Tag Archives: politics

You Have no Right to my Labor!

I hear this all the time from libertarians, especially recently when the whole gay-wedding-baker case came back to the forefront.  Libertarians will scream that nobody has the right to their labor, therefore they ought to be able to discriminate against anyone they want, for whatever reason they want, and nobody ought to be able to do anything about it.

Except that’s not how it works.  Nobody is making them a slave.  They VOLUNTEERED their labor when they opened their business, when they accepted a license for their business, when they tacitly agreed to follow the applicable laws of the land as a consequence of opening a public accommodation business.  Nobody is demanding their labor, they voluntarily offered it!  People are just taking them up on their offer.

Of course, when you point this out, most libertarians will shut up and slink back into the shadows because they have no rational counter for it. The few insane ones will demand that they never agreed to anything and they aren’t bound by the laws of society and they can change their minds any time, but that’s not how it works and I don’t think anyone intelligent falls for that kind of wing nut libertarianism in the first place.

The fact remains that society has every right to pass whatever laws they like and think are valid and that you, as a consequence of your presence within said society, are obligated to follow the laws that society has passed, or go find another society in which you can do so.  I don’t care if you like it, it is simply the case and has been in every operable society in the history of mankind.  There has never been a case where people could do whatever they wanted with no consequences, period.  Just because you want to doesn’t mean you get to.  Get over yourself.

Of course, this doesn’t silence the fanatics because, as with the religious, they just don’t care if what they believe is true, so long as it gives them an emotional woody.  They are people who simply do not comprehend humanity or human society.  They want things they are not entitled to and refuse to acknowledge that they are on the wrong side of… everything.  Because they don’t care.  And that’s anti-intellectual idiocy.

Independence Day in a Divided Nation

I’m posting this on an off-day for Bitchspot, but that’s just how the 4th of July falls this year.  I wanted to say a couple of things about how this no longer feels like a national holiday because this no longer feels like a nation.  We have become so completely ideologically deadlocked, with both sides acting like children, that it’s hard to take a celebration of our independence seriously.  We’re just not independent anymore.

But people need to learn independence, especially independence from their ideological fanaticism. There are people out there, on both sides of the aisle, who are entirely incapable of thinking for themselves.  They hate everyone on the other side, on every topic conceivable, just because they’re on the other side.  You have assholes on the left who hate everything Trump has to say, simply because Trump said it.  It doesn’t matter how innocuous it might be, it’s terrible because it came out of his mouth.  And the same is true of assholes on the right who did the same thing over Obama.  These people have lost all reason when it comes to people who don’t walk in lockstep with their political beliefs.  They are incapable of stepping back and looking at anything from an unbiased perspective.

If you can’t think for yourself, as so many people cannot these days, then what hope is there?  I see this everywhere, from every political perspective.  What were once the fanatics, the extremists, are now the mainstream.  How can we hope to resolve our differences if people are absolutely unwilling to even talk to those they don’t already agree with?  How can we come together as a nation if we are so completely ideologically divided?  It just keeps getting worse and when it gets worse, both sides turn to violence, as we’re seeing today, particularly on the political left.  I’ve asked before, but how long before both sides declare an ideological jihad and come out shooting?  I think we’ve already seen the first few battles on the front of a new, and violent all-out war.

It’s fine to disagree.  You don’t have to like everyone, but you can’t allow yourself to sink into that kind of abject hatred of anyone who isn’t on your side.  Not only does that fracture society, but it eventually leads to the kind of thing we saw in Atheism+ and other far-left movements, it leads to eating your own, as everyone virtue signals as hard as they can, dedicated to throwing anyone who isn’t as virtuous as they are, or about exactly the same things, out into the cold.  It leads only to self-destruction and, on a large scale, the fall of a great nation.  People need to grow the hell up now, while there’s still time.

Come on people, enough is enough.  We need to work through our differences rationally, not through violence and not through abject hatred.  This is something I don’t want to have to come back with “I told you so” later on.  Can we please nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand?  Otherwise, as we’re clawing our way out of the rubble, we are going to regret it.  You might not think so now, but you will, and it will all be your fault.

MGTOW is a Cult

I can sort of sympathize with some people who identify as MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). After all, at least when you’re looking at far-left liberal women, there isn’t anything really worth wanting to be around, so making an individual decision to avoid the radical feminist idiots is pretty easy to understand.

But damn, there are a lot of people who go far beyond making their own decisions to advocating that all men everywhere adopt the female-free lifestyle and if you happen to be married, or happen to want to get married, they’ll rain down holy hell on your head because you’re not swilling their particular flavor of Koolaid.

This is really where some people, not all by any means, but a painfully large percentage of the MGTOW movement become cultic in their behavior.  It stops being an individual choice and starts being an action plan.  But of course, this is why I’m not a joiner and really don’t get people who are.  I don’t sign on to any group ideology.  Even if I didn’t want to get married, I would never join a group of people who likewise didn’t want to get married.  It would be my choice and my choice alone and I wouldn’t have to embrace a cult identity to get it.

This is a problem with the Child-Free movement as well, which a post over at Atheist Revolution recently reminded me.  Not for everyone, of course, but I have had more than my fair share of people who are adamantly child free and think everyone else should be too.  Too bad for you.  You don’t get to impose your emotional nonsense onto the world, just because you don’t like it.

I probably wouldn’t say if there was ever a rational reason they give, but it’s always emotional.  Women suck!  Kids suck!  No, you suck!  You have unrealistic expectations of the world.  Grow up and knock it off.  Come back when you have a rational, intellectual argument to evaluate.  I’ll look at your claims and see if they meet logical muster.  But if all you can do is scream “I hate da wimminz!” and “I hate da kidz!” then fuck you.  You hate them because you are intellectually and emotionally a child.  And that’s not something you, or anyone else, should be proud of.

Liberals Making Excuses

I find it really sad to see how idiotic and blind the liberal left can be.  Case in point, in a recent discussion about MTV host Ira Madison III mocking Jeff Session’s Asian family, saying that his grandkids looked like he got them at Toys R Us, instead of just admitting that it was a sleazy thing to say, liberals, and I don’t mean just one liberal, but scores of liberals, could only say that Trump said some pretty bad things too.

So what?  What does that have to do with Madison?  Even if you can criticize Trump, and you absolutely can, that has nothing to do with what Madison did. Madison was a prick.  Admit it.

But this is just commonplace.  Liberals like to point fingers at everyone else to explain their own failures.  Take the election.  They’re screaming that Russia is to blame for Hillary losing.  Nope.  All Russia did was get the truth out there.  It didn’t falsify anything, it just exposed DNC secrets.  It was the reality of the DNC’s dishonesty that cost Hillary the election, not anything sinister that Russia did.  Should they have hacked the DNC?  Probably not.  Should the DNC have done those things?  Absolutely not.  Who is more to blame? But they don’t want to take that responsibility and blame their own party so they scream and cry about the ones who brought their own wrongdoing to light.

