Rabid Partisan Idiots, Left and Right, Made Easy

Politically correct = reality challenged

Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.

What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.

Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.

What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.

The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.

 

Dumbest (uncorrected) Choices in American History: Shortlist

100_0172a

My list of REALLY STUPID CHOICES made in American history; just a short-list I am afraid:

Diet Food” that is more chemicals than food

Having the Soviet Union an “ally” in WWII – better to have let them go it alone; email for full argument

The Electoral College in the Age of Communication; direct election of all offices should be the norm; Political Parties are OBSOLETE and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

Public Sector Unions

Adding “under God” to the Pledge making it a point of division instead of unity

Lotus and Apple’s Patent-the-Universe Syndrome making the courts accept patents on things never meant for patent

Failing to live up to Dr. King’s vision and refusing to stop being prejudiced regarding race

Private campaign donations of any kind other than labor

Campaign donations by businesses

Supreme Court deciding that money= a right to a louder voice for YOUR ‘free speech

Dropping the no-partisanship requirements for radio talk-shows and ‘interview’ programs

Letting Lawyers advertise

Supreme Court declaring that nothing of value is earned by the recipient of a military award or decoration

Women’s, Chicano, Black “Studies” propping up people selected, distorted and lionized with blatant prejudice; taking away self-respect while pretending to help by ‘giving the poor things a hand’, and White Studies designed to rip on Western Culture for the same purpose – removing its self-respect – it seems non-whites are too dumb or clueless to run their own lives or stand up to whites and that whites are just intrinsically demonic – welcome to the enlightened world of PC education

Failing to settle on the point in a pregnancy where a woman’s choice is MADE and she must be held responsible for an infant rather than a piece of owned tissue. (6 month preemies regularly survive today and the Radical Right’s agenda on abortion would make women all but chattel)

Worrying more about which consenting adults, what age, color or how many may legally get ‘married’; ignoring the concept of duty, honor and responsibility anyone brings to their marriages

Bilingual Education as a policy

Helmets, knee and elbow-pads for tricycle riders

Peer promotion in school

Affirmative Action after 1990 – where was the transition to color-blind government?

Worrying more about what actual people have DONE with their guns than trying to get law-abiding folk to not have any at all

Electing Andrew Jackson, Jimmy Carter, George W., and Obama

Forgetting that ALL countries do best with immigrants if they pick from the TOP of the pile instead of the bottom

Paying a private group to print/coin money like a product to be bought forgetting that money has no ‘intrinsic’ value’; dollars are just counters for the economic game; increasing or decreasing the supply by fiat to ACCURATELY reflect the production/wealth of a nation is the ONLY reason when deciding when or if to print more money, or let the cash pool contract

Deciding that political consensus and no working model or scientific theory that has been tested is sufficient when making decisions in haste that could wreck the world’s entire economy/infrastructure; in the 70’s it was the next Ice Age that was imminent… no models then either

Making an “eco-friendly” light-bulb containing hazardous amounts of mercury

Adults stealing Halloween from the children and making it another grown-ups party holiday

The Writer’s Strike

ANY serious university or college that “emphasized” sports to make money and enabled ‘tails’ that can wag Great Danes with ease

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

How Dumb are Creationists?

Whose Side Were You On Again?

Just when it seems that the Right is getting its act together by nominating a truly original candidate for president, one that has a chance of moving our republic in more healthful direction, we get a resurgence of conservative-embarrassing silliness from their theocratic fringe.

Why is it so much trouble for the Republican party to step back from one of their more idiotic platform positions? Is it all merely the result of decades of defending traditional ideals against the worst idiotic of the ideas of non-Republicans, and not a few good ideas just because they come from “liberals”? Is tribalistic partisanship the only culprit?

Personally I doubt this; the Right has too many of its own people caught up in ‘magical thinking’. Case in point would be this article, or sermon I should say, targeting Bill Nye for having the temerity to lecture parents about programing their children to believe nonsense instead of science.

