent.  There used to be a link to chat rules but that link has vanished and now, they just assume that people either know the rules, or they just make up rules, and kick people for the heck of it.  Some moderators are worse than others.  It’s just not worth my time.  But I had answered someone’s question earlier before the show started so I was already logged in and sometimes, I just say things without realizing how pointless it is.  It seems to me, and I could be completely wrong, that the guy who called was also in the chatroom and got kicked by the moderators while trying to defend himself.  I was paying more attention to the show than the chatroom for most of it so don’t quote me.

Anyhow, back to the call.  I personally agree with the guy, feminism has no part in atheism.  Atheism is atheism, feminism is feminism.  You can be both.  You can be one or the other.  You can be neither.  Being one does not imply the other.  That’s how it is.  However, lots of people in the highly liberal atheist community presume that anyone who declares themselves atheist must also check off all of these other boxes and share this collection of views or they get to attack them, which is exactly what they did with this guy.  They pulled out the equality of outcome claim that is so critical to liberals without recognizing that many people want equality of opportunity.  They played the quota game, where people have to be the same percentage in every industry as they are in the general population.  CEOs have to be 50% male and 50% female.  Journalists have to be 50% male and 50% female.  And for those industries that are more than 50% female?  They don’t talk about those.  One thing they will never acknowledge, and I will admit that both Martin and Russell were being complete assholes on the show, shouting at this guy and never giving him a chance to make a point, is that they’re only interested in gross percentages and quotas, not in how many people actually want to do those jobs.  They don’t acknowledge interest or qualifications.  If a company has 100 jobs and 90% of the applicants are male and 10% are female, it should come as no surprise that there will be more men working there than women.  That’s not what they care about though, it has to be 50/50.  The same always goes for racial mixes too, blacks need to make up 20% of the workforce and if they don’t, it’s racism.  Maybe there just aren’t that many black applicants?  Has anyone done a study on that?  I haven’t seen one.  Someone please point one out that passes statistical muster.

As I said, I wasn’t going to bother responding, it isn’t like I haven’t talked about it before, but I started running into similar things elsewhere.  Of course, if you go to the show thread over on their blog, Russell is still attacking anyone who falls outside of his little comfort zone and it wasn’t worth getting into it.  Also, over on VJack’s blog, he had a thread about trigger warnings and higher education, which was quite good, but I made the comment that there seems to be a lot of similarity between liberals and theists when it comes to censorship.  Both of them want to keep opposing opinions that they find offensive out of the narrative.  It happened on Atheist Experience, it happens on liberal college campuses, it happens with gay rights and extremist feminism, this is not any different than the religious who declare anything that disagrees with them to be blasphemy and they want people punished for saying they’re wrong.  Same shit, different label.  The second I said something, people started jumping on me for mentioning liberals, as though the whole damn post wasn’t about liberals doing objectionable things.  I said that I found it funny that someone who rather commonly finds things to disagree with in the liberal position continues to label themselves a liberal.  While that’s probably a discussion for another post, what the heck, I’ll do it here.  There are a lot of people to whom labels mean more than ideologies.  If anyone insults their chosen label, whether it be liberal or conservative, atheist or religious, they leap on people for daring to say anything critical about the label, even if the criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with their actual position.  People, if it has nothing to do with your actual ideology, why are you whining?  Personally, I go after everyone, liberal and conservative, atheist and theist, black and white, male and female alike.  If someone says something stupid, I don’t care what labels they apply to themselves, they’re fair game.  I don’t care if someone out there criticizes conservatives.  I’m probably right there with you, assuming it’s an honest criticism.  There are no sacred cows, nor should there be.  It shouldn’t  be about labels, it should be about ideology.  It should be about positions.  Then again, there are far too many atheists who are more interested in being part of the crowd than in ideological clarity.  I have a problem with that.