And I’m frankly sick of it.  Yes, I’m also sick of it when the GOP pulls the same thing.  Both parties are full of crybabies, but that isn’t an excuse for being a dishonest idiot yourself.  Is Trump a dick?  Yeah, sometimes.  Was Madison a dick with that tweet?  Absolutely.  Does one have anything to do with the other?  Does one excuse the other?  Hell no.  Stop pretending that it does.  Take some responsibility for your own actions for once.  Stop acting like children.

Third Parties Don’t Understand the Political Process

I was talking to a libertarian today who seemed really happy that his candidate, Gary Johnson, got a little more than 3% of the popular vote this year.  So I asked him, how many electoral votes that 3% actually earned.  Zero?  Hmmm.  Does he actually understand how the American political process works? I don’t think so.  I mean even Ross Perot, the most popular third party political candidate in modern American history, a candidate that earned 18% of the popular vote back in 1992, how many electoral votes did that get him?  Zero.

The reality is, we have an electoral college in America, no matter how much that bothers the special little snowflakes in liberal-land.  To win the presidency, you have to get 270 electoral votes.  If you don’t, you can’t win.  Now those electors are not required to vote for the same candidate as the people, although they almost always do, but let’s assume for a moment that some super-popular libertarian candidate manages to get a huge percentage of the American popular vote and the electors decide to follow the popular vote and grant a bunch of electoral votes.  What then?

Well, nobody gets 270, the whole mess goes to the House of Representatives, and surprise, surprise, they are going to pick either a Democrat or a Republican.  Why?  Because they don’t have to be non-partisan about it.  So even if the Libertarians managed to get a really popular candidate, they would still lose the election.  The only way to win in this case is to have the House stacked with lots of independent and libertarian representatives, which isn’t the case and won’t be the case because the Libertarian Party is only focused on presidency.  They don’t care about state and local positions, so no matter how well they do in the national elections, there is no way in hell they can ever win the office of President.

And they don’t get that.  They have no clue.  Their political comprehension is so pathetic that they don’t know how much of their own time they are wasting.  I know they’ll just scream conspiracy theories, just like Hillary’s supporters on the left have been doing, but the fact is, we have an established system for electing a president, it isn’t a secret and it hasn’t just popped up in the last couple of years, but anyone who is not willing to play the game and set up the groundwork can’t expect to actually be successful.

And that’s why independent candidates lose.  Miserably.  Every time.  And why they won’t have a clue why they did.

Why Third Parties Fail

I see a lot of people complaining about the two-party system in America, saying that it’s failed the American people and we ought to have more parties.  They forget that we have a ton of third parties, those parties have simply failed to gain any significant backing.  While some people trot out the conspiracy thinking to explain the failures of their pet party, the reality is, and will remain, that these parties just don’t offer anything significantly different than what we already have.

But none of the third parties will admit that they’ve really got nothing to offer.  I mean sure, to a tiny minority of single issue voters, they might be interesting, but not to most.  The hard core druggies might like the Libertarians and the ridiculous tree huggers might like the Greens, but outside of those issues, the parties just don’t have a different enough overall platform to really make a difference.

And that’s the problem.  Libertarians are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.  Greens are liberals with a ridiculous environmental focus.  The Constitution Party are hard-right religious fanatics.  But outside of that one or two elements that they blow way out of proportion, they’re not really any different from the Democrats or Republicans.  There just aren’t enough people who care enough about their pet issue to give them any real traction in the polls.

They’re just not honest enough to admit that’s the problem.  But isn’t that the problem with fanatics anyhow?  They just can’t admit why they fail, because they are not rational and they can’t see reality through their ideology.  The Libertarians will never win, no matter how many excuses they make, because their overall platform simply does not appeal to the typical American voter.  The same goes for the Greens.  The same goes for the Constitution Party and the Communists and all the rest.  They just aren’t different enough to matter and the differences they have just don’t make a difference to most voters.  But instead of admitting that their platforms have failed to capture the American imagination, they make excuses for why they lose election cycle after election cycle.  Things never improve for these third parties.  They perform no better today than they did 20 years ago.  In fact, in most cases, they’re performing worse.  And you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, right?  That’s what being fanatical brings you and it’s nothing to be proud of.

Voting For Those You Hate

I hate both Trump and Clinton.  I detest them both with a passion.  Never before, at least in recent memory, have both the Democrats and Republicans picked candidates that are so utterly reprehensible to the American voting public.

Yet you really have to hold your nose and pick one of them, just to keep the other the hell out of the White House.  One is going to win.  Nobody in their right mind wants either of them to be victorious.  What a horrific decision for the American voter to have to make.

But that’s really what American politics has become today:  Voting for people you hate because nobody worth voting for ever gets put on the ballot.  We keep getting crap and the only real decision is which crap smells less awful.

That’s a decision I am honestly sick of having to make.

Oh yeah, you get the third party pundits saying this is a great time to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, but we all know they have no chance in hell at winning the election.  If you actually support them, fine, go ahead.  But for those of us who actually care what is best for the country, who know that either Clinton or Trump are going to win and the only thing we can do is damage control by keeping the worst candidate out of office, it gets mighty depressing.  The best thing that could happen on January 20th is for whoever wins to be sworn in and promptly assassinated so that someone else, almost anyone else, could run the country.  I don’t care who it is.  Anyone has to be better than these two.

That said though, I’m going to vote for Trump, just to keep Hillary away from the Presidency.  We know for a fact that Hillary is evil.  Trump’s only saving grace is that we don’t have absolute proof that he’s a dishonest fuck-up.  We have strong suspicions, but with Hillary, she’s a known quantity and Trump just looks like a ridiculous boob.  Trump’s lack of proof is his only saving grace.  I still wish for an ISIS attack on Washington D.C. that day, maybe complete with a dirty bomb to take out the whole of the crappy U.S. national government.  It’s sad when that’s the best case scenario.

Why the hell can’t we get decent candidates in this country?  Oh yeah, because the political parties have no interest in what’s best for America, they only care about garnering power for themselves, screw the people who are gullible enough to give it to them.  So long as the American voting public refuses to figure that out, we’ll continue to be doomed to a lifetime of useless, dangerous and pathetic candidates.

Is #BLM to Blame?