‘Creationists’ run the gamut from ‘theistic evolution’ believers so “unitarian” about the subject that they might as well be Deists, their God does not interfere once the Big Bang has the ball rolling, to full on Young Earth Creationists who believe that the Earth, and the entire universe for that matter are barely more than 6,000 years old!

The anti-evolution brand of Creationists have been a long time in building their base, God knows no-one else will give them the time of day once the theistic underpinnings of their “science” is exposed. Unfortunately they have long tuned their message to appeal to uninformed ears. Using “common-sense” arguments and misrepresenting real science the peddlers of YECH (Young Earth Creationist Hokum) depend on the complexity of the subject to prevent anyone in their audience from being able to refute them convincingly.

Creationist presentations are aimed at their target audience’s emotional and religious prejudices, and tailored to the blind spots in their understanding of science and mathematics. There is nothing random about biological evolution when you look at the species level; there is certainly nothing random in the progression of gene-evolution resulting from natural processes!

I could not pass up this opportunity to high-light the manipulative lack of real reason or real science in the apologetics of the creationist creed, this time it is the Right that is in the hot seat. Get your pencil and be ready to take notes Virginia!

Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy

By Terry L. Mirll

In a recent YouTube video, former children’s TV host Bill Nye weighs in on evolutionary biology by telling the rest of us how to raise our children.  If we want to deny evolution, he says, that’s our business, “but don’t make your kids do it.”  Presuming that what we teach our children is any of his business, a more fundamental question presents itself: how do we presume to teach our kids something that may or may not be true, particularly when we don’t really seem to understand it?”

I sometimes wonder if Creationist writers moonlight as speech-writers for radical Leftists or Islamist apologists; those are the only people I know of that use this blatantly disingenuous style of bull crap. It is all there – from the insulting headline to the bending and twisting of other people’s words, to the all-pervading unfounded assumptions that are meant to lull the ignorant into accepting, instead of questioning, the outrageous.

Let us be charitable and Leave aside the idea that someone who has long been thought of as “America’s Science Teacher” is not the person to publically call out parents for deliberately programing their kids to believe theistic creationism is a science and that tools used every day are unreal simply because those kids parents’ pastors fail to understand BS level science.

No offense but, the conservative Protestant sects have not been known for producing cutting edge biological scientists; for that matter no heavily partisan sect or nation has done well in that regard – think Lysenkoism under the political religion of Stalin.

But what about the last bit? Does our outraged Mr. Mirll have a point here:

“how do we presume to teach our kids something that may or may not be true, particularly when we don’t really seem to understand it?”

Nope, not even close! If it were a valid argument then it would be wrong to teach psychology, sociology, neurology, micro-biology, quantum physics, electronics, climatology (as a SCIENCE, not just the politicized version), metallurgy, all meditation, relaxation or visualization techniques… the list is endless. Being unable to explain in detail all aspects of a phenomena is hardly uncontestable evidence of fallacy; that is why testing is part of the process.

There is a tendency in the economy of belief to oversimplify.  Generally speaking, this is a good thing — or if not good, at least practical.  One hardly needs to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive a car.

However, oversimplification is anathema to maintaining a robust and rigorous science.  As Einstein famously put it, make it simple, but not simpler.  He meant that any theory, if it is to be a scientific one, needs to be reduced to its fundamental elements, without omitting any elements necessary to make the theory workable.”

That last bit was apparently included so that the author could have a nice, high pseudo-scientific platform from which to pronounce the next bit of data-free character assassination.

In Nye’s mindset, there are two basic positions concerning evolution: 1. You believe in it, or 2. You’re just a big fat doody-head.

This, I would argue, is an oversimplification.”

Without a doubt I agree; Mr. Mirll’s characterization of Dr. Nye’s inner mental functions as supposedly revealed in his video is an oversimplification; after having viewed the video in question, rather than an article about it, I also think it is an insult.

The pattern of demagoguery continues with three paragraphs showing supposed objectivity in the “Science vs. God” debate followed with a flat-out declaration that science, in the person of Dr. Nye, is simply wrong.