Before I drift too far afield, let me get back to the Atheist Experience.  I’m not defending the guy who called and I’m certainly not defending the Gish Gallop that Russell and Martin were clearly guilty of during the call.  There should be no MRAs and there should be no feminists.  There should be no white-apologists or black-apologists, there should be no straight rights or gay rights.  There should just be equality for all, but equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  Anyone should be able to get into any field they want with no regard for their race, gender or orientation and nobody should be keeping track of who gets jobs and who does not.  Nobody should be making charts and saying more people of this particular demographic ought to be working here.  It ought to be wholly irrelevant, so long as nobody is being kept out and until it can be shown with a solid evaluation that people are being kept out specifically because of their gender, race or orientation, liberals need to shut the hell up about it.  It’s not helping anyone.  It’s just making you people look like idiots.

I am ever so sick of idiots.

Avoiding Ferguson No More

Missouri Highway Patrol takes over the Ferguson protestsI’ve purposely not addressed the Ferguson shooting, I’ve carefully avoided talking about Michael Brown and Darren Wilson and the whole nonsense that arose following both the shooting itself and the Grand Jury announcement.  For one, it doesn’t matter, it’s just been children acting like children and people taking advantage of a situation to riot and steal things in the name of “social justice”.  I find that absurd in the extreme and frankly, I figure the police in Ferguson ought to have been shooting looters regardless of skin color, with the most painful non-lethal rounds possible if nothing else.  There simply is no excuse for acting like that and the whole thing got completely out of hand.

I’m all for peaceful and lawful protesting but that’s absolutely not what happened in Ferguson, Missouri but I could have predicted it for you long ahead of time.  It was inevitable.  You had the race-baiters like Sharpton whipping up the crowd, you had the liberal media pushing racial buttons and you had an entitlement-happy crowd, built up by the liberals, just waiting for an opportunity to go on a rampage.  Mix well and set aflame.

Whether these people like it or not, the Grand Jury, who are the only ones legally tasked with deciding if Darren Wilson ought to be prosecuted for the death of Michael Brown, found no reason whatsoever to bind him over for charges.  A rational society would accept that finding because it is legally binding.  These people are not being rational though, they are being emotional and their emotions lead them to believe and do ridiculous things.  It’s not all that different from the way religion operates.  They take a position to which they are already emotionally attached and then desperately cling to it no matter what the evidence actually says.  This is what happened in Ferguson.  While what happened to Brown is regrettable, it was all Brown’s fault that he  got shot and had he not tried to take Wilson’s firearm, he’d likely still be alive today.  Place the blame where the blame actually belongs.

But no, that’s not what the liberal public wants and Obama is just fanning those flames by suggesting that there is a valid “simmering distrust” between minorities and the police.  There is only a distrust between the people who think laws are mere suggestions and the police who are tasked with arresting those who violate the law.  It’s those crazy liberals who think black people ought to get special treatment because they’re black who have a problem.  This was never a racial thing, it was a criminal doing something stupid thing.  If it was a racial thing, then there would have been just as much furor at the case of a black officer killing an unarmed white guy, yet there was none.  Liberals won’t even address it.  You sure didn’t see mobs of unruly white people rioting and smashing store fronts.  They’d have been crucified in the media if they had, yet black people in Ferguson get away with it and the police, who try to contain the madness, get criticized.  This goes all the way back to Rodney King, and probably before, where rioting while feigning social outrage is the acceptable thing to do.

We have a racial problem in this country but it’s not racist white people picking on peaceful black people.  It’s liberal entitlement-happy racists, people who believe that blacks deserve to get back at whites for past injustices, and those who figure that while they’re stomping around being pissed, they might as well break some windows and steal some TVs.  What the heck, they’re entitled, right?  If a police officer, regardless of skin color, does something wrong to an individual, regardless of skin color, they should be prosecuted to the extent that the law allows.  It shouldn’t matter if the individual that was wronged was black or white, rich or poor, gay or straight, male or female, the cop, if they were in the wrong, should get the same punishment and it should be harsh.  I’m fine with cops being held to high standards but they should not be held to impossible standards and they most certainly shouldn’t get punished differently based on the gender, orientation or race of the “victim”.  But that’s not what liberals want.  Color-blind society my ass.

So it’s all over and done.  Darren Wilson’s life is ruined, even though he did nothing at all wrong.  Liberals ought to be happy about that, he’s been forced to leave the force and he and his wife will have to go elsewhere and hope they can get jobs.  The liberals will just go back to watching for another case that they can make political hay out of and the looting and rioting can repeat as it always seems to.  It’s the liberal way, after all.