A funny thing has started to happen recently, as those involved with or supportive of the #BLM movement have started standing up for the movement in the light of recent cop shootings.  They say they’re not responsible because the leadership of #BLM didn’t directly and demonstrably order the murders.  Okay, I get that and I agree, the leadership of this movement isn’t personally responsible for these particular heinous crimes, any more than radically anti-abortion churches that teach that it’s better to shoot abortion doctors than allow fetuses to be aborted are personally responsible if someone goes out and pulls the trigger.  The only ones personally responsible for these horrific crimes are the ones who actually committed them.

That said though, in both cases listed above, there is a toxic ideology at work.  No one is saying “hey you should go kill people” but they are  certainly saying “it isn’t the worst thing in the world if this gets done”.  When you are openly teaching that it’s acceptable and a greater good to resort to violence, does it really matter if you are directly commanding the violence or not? And when  you are spewing this kind of hatred far and wide, does the fact that the person who acts on it isn’t actually a card-carrying member of your movement matter?

But in all honesty, I don’t blame #BLM for the violence because the real cause is actually much more insidious.  It’s the same thing that gave us the laughable “occupy” movement.  It’s the same thing that gives us campus crybabies looking for safe spaces.  It’s the same thing that gives us modern radical feminism.  It’s the regressive leftist political ideology that is totally toxic to everything that it touches.  And I’m trying not to call this liberalism because I recognize that a lot of self-professed liberals really, really hate this ideology too, but it’s hard when both occupy the political left. It’s hard when this is the ideology that is taking over the Democrats.  Something needs to be done, but I’m just not seeing widespread opposition to it.

This ideology really is poison to everything.  If Christopher Hitchens were still alive, I’m sure a book along the lines of “How Progressivism Poisons Everything” would be on the way.  It has reversed decades of racial equality, it has reversed decades of class peace, it has tried to stomp on everything good and decent in this country, replacing it with a policy of hands out, gimme gimme gimme, socialist nonsense.  The longer this goes on, the worse things are going to get.  It is a cancer and it is spreading and it is causing violence, not only against innocent cops who are doing their jobs protecting the people, it is putting good people out of jobs for daring to question the regressive narrative, it is causing violence against political opposition.  it is going to destroy this country and this planet.  It’s time that the left excises this regressive poison from their midst, just as conservatives have been excising the religious right from theirs.  We’ll never be better so long as we allow this toxic ideology in our midst.  Who is with me?

I Didn’t Get My Way, Therefore Government Bad!

Your typical libertarian

One thing that you can always count on the libertarians whining is “the government is evil!”  But the real reason they think the government is evil is because they don’t get their way.  Let’s be honest, if the government did what libertarians claim they want, they’d be fine with the government.  Okay, there probably wouldn’t be much government for them to be fine with, but you get my meaning.

Guess what?  Getting your way all the time is not how a democracy works.  People vote, or elect representatives to vote for them, and the majority wins.  If you’re not in the majority, you lose.  Welcome to reality!

And that’s why most libertarians aren’t all that hot on democracy.  People don’t vote the way they want them to vote, therefore they don’t really want people to vote at all.  It can’t be the stupid things that libertarians want or anything, it has to be that people are too dumb to know what’s good for them.  So it’s stupid people, incompetent voters and the government is bad, that’s the only explanation for why the libertarians aren’t in power, right?

They can’t accept that the vast majority of people have no interest whatsoever in living under a libertarian system.  Most people see right through the crazy beliefs that libertarians have.  Most people realize that an unrestricted, unregulated free market would be a complete clusterfuck.  Most people understand that the world doesn’t actually work the way libertarians seem to think that it should.  But then again, most people are stupid, right libertarians?  There’s always some excuse for why your ideology fails miserably in every single election.  It’s some grand conspiracy.  Not ridiculous ideas.  No, never.

If libertarian thought was going to take the country by storm, it would have done so in the last 50 years.  Instead, libertarian candidates for president have failed to even get 5% of the electorate.  But it’s always this time!  It’s always going to be amazing this election cycle!  Just wait and see!  And when it doesn’t happen, it’s never their fault, it’s stupid people, incompetent voters and bad government.  Nothing is ever their fault.  Ever.  That kind of thinking is how children operate.  I think that says something about most libertarians.

A Libertarian is Finally Honest!

I know I talk about natural rights a lot and the complete and utter failure of libertarians to actually back them up, even though they insist, without a shred of evidence, that they’re actually real.  I point out this failure every single time I find it and most of the time, libertarians still pretend that they’ve got a good reason to believe it, even though they can’t manage to produce that reason.

I also describe their political ideology as quasi-religious because everything they say is based on faith.

So finally, a libertarian who has done all of the above has come clean and admitted that he’s really got nothing.  He doesn’t recognize that he has nothing, of course, that’s exactly what he’s admitted.

I have proved it to MY satisfaction. My opinion on this matter is the only one that counts to me.

I will exercise my rights regardless whether you, anyone else, or any government says me yea or nay.

That is all the proof I need. :

Have you noticed all of the religious ideology he’s put in there?  All he cares about is his opinion.  He doesn’t care if it’s true, he cares if it makes him feel good.  He isn’t willing to listen to anyone who says any differently because he’s right because he wants to be right.  If you substituted “faith” for “rights” in the second line, you’d have the same thing that religious apologists say all the time.

These people are nuts, pure and simple.  They’re so nuts that they don’t even know that they’re nuts.  They are so completely out of touch with reality, out in libertarian la la land, that they can’t even conceive that they could possibly be wrong.  It doesn’t matter.  Reality is an inconvenience and logical reasoning is a trap.  For them, their quasi-religion is all that matters.  Interestingly enough, every single one of these libertarians that I’ve encountered who acts like this is also a fundamentalist Christian.  Crazy is crazy.

And you wonder why you can’t have rational discussions with libertarians?  This is why.

Why Can’t Liberals Face Reality?

I can’t tell you how many discussions I have with liberals where they simply are unable to deal with reality, they have to create strawmen and shift the goalposts because they fundamentally can’t handle what’s actually out there.  Take a recent example, I was debating someone on welfare, specifically welfare in the inner cities.  I produced a ton of evidence about kids dropping out of school, out of wedlock pregnancies, crime and imprisonment rates, gang membership, etc.  All of these things are personal choices.  I was pointing out how these people are poor because of their own decisions and because of the decisions of their parents and community.

But no, my liberal opponent couldn’t answer any of those positions.  They instead kept bringing up all kinds of things that had nothing at all to do with the discussion at hand.  People who lost their high paying jobs and the 2008 financial crash.  People who had a run of bad luck.  Anything they could do to get around the lack of personal responsibility of the people that we were actually talking about.  And when I pointed out what they were doing, they tossed a whole host of insults and blocked me because they simply couldn’t deal with the facts.