“What is most remarkable is that Nye is hardly alone in his asseveration.  In fact, the vast majority of people — among those who believe in evolution wholeheartedly, as well as those who see evolution as just so much nonsense — seem to hold the same view.  Either we believe in evolution, or we believe in God.

Unfortunately, however, those who hold this view fail to understand what it implies about science and religion, setting up what philosophers of science call the Conflict Thesis — that science and religion are mutually exclusive domains (that is, with no overlap) and are thus at odds with each other.  But the Conflict Thesis is incorrect, offering up a false choice: science or religion.  What, then, are we to make of Stephen C. Meyer’s claim that “[s]cience, done right, leads to God”?

Additionally, this already overly simplistic notion is further exacerbated by another oversimplification — that science is a rational proposition based on reason, while religion is a spiritual proposition based on faith.  Thus, scientific formulations are reliable, based as they are on the Scientific Method of observation, hypothesis, theorization, testing, and reformulation; religion, in contrast, is antithetical to the Scientific Method, akin to fairy tales and superstition.  Framed in this way, we can understand the essence of Nye’s concern for what we teach our children: assuming that evolution is scientific, for any parent to teach his child to deny evolution is thus to teach him to deny reason.

And Nye would be right but for the inconvenient fact that he is wholly and utterly wrong, in his basic assumptions as well as his understanding of evolution.””

Now, our defender of parental dignity-in-ignorance marshals his forces of misstatement, misdirection and mischaracterization to defeat the forces of evil reality!

“When we examine the underlying assumptions of Nye’s position, we find:

§ Science is not “based” on reason,

§ Religion is not “based” on faith,

§ There’s no such thing as “the” Scientific Method,

§ Religion is no fairy tale, and

§ Evolution is not what Nye thinks it is.””

Now then, stop giggling Virginia, show respect to older people, even if their heads are spinning slowly widdershins; I am sure Mr. Mirll will “explain” his “logic” in each case.

“First, though reason is certainly a component of scientific inquiry, it is not the only component.”

That was slick; he says ‘not ‘”based in reason”’, then refutes a totally different concept –  the idea of reason as the only component of science!

“There are, for instance, any number of scientific assumptions that cannot be proved and thus must be accepted on faith.  First and foremost among these is the assumption of uniformity — that what applies to our corner of the universe applies to all corners.  (This, after all, is what makes a universe a universe and not, say, a polyverse.)  Imagine the caterwauling among physicists if we discover that light travels at a uniform speed within the confines of the Milky Way, but at a variable speed in the galaxy Andromeda.”

This is a willful distortion of science, the assumptions science makes are ones for which we have virtually no negative evidence; if solid evidence of variance is found the assumption is abandoned; such as the very idea that the speed of light can be exceeded by material particles.

To address the non-proof above: if the speed of light were different in Andromeda we would either a. see the difference or b. there would have to be mechanisms built into the universe essentially ‘reformatting’ the light as it traveled to us so that we would see only effects compatible with our speed of light… sounds dumb doesn’t it?

“Nor is reason relegated only to science.  Religion, too, has its rational component, with pronouncements based on observation and empirical knowledge.  The Buddhist considers the Buddha, studies his life, hears his message of compassion and service to others, and makes the rational decision to emulate him.  The Christian hears the story of the resurrected Christ, an event that is claimed to have occurred in real time and witnessed by some five hundred, and chooses to follow him.  These are not simply matters of faith.”

He now doubles down on the same strategy with religion; he states one thing then refutes something else but, the fact remains – ‘based in’  is not the same as ‘excluding everything else’

“Instead of “the” scientific method, we find any number of methodologies that share various features but which cannot be said to demonstrate anything akin to a single, uniform method.  Consider, for instance, the notion that science is based on observation.  If this is a necessary prerequisite to a scientific theory, what are we to make of the claim that our universe may be only one of a series of universes?  Has anyone ever observed one of these extra universes?  How can such an observation be possible, even in theory?  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the multiverse.  And what do we call “the evidence of things not seen”?”