Now I’m not saying that bad things didn’t happen in 2008, or that people can, and do, have bad luck, but the idea that we can ignore all of the demonstrable cases of poor people who have caused their own problems because of their own personal and cultural failures, just because that doesn’t describe every single conceivable case is ludicrous.  These people demonstrate some serious black-and-white thinking.  If it doesn’t fit into their ideology, then they pretend it doesn’t exist and run around the field with the goalposts, hoping to find some way to get the discussion back on track.  They argue strawmen.  They shift the burden of proof.  Anything to keep from actually having to face the facts that everyone isn’t a victim.

But what do you do with these people?  When they get backed into a corner, they spew vile and run away declaring victory.  They are no different than the religious who do the same thing, or the libertarians who do the same thing, or even vegetarians who do exactly the same thing.  None of them are interested in actual facts.  They want emotional comfort and when denied that, or when the facts get in the way of their emotional comfort, their heads explode and they lash out because the real world doesn’t accurately represent their ideology.  These people cannot be rationally debated because none of their positions are at all rational.  They are emotional.  That’s why their ideas are so crazy.  It doesn’t take long to find out if your opponent is completely off their rational rocker, just suggest that they are not completely correct in any of their assertions and watch the sparks fly.

Liberal Smugness

According to Vox’s Emmett Rensin, “There is a smug style in American liberalism, it is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what’s good for them.”

This much is true, but he goes on to say, “Nothing is more confounding to the smug style than the fact that the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat. That for every overpowered study finding superior liberal open-mindedness and intellect and knowledge, there is one to suggest that Republicans have the better of these qualities.”

Now this comes from Vox, a liberal bastion that once gave an interview with President Obama that was filled with so much liberal pandering that Politico’s Jack Shafer said “I’ve seen subtler Scientology recruitment films.”  This not a conservative rag, so it’s all the more surprising that Rensin is taking such accurate shots across liberalism’s bow.  Yet Rensin isn’t done yet.

He continues, accusing progressivism of a “condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.”  He accuses the Democrats of  going from an inclusive party to one run by bi-coastal professionals who largely exclude minorities from decision making, even though they pretend that minorities matter to them.  He even accuses Jon Stewart, the former host of the Daily Show, who was for a long time considered an authority on all things political by the left, for saying that “the idea that liberal orthodoxy was a kind of educated savvy and that its opponents were, before anything else, stupid.”

Now while I’ll be the first to say there’s a lot of concentrated stupid on both sides, the idea that liberals, because they tend to be college educated and young, are somehow better than everyone else is just absurd.  Liberals have every bit as many stupid ideas as the religious right do, and often for the same reasons.  They are self-assured that their ideas have to be right and anyone who disagrees, they can’t possibly have any valid criticisms, they have to be infidels or, in the case of the regressive left, bitter folks who care about nothing but guns and religion.  But they’re wrong, there are some serious concerns about their political ideology that rational people have and that they refuse to address  I find that a lot of their ideas are based on emotion, not intellect, wishful thinking and not objective evidence, that’s why I reject the majority of liberal political ideas, for the same reason I reject the majority of religious ideas, because they haven’t proven them to be useful or factually true.  That doesn’t stop them from being smug little bastards about it, especially the further left you go and that makes them even more distasteful, if you can believe it.

Disavowing the KKK

Geez, I get sick of political stupidity, don’t you?  Two separate incidents happened this week, at least this week as I write this, that involve the KKK and both of them are really ridiculous.  Of course, I shouldn’t have to say that I abhor what the KKK stands for and don’t support or defend them in any way, shape or form, but as American citizens, they do have a right to speak their minds on public property and to campaign for and support any political candidate they want, whether anyone likes it or not.

So let’s get started.  First off, let’s talk about Trump.  Yeah, I’d rather not either, but since Trump now has 49% support nationwide, a full 33% ahead of anyone else in the GOP clown car, you pretty much have to.  But when it came out that former KKK Grand Dragon David Duke supported Trump, everyone came out and demanded that he disavow Duke’s support.  But why?  Duke is an American citizen and a voter.  As such, anyone who goes to Washington D.C. as President is supposed to represent all Americans.  Not just the ones they like, not just the ones they agree with, all Americans.  Even the reprehensible ones.  That’s something a lot of people seem to forget.  Anyone who is only going to represent their own little group of followers, that person has no business being President.

That doesn’t mean he’s on board with racism, it means that his job, the job he’s running for, is to represent all Americans. Only an idiot would disavow David Duke as a voter.  They can certainly disavow what David Duke stands for, but to say to any American that you’re not there to represent them, that’s an even worse sin.

On the other side, the KKK had a rally in Anaheim, California, not that far from where my wife grew up and, of course, there was violence.  Again, I don’t support what they do, but I do support their Constitutional right to do it.  Social media blew up, with people, especially on the left, saying “see?  The KKK is violent!”  Well, no, not so much.  It was actually protesters who caused the violence, the five members of the KKK that were initially arrested were released because they acted only in self defense.  It’s the protesters, six of them at last count, who are responsible for it.  The KKK might be dicks, but they’re not responsible in this instance.  But that doesn’t stop a lot of people from claiming that protesters ought to be able to shut them up just because they don’t like what they have to say.  Sorry, that’s not how free speech works.  I disagree what they have to say but I’ll fight to the death for their right to say it.  So should you, if you have an ounce of rationality in you.  Of course, we’re talking about people who think Constitutional rights only apply to things they agree with.  They’re a bunch of leftist idiots.

So that’s the week of stupidity surrounding the KKK.  What’s going to be the next brouhaha?  I honestly don’t know but I’m sure it will be idiotic, no matter what it is.

Maybe I’m Not a Conservative

Certainly not in the sense that a lot of people in the GOP mean it and trust me, you have no idea how happy that makes me. Of course, I’m not a liberal either, I’m even more happy of that because I find virtually nothing worthwhile on the liberal left, at least for the reasons they hold their positions.  And libertarian?  In some ways, but certainly not in the quasi-religious natural rights/natural law way, I find those things utterly ridiculous.  Mostly, I’m only “libertarian” insofar as it agrees with my conservative values and where it doesn’t, I’m not.

But every time I say I’m conservative, people assume, wrongly, that I hold all of the views of the far religious right GOP machine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  So I went looking for a better term, delving into the various and sundry schools of conservatism and came across fusionism, popularized by Frank Meyer, held by William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and others.  It isn’t a perfect fit, in fact, I’d feel it necessary to tack “secular” onto it to make it clear that I do not respect any religious or quasi-religious views, period.  If your position is held on faith, keep it away from me.