The above armchair physics comes courtesy of someone who obviously never bothered to incorporate quantum physics into their version of reality; isn’t this the guy who was so concerned about over-simplification a while back in this very same piece?

All he does is make all of science’s shades of color into a 320dpi black and white line-scan, and then complain that it does not represent the real world accurately. If he bothered to learn the subject he would find that it was the evidence, the results of observation and experiment, that made people see the cracks in the classical view of reality!

The multiverse theories Mr. Mirll disparages are based solely in observational science. To put it succinctly, quantum physics is the most un-refuted theory/world-view in the history of science. It has been held valid in its most bizarre predictions every time those predictions have been tested; I am sorry you don’t understand it, the entire industry involving things we call ‘electronic’ from can-diodes to micro chips is nothing but quantum physics-based engineering.

And the entirety of micro-biology is based in evolution, not as a theory, but, as a tool!

“Those who equate religion with fairy tales fail to understand what the word means.  “Religion” comes from the Latin religio, which means “to bind or constrict” and thus entails a twofold meaning.  First, it identifies a body of adherents to the religion itself.  These need not be adherents of any particular religion; it is sufficient that they identify themselves as members of the group, whatever the group.  Second, it is in some way normative; that is, it prescribes what the members of the group ought to believe, though it does not necessarily imply that the members will adhere to their beliefs at all times.  In other words, though a Christian will on occasion do things that are demonstrably un-Christian, this does not stop him from being a Christian altogether.  Neither aspect of religio has anything to do with fairy tales.”

That is nice. What does this have to do with the myths that form the foundation of almost all religions so adhered to? How does it prove that any religion’s myths that cannot be substantiated by objective historians are on a par with ‘fairy-tales’?

Answer: Nothing, and it doesn’t; moving on…

“In fact, Nye’s own understanding of evolution is itself a kind of fairy tale.  For him, it is akin to biological magic, to be believed for its own sake.  (Woe unto you, ye unbelievers!)  Evolution, he says, “is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.  It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.”

Other than a handful of multi-doctorate polymath geniuses who understand first-hand and in detail more than a simplified, cartoon version of what really happens in any of the sciences? That is why science demands theories be testable, and the test be repeatable.

Actually, it’s like, it’s not like that.  For one, geologists operated for centuries without believing in tectonic plates.  As nifty as plate theory may be, it’s hardly fundamental to the idea of geology; rather, it’s derived from geology, based on current scientific understanding of the earth’s structure. 

Virginia, it is not attractive when you cross your eyes like that; stop pretending to be a zombie columnist stalking the brains of gummi-republican.!

I do see your point though; it is hard to know where to begin deconstructing that mass of congealed steer-residue!

Unless you are reading your history while standing on your head the early geologists’ whole purpose in “operating” was to learn what was happening in the way of a dynamic Earth; what exactly does he mean saying that they “operated” in ignorance of most of the how’s, what’s and why’s of the Earth’s structure? Is this how doctors “operated” in medicine before the advent of germ theory?

Did they find gold? Yes, sometimes. Did they know why it formed and where it might be found absent surface clues? Error, faulty, faulty!

And please take note of the lovely all-but-lying way he claims plate tectonics is a nifty theory when the basic notion that the plates exists and move in certain ways is an observed fact. The plates move, have moved and still move.

Young Earth creationists believe that The Flood produced virtually all of the erosion and sedimentation etc. that science understands to be the result of uniform processes over time. They have to go to all sorts of lengths to deny reality though refuting evidence is everywhere to see.

In Southern California is a desert park that has often been used by the movie and TV folks for interesting outdoor locations because of its unique rock formations and convenient distance from Hollywood. It is called Vasquez Rocks and has formations familiar to the entire movie and TV watching world. I mention it because there are several places within the area of a suburban lot that give lie to every Young Earth fairy tale ever told.

There you will find pebbles of metamorphic rock  made by sedimentary rock being compressed and distorted and then rounded by water mixed into a sedimentary sandstone, and the whole mess folded over with igneous formations from volcanic eruptions from AFTER the formation of all of the above, AND major water and wind worn patterns in all of the above that are continuous over the different materials; explain to me, Virginia, how all that happened in a forty day flood!