Murray Rothbard, writing in Ramparts, explained where the modern neo-conservative movement was going wrong, “a new, younger generation of rightists, of “conservatives,” . . . who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism and boorishness.”  He added that we had allowed ourselves “to sacrifice the American ideals of peace and freedom and anti-colonialism on the altar of a crusade to kill communists throughout the world; we have surrendered the libertarian birthright into the hands of those who yearn to restore the Golden Age of the Holy Inquisition. It is about time that we wake up and rise up to restore our heritage.”

That certainly sounds like the modern GOP, doesn’t it?  Unfortunately, I think Reagan fell into that with his abject hatred of the commies, adding almost $2 trillion to the national debt as he fought to outspend Russia.  Having a higher limit on your credit cards does not prove your political ideology superior, sorry.

And of course, I’ve pointed out before how Barry Goldwater called the modern trend of the Republican Party long before it came to pass.  “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

So am I a secular fusionist conservative?  Maybe.  But if I said that, nobody would have the slightest clue what it means. But I’m going to go grab Frank Meyer’s “In Defense of Freedom” to see how much I agree with it.  Maybe I will, maybe I won’t, but I’ll be sure to do a review here once I’m done.  I’m sure that my views will differ in significant ways.  They seem to do so a lot, don’t they?

Name-Calling for the Win!

I think it’s funny how many people think that just calling someone else a name will make whatever point they were making just go away.  I’ll point out that the religious have no justification for their religious beliefs, that they have no evidence for their gods and their supernatural claims disintegrate under even the most cursory evaluation and instead of either admitting that simple fact or trying to defend their views, what do they do?

They call me names and they pretend that somehow, that makes my points vanish.

Well news-flash for you people, calling me a name for pointing out the failures of your beliefs is ridiculous.  Telling me that I’m a big mean poopie-pants doesn’t change the fact that you believe things for which you can present no objective evidence.  If it makes you feel better, that’s pretty pathetic , but it doesn’t change reality.

But really, what else do these people have?  They can’t actually compete in the rational court of ideas, they can’t demonstrate that anything they believe is actually true in factual reality, they can only keep repeating their irrational dogma and whenever anyone calls them on their theological bullshit, they can break down and cry and complain that someone hurt their precious little feelings and now they’re going to hold their breath until they turn blue.  Is this honestly the best that any of these people can do?  Are they so emotionally stunted that they can’t see how utterly pathetic that is?  The idea that their emotional comfort trumps all else really is sad, but it’s also commonplace today.  People think they have a right to be happy every second of every day and if anyone ever says anything that discourages them, they don’t reconsider their own positions, they just get mad. They can never be wrong.  They can never be unhappy.  They can only flail back pathetically and pull childish playground tactics because there’s no way that anything could ever not make them ecstatic.  What a truly pathetic world we live in today.

If the positions you take and the things you believe cannot stand up to evaluation, then you need to re-evaluate the things that you believe and the positions that you take.  Throwing a hissy-fit and pouting and flinging insults is a truly immature thing to do, but lots of people live their lives on the lower end of the maturity scale.  Whether it’s the feminists screaming “misogynist!” every time someone calls them on their factually incorrect bullshit, whether it’s a theist yelling “bigot!”  because you mention that their beliefs are absurd, screaming names has taken the place of intellectual debate for a lot of people and they’re just not bright, or mature enough to realize how harmful what they’re doing is to their position.

But they don’t care, do they?  For them, rampant emotionalism is all and facts?  Facts are for chumps.

Not How Reality Works

I find it funny, in light of other posts I’ve done recently, how the far right is getting just as bad as the far left.  It used to be, and maybe this is just my perception, that it was mostly the left who had a tenuous grasp on reality, but now I’m seeing it from the right as well.

In a recent discussion about the Supreme Court, someone kept saying that the Supreme Court couldn’t legislate law, they couldn’t do this and they couldn’t do that.  They even pointed out a statement by Justice Scalia in the recent gay marriage case that the Supreme Court has no ability to legislate law. Okay, fine, it isn’t supposed to work that way, but in reality, it does.  You can say how things are supposed to work all you want.  It really only matters how they actually work.  The rest is wishful thinking.  It’s like saying everyone is  supposed to follow the law so we can just disband the police.  Well, in reality, everyone doesn’t follow the law, that’s why we have police in the first place.

But a lot of people just can’t seem to get it through their heads.  The real world doesn’t always work as we think it’s supposed to. Our ideals aren’t always the same as the harsh facts.  There is an unfortunate subset of people who are convinced that the ideals are always true, even when it demonstrably isn’t the case, and they spend a lot of time whining when the ideals aren’t followed. Yes, everyone ought to follow the speed limits.  No, everyone isn’t going to do it.  As I’ve said many, many times, one of the basic parts of maturation is accepting reality as it is, not as you desperately wish it might be.  In the political arena, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule only on the Constitutionality of various laws and cases brought before them.  They are not supposed to use their own social, political or religious beliefs to make decisions.  They do anyhow.  Even Scalia, heck, especially Scalia, does this every damn day.  Is it right?  No.  Is it supposed to happen?  No.  Is it going to change any time soon?  Unfortunately no.  So let’s stop pretending that everyone is going to magically realize how wrong they’ve been and change their ways.  They’re not.  They’re going to be hypocrites, like Scalia, who only pays attention to some things and entirely ignores others, just because it makes them happy.

The world would be a much better place if we could just do that, but again, that’s not reality and accepting reality… well, you know.

A Necessarily Limited Audience

I know that I’ve talked about this before, but I was recently speaking with a friend who wanted to know why I didn’t have a massive following, either here, with my podcast, or with my new YouTube channel.  Certainly, all of them have a decent following, get a decent number of hits and are all growing over time, but none of them are remotely close to superstar ratings.

Well, the answer is simple, I actually hold what many consider to be contradictory positions that I insist on talking about all the time.  They’re not actually contradictory, they are just uncommon to put together and since I don’t focus entirely on one subject or another, but cover a wide spectrum, I end up appealing only to a very small audience who, like me, holds these so-called contradictory views.

I can’t remember where I saw it, but I once saw a statistic that said that 20% of atheists were also conservatives.  I have no idea how accurate that is, it seems a bit high to me, but if we take it with a grain of salt, that means that the majority of atheists out there will not want to pay any attention to me because I oppose their political views.  I really detest not only many things that liberals, and especially progressives, want, but the justification behind their desires, which I find overly emotional and almost entirely without rational cause.  So I speak out against liberalism all the time, but as I’m an equal opportunity offender, I’m more than happy to go after the far-right religious pseudo-conservative in the Republican party who absolutely does not represent my secular conservative views.  So I tend to piss off people in the GOP, even though they aren’t likely to be non-religious to begin with.

So where are these people?  A lot of them abandoned the Republicans and joined the Libertarians and I really don’t like libertarians either.  Well, I don’t like some libertarians because the Libertarian Party tends to be a very diverse and chaotic group.  You have the people who just want to be left alone to do drugs, who don’t want to pay taxes, etc.  You have the people who are really only there because they’re sick of the Republicans, and I share a lot of commonality with this group.  Then you have the real crazies who have a quasi-religious belief in imaginary rights and magical laws that apply to everyone whether they want them to or not, but which nobody can actually prove exist.  Those are the people I tend to go after, they are the most vocal and most crazy, but because it isn’t really possible to differentiate between a large number of groups all using the same label every time you open your mouth, I tend to offend libertarians too.  Of course, I always specify that if something I say doesn’t apply to you, don’t take it personally, but they always seem to.

So let’s see, I’ve pissed off the liberals, I’ve pissed off the religious conservatives, I’ve pissed off the libertarians, who else? Well the non-rational, of course!  While most of these people, the liberals, the religious conservatives and the libertarians, fit into that mold, I find an unfortunate number of self-professed atheists who are also non-rational, either with regard to their atheism or with regard to other beliefs they hold.  Out of everything I oppose, being irrational is probably the highest on my list because all else springs from it.  I cannot stand people who do not think rationally, who cannot examine a proposition to see if it is supported logically, who do not expect evidence before they accept something as factually true, etc.  I was reminded recently that the majority of “serious” flat-earthers are also atheists, which I find sad.

I guess I can never expect a large audience because all of the things I talk about seem contradictory to many people. How can I be politically conservative and irreligious at the same time?  How can I oppose irrationality and libertarianism at the same time?  But I do and I’m going to talk about all of it and those who want to listen will, those who do not, will not.  I’m fine with it. I’ve been doing this for 11 years now, at least on the blogging side, much, much longer than that when you count all of my time online.  I’d rather reach the right people because the people who are not right aren’t going to listen to reason anyhow, be they religious, political or social, they’re all set in their ways of irrationality and beyond the pale of reason.  I write what I write, I think what I think and I get to all of it through reason and rationality.  If you don’t, if you use emotion and wishful thinking, then clearly, we’re not only not on the same boat, we’re not even in the same ocean.

Losing Their Shit

I could have predicted this, in fact I did, and as usual, it came true. I recently did a video about the fundamentalist religion of libertarianism, in which I predicted, accurately, that I’d have libertarians coming out and screaming at me because I’d somehow offended them by making a video all about them and how awful I was because I’d made them look bad.

No, they made themselves look bad and it’s really funny to watch them rant and rave about how bad *I* am that they are reacting the way that *THEY* are.  It’s more evidence of the abject emotional insecurity of humanity.

First off, I already said that I was only talking about a particular set of libertarians, I was very specific in my video, but the people who came back at me, one in particular, was screaming that he was not that way at all.  Then why is he responding? He already knows, if he watched the video, that I’m not talking about him, but just  by his very response, it’s painfully clear that I am and he knows it, he just doesn’t want to be honest about it.

There’s this really weird human reaction that if  you use a word that someone uses in relation to themselves, even if you’re clearly not talking about them, even if they clearly don’t fit into whatever you’re talking about, they have to get mad because somehow, your criticism of other people reflects  badly on them.  This is a very immature reaction.

And of course, it isn’t just the libertarians that do it, that’s just the most recent example.  Liberals.  Feminists. Conservatives. Christians. Muslims. All of them are equally guilty.  They are more concerned with the label they choose to wear than the content of the discussion going on.  They don’t even care if what you’re saying is completely accurate, if it makes them feel bad, they drop trou and spray feces on everyone and that’s a problem.

Seriously, shouldn’t the actual content be more important than how the discussion makes you feel?  This is why the religious have such a problem having a rational discussion about things like abortion and gay marriage.  The idea disgusts them on an emotional level and they are unable to rise above it.  The feelings are all that matters.  The same goes for libertarians and their claims about statism and natural law and all of that.  It doesn’t make any sense, they cannot demonstrate any of it, but if you criticize it, they freak out.  Or liberals who can’t talk about feminism or racism or gender politics without throwing around words like “misogyny” in an irrational attempt to smear their detractors.  It’s why so many important discussions these days are at a complete stand still, because you have two sides who can do no more than fling poo at each other.

So anyhow, here’s the video, you can go over to YouTube to see the comments if you really want, but I’m sure you’ve run into this plenty of times yourself.  It really is sad, isn’t it?  Can’t people just talk intellectually without losing their shit?

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ieCCRPFbk’]

Liberals Don’t Understand Space

I can honestly say I cannot understand this at all, but looking at it and understanding liberals and especially progressives, it really doesn’t surprise me at all.  Back in the early 1970s, we sent the Pioneer 10 spacecraft into space.  It had a golden plaque which tried to explain, in simple terms, who had sent the probe.  It had a picture of a male and female human and a depiction of our solar system, all in hopes that if someone found it, dozens or maybe hundreds of years in the future, they might have some idea who we are and, perhaps, where to find us.

You might think this is very simple stuff, but no, not for modern-day progressives who don’t care about contacting alien life, they only care about their own political and ideological agendas.  At a recent conference in Leeds, England, a group of British scientists who work for SETI, entered a contest to design another plaque that might tell aliens about the human species, but of course, nothing is that easy.  Now, you have radical feminists and other progressive assholes who don’t want to tell aliens who we are, they desperately want to pass along a politically correct message so the aliens are aware of their liberal views on sexuality, gender, leftist social views, etc.  It’s just  going to guarantee that no alien in their right mind will ever visit our planet because we’ll have scared them away.

According to Jill Stewart, a supposed expert on space policy at the London School of Economics, “The plaque shows a man raising his hand in a very manly fashion while a woman stands behind him, appearing all meek and submissive. We really need to rethink that with any messages we are sending out now. Attitudes have changed so much in just 40 years.”

No, you moron, the plaque shows nothing of the kind.  It shows a man and a woman standing side by side, she isn’t behind him. He is raising his hand in greeting, not in a “manly fashion”.  Are you people really that stupid?  Others have raised criticism that the man and woman are supposedly white and therefore, not representative of our racial diversity.  Honestly, you can’t say what race they are, they are line drawings and no shading would actually work in this situation, they could be just about any race if you wanted them to be.

This whole thing is really absurd, the whole purpose of sending a picture, or any signal for that matter, is to greet potential alien species that might come across them!  It isn’t to hold an in-depth cultural debate.  It isn’t to show aliens that we’ve got a bunch of morons running the show.  This isn’t about human attitudes, this is about passing along information that may take hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years to be found, if it ever is.  Attitudes on Earth may have changed in the last 40 years, but Pioneer 10 is still in our local neighborhood of space.  Pioneer 10 is only about 15.4 billion kilometers away from us. That’s a stone’s throw in interstellar terms.  It will take millions of years to get out as far as our closest stellar neighbor, a mere 4.5 light years distant.  By the time anyone might find it, we could very well be extinct as a species.  In that time, even if we are  still around, our attitudes as a species may have changed hundreds of times.  It doesn’t matter what we thought 40 years ago or what we think today or what we might think in another century, all of these are minuscule in terms of interstellar space travel. These liberal idiots have to get the hell over themselves and remember what the point of sending vehicles into space at all is, to make contact with whatever alien life might be out there.  It is not to convince them that we’re too brain damaged to be bothered with, or that we deserve to be exterminated for the good of the interstellar community.  Let’s not let liberal stupidity infect another planet like it has ours.  We owe it to the universe to keep our insanity home.



Redoing Election Funding

lordoftheringsOn a relatively recent podcast, and I have to say relatively recent because even though this is being written as I’m editing the podcast, it won’t post for more than a month, we spoke about changing American elections to eliminate undue influence and money and I said that I supported publically funded elections but I didn’t have time to go into any depth.

This is where I’ll go into depth.  It isn’t something I haven’t talked about before, but it’s been a while, so here goes nothing.

Money has really poisoned the American electoral process, you have people buying influence from politicians, which really corrupts everyone equally.  It makes the politicians beholden to investors, not the American people and frankly, the politicians couldn’t care less about the will of the people that they were supposedly elected to uphold, they’re too busy trying to make money hand over fist and attract more deep-pocket backers.  The only way to really fix this problem is to remove money from the equation.

So we just don’t let anyone give any money to anyone. Now this is probably more useful for federal elections, but I’m sure that someone can figure out how to adapt it for local elections as well.  There’s a big pot into which anyone can throw any amount of money they wish.  No one is legally allowed to financially support any specific candidate, it’s a general fund with no earmarks. As of a certain date, all candidates legally registered for the election will get an even cut of the pot.  Candidates are not allowed to put any of their own money into their campaign, buying elections is not permitted, you have to do with what the American people have decided to contribute toward the election and no more.  All candidates are independently audited to make sure all money is accounted for.  If you can’t be financially responsible with your campaign funds, you have no business being President.  Of course, the pots remain open, people can continue to contribute money and as the campaign continues, those funds are released to whatever candidates remain in the race. If you drop out, you forfeit your share, as well as any funds you have in reserve.  You spend it or you lose it.

What this does is give us an even race, not only between Republicans and Democrats, but third parties as well.  They actually become viable, at least financially, once they have as much money to spend as the big boys.  I’m sure they’re still going to lose, but at least it gives them a chance to get their ideas out there, even though we know they won’t resonate with the majority of American voters.

The other benefit is that we actually get to see how a particular candidate and their team handle money.  Do they blow it all at once?  Do they budget and plan?  Since all of their funds are independently audited, the public gets to see their process and how effective it is, certainly something that we need to know in order to give someone our vote.

And yes, I know what people will say, big companies will just run independent ads and outside campaigns for their candidate of choice.  No they will not.  While we can’t stop them for creating ads for particular issues, they will be forbidden, just like non-profit organizations, from supporting or espousing any particular candidate in their ads.  If they do, they can lose their business licenses.

We really need to get away from the idea that money is speech.  It is not speech.  It is money.  If you want to speak out for a candidate in some unofficial fashion, by all means, feel free.  If you want to say that your group officially endorses this candidate, go ahead. But that’s speech, not financial support and there will have to be some guidelines which describe how this can be done equitably.

At one point in time, I wanted television networks, as part of their FCC licensing, to be required to provide a certain number of free political ads per day, maybe five minutes total, spread throughout the day in 30-second blocks.  Maybe part of the big financial pots could be used to pay a flat fee for these spots.  That way, all candidates would get equal TV coverage, but as TV has stopped being such a big thing, as people have moved to online entertainment, have cut the cord and dropped cable service, etc., that’s probably not such a big deal these days.  Just let the candidates decide what they’re going to do with their money. If they want to put it into TV or radio or Internet advertising, that’s up to them.  Again, it’s about seeing their tactics and their fiscal responsibility more than anything else.

So what do you think?  I know it would never be politically viable because the politicians we have in office benefit from keeping the system the way that it is, they don’t want a level playing field and they sure don’t care about what’s best for America or the American people.  Corporations would throw billions into fighting such a system because it means they couldn’t buy political influence and have politicians in their pockets.  But that’s exactly why we should do it, having that kind of absurd political influence is what keeps American politics corrupt and I think that ending that inherent corruption outweighs any potential negatives in the new system.

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #2.20

Bitchspot Report New Icon 500x276Living in a Fantasy World

This week, Ted Cruz wants pastors to break the law, ISIS destroys Palmyra temple, professors want to control speech on campus, India orders two women raped, plus we talk about birthright citizenship. If it wasn’t so bizarre, it would make you cry, come join us for the show.

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #2.17

Bitchspot Report New Icon 500x276

Jewish Cooties!

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are afraid of women, gay-hating Jewish stabber returns to stab again, the secrets of the Reconstructionist Right, a three-year old terrorist and political donors come from a small pool.  Plus, Iran isn’t a monster, stop pretending they are.  So what are you still doing here, go listen!

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #2.14

Bitchspot Report New Icon 500x276

Should Auld Stupidity Be Forgot?

Tom DeLay and his tinfoil hat, the truth about the Oregon baker case, evangelicals want to stuff political offices with preachers and the freedom to thread eyebrows.  Then we revisit a bunch of stories that we kept saying we’d revisit and hadn’t.

Yes, the world is a crazy place, listen to us simplify it.

2015 GOP Congressional District Census Part 1

SurveyEvery now and then, I get one of these surveys from the GOP where they want to know how a select group of people think about the issues of the day.  Let’s be honest, it’s also a way for the GOP to beg for money since they always want you to include a “small gift” with  your returned survey.  Yeah, not going to happen, you have to earn my money and you’re not doing it.  In the past, I’ve just posted the answers to the survey on the blog for all to see so I think I’m going to do that this time as well.  After all, they didn’t even include a SASE, I’d have to pay for return postage and I already know they couldn’t care less what I have to say because I’m not part of their core constituency.

However, as I started to look over this, I wanted to provide better answers than they give the opportunity for and if I did all of that, this would  be an extremely long post.  I will, instead, do this over a series of 4 posts, each on a different section of the survey.  Therefore, let’s get started on Section 1.

Section I – Political Profile

1.  Do you generally identify yourself as a:  The options are “Conservative Republican”, “Independent Voter who leans Republican”, “Libertarian”, “Moderate Republican”, Liberal Republican”, “Tea Party Member” or “Other”

I really don’t know.  I’m registered Republican because I’ve been registered Republican since I turned 18 and haven’t seen any other party worth changing to.  The GOP is the party most associated with conservatism, although we all know that there isn’t an actual conservative party anywhere in America these days, at least not as I define it, therefore, I suppose it’s a lack of credible options and lack of real interest in changing my registered party.  It doesn’t really matter.  I’d like to say “Conservative Republican” but we all know that would be misunderstood by the GOP as a hyper-religious asshole.

2.  Do you plan on voting in the 2016 Presidential Elections?

Yes.  I vote in every election.  There was one election I didn’t vote in, I was dog-sick, it was late, it was raining and the line at the polling place was massive.  There was nothing in the election I really gave a damn about so I just went and laid down in the car while my wife voted.  That was a very long time ago and now, I only vote absentee, specifically for that reason.

3.  If yes, do you plan on voting for the Republican Nominee or the Democrat Nominee?

How can I say that without having a clue who either of them are?  I never vote party line, I vote for the specific candidate whose platform I support, or barring that, for the candidate likely to cause the least damage, which is how I’ve voted for almost every election in recent memory.

4.  If yes, how do you plan on casting your election ballot?

I have permanent absentee ballot status.  In California, it’s just something you can sign up for, it doesn’t require any disability or any other requirement.  See above for my reason.  It’s just easier.

5.  Do you have any interest in serving as a volunteer to help your local Republican Party headquarters or to assist a Republican candidate in your area?

Nope.  Not a chance.  My local Republican representatives have been, almost without exception, hard right-wing religious idiots that I didn’t want in office to begin with.

6.  What age category below applies to you?

Old enough to know better.

7.  How close do you think your views are to other voters in your community?

That’s a hard one.

8. From what media source do you receive your political news?

9. Do you agree that Republicans need to start now to set the strategies and tactics that will help us win the 2016 race for the White House?

Yes,  but your idea of “strategies and tactics” and my idea of “strategies and tactics” are diametrically opposed.  When I say “strategies and tactics”, I mean constructing a platform that appeals to a wide variety of American voters.  When you say it, you mean “double down on the religious stupidity that appeals to your fringe voters”.

10. Do you believe the Republican Party should continue to embrace social issues or are these too divisive when it comes to winning elections?

It should embrace the right side of social issues, but, as we shall see in a moment, it has zero interest in doing so.

11. Please register your opinion on the following social issues (1=support, 2=oppose, 3=no opinion):

Every single one of these is a horrible, awful idea and every single one needs  to be dropped from the GOP platform. They won’t be, of course, but so long as these are front and center religious stupidity, they’ll never win another Presidency again.

2 – School prayer

It’s been decided by the Supreme Court.   You can’t do this.  Why fight for a lost cause?

2 – Ban burning of the flag

So the party that spends all it’s time touting the Constitution wants to violate free expression for a piece of cloth? What a bunch of idiots.

2 – Ban human cloning

Why?  Religion, of course.  How stupid.

2 – Ban all abortions

Seriously, you lost this one with RvW.  You can’t ban abortions.  It has already been decided by the Supreme Court.  What a bunch of idiots.

2 – Faith based initiatives

Oh hell no.  Keep  your stupid religion out of my politics.

2 – Fight against same sex marriage

Likewise, this is another lost cause that only resonates with their core religiously stupid audience.  The Supreme Court will hopefully find that gay marriage is legal nation-wide this month.

2 – Ban federal funds for birth control

This is a difficult question honestly because while I’m wholly in favor of birth control, I think it ought to be up to the individual to pay for their own.  That’s the core of personal responsibility which is the basis of conservatism. However, they don’t want to do this out of conservatism but out of religious fucknuttery so no.

2 – Ban federal funds for abortions

Likewise here, they aren’t acting to uphold conservative ideals, they’re doing it because they can’t get their face out of the Bible and anything that has to do with religion in our pointedly secular political system has to be opposed.

As you can see from these responses, the GOP won’t pay any attention to me at all, I don’t fit into their little box of what a Republican is.  They only care what the full-on religious crazies want and I’m not one of them.  Therefore, I don’t know that it’s worth the cost of a stamp to tell them what they couldn’t be bothered to listen to.

Next time:  General Issues

Enough of This “States’ Rights” Crap

states-rightsYou know, I get sick and tired of watching the idiot libertarians carry around their placards declaring “states’ rights” because we can all see right through it.  The only reason they care about the states at all is because nobody on the national scale takes their politics seriously.  They can’t get their candidates even close to the White House, except maybe on a Boy Scout tour, so maybe they’ll just shoot smaller, say at the state level, and make their stand there.  Of course, as has been pointed out many times before, there isn’t much of a move by the libertarians to work for big city mayors or state governors, so I really don’t get the point.

Then again, they only jump on the “states’ rights” bandwagon when it’s convenient for them to do so, as a recent example showed.  There was a fundamentalist Christian libertarian declaring that states had the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman and it was a violation of “states’ rights” to tell them otherwise. This was, of course, a reaction to the upcoming Supreme Court case which could, and hopefully will, decide gay marriage nationwide once and for all.  So I brought up the possibility that maybe some states might outlaw private ownership of firearms.  Don’t the states have the right to make those decisions?  Oh hell no!  Argumentum ad Constitution!  Of course, this ignores the fact that the real argument being heard before the Court is that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, among others.  It is a Constitutional issue and the states don’t get to arbitrarily ignore the Constitution, that thing they ratified and vowed to support and defend forever.  But, according to some libertarians, at least the religiously insane ones, states only have to follow the parts of the Constitution that they like and can ignore the rest.

They want to live in a little Libertarian nation where they make all the rules and get to shake their pathetic little fists at the evil federal government.  It doesn’t matter what they have to twist or contort to get their way, this is what they want and how they want to go about it.  All of the discussion I’ve had about libertarian ideology shows the inherent dishonesty and irrationality of their position, whether you’re talking about those imaginary “natural rights” or the demand for “Constitutional respect”, they’ve got nothing to back up their claims but lots and lots and lots of empty words.

In fact, just today, another one of them started demanding “states’ rights” for education, particularly on that stupid Oklahoma “we don’t want to teach kids anything that isn’t patriotic” history curriculum crap.  More libertarians showed up screaming “states’ rights”.  Well no.  I probably wouldn’t care so much if those uneducated idiots stayed in Oklahoma, but they don’t.  They move.  They go to other states.  They get involved in politics in other states.  They vote in national elections.  That makes it my business and there’s no way in hell that I want all of the states playing with different agendas and producing different grades of idiot.  It affects us all, therefore it is all of our business.  So long as your kids affect the future of my kids, fuck you and your “states’ rights”.

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.