That the movement of the plates explains events organically and phenomena that the creationists have to pretend are still mysteries surely produces the most amazing mental gymnastics given that lasers from satellites in space have for a long time watched and measured the motion of the plates; which in no way deviate from the expectations of the “theory” that Mr. Pseudo-Reason finds so controversial.

Evolution, likewise, is deduced from two primary observations: the fossil record, which, so it is claimed, shows evidence that life represents a continuum of biological forms expressing a progression from the simple to the more complex; and the similarity of hypothetically related species, such as human beings and apes.

We should not be surprised by now I suppose to see this author seeming to tell outright lies, it is part of his faith apparently but, that does not mean I have to respect the lies.

Those two observations are not honestly complete, let alone the only basis for the modern understanding of evolution or for when the theory was being formulated; many different observations and types of evidence went into the mix that produced the first evolutionary theories.

But these are mere claims, not scientifically, independently verified facts.  The fossil record is stubbornly discontinuous, and human beings ultimately may only look like apes — a 1972 Chevy Malibu looks an awful lot like a 1971 Chevy Malibu, but this does not mean that the ’72 Malibu is biologically descended from the ’71 model.

It is not nice to stare at crazy people Virginia. Yes, I know that on a biological level, from micro-biology to forensic anthropology there is no genus Homo, and that humans are of the genus Pan, like our only living ‘species’ cousins, the chimps.

Someone hurry and go tell the zoo vets that all the apes in their care are really humans under the fur; think of the money saved in simplifying simian care across the board; not to mention using simian vets to fill the gap in qualified pediatricians!!

Think about it, imagine calling something a ‘canine’ when no other ‘canine’ cousins exist and it is 98% identical in its genes to the lion family of genus feline. Is that a ‘canine’ or just another feline? The pan genus has several species of chimp and we are 98% the same but, we are our own genus? Ri-i-i-ight!

Welcome to Pan Sapiens, Homo Sapiens was a fairy tale!

As far as the “incomplete fossil record” goes I do not expect that any number of ‘missing links’ will satisfy the creationists. They have been making this objection since the fossil record resembled an etch-a-sketch more than an oil painting but, today the record for many species, like birds and horses, looks more like a time-lapse YouTube video and they still  make the same objection!

“Nye’s position, then, is no acquiescence to scientific truth; it is merely a component of his belief system.  He may as well tell us not to raise our kids as Presbyterians.

And Bill Nye the Pseudoscience Guy can keep his beliefs to himself.”

Sorry, this guy is not making any points at all, now he wants to steal the credibility of the Presbyterians when most of them are comfortable with billions of years and a god that uses evolution; Jesus wept.

Leftists and Right-wingers Conspire Against Constitutional Government

hypocrite_fish

I am a bit disappointed in the both the Left and the Right; no-one seems to know how to declare victory and move on, or realize the futility of their actions and let go.

There is a certain similarity to those who are gravitated toward the amassing of political power; for the most part their agenda is not the one they publically serve, instead it is one of ego and power, narcissism and insecurity.  The occasional sincere and talented leader that comes along is a happy accident in the purposeful insanity in pursuit of power we call politics.

On the Right we have people who do not seem to be able to accept that  how a person dresses or wears their hair, what books or films they enjoy, which adult they fall in love with, what kind of music they listen to, or which particular chemicals they choose to soothe themselves with against outrageous fortune matters little compared to issues that breaks their leg or picks their pockets.

This is principally because a conservative mindset supports the status quo against disruption from “outside; it is hard to tell who is not “one of us” if we fail to look alike and act alike.

On the Left we have those folks who simply cannot let go of the rush of having been on the side of “Truth and Light” against the monolithic “Man; if some group quacks like victims of “oppression” the Left immediately labels it a duck, turning a blind eye to any “regretful but vital temporary irregularities” committed in the pursuit of “social justice.”

Today it seem that to the new breed of “liberal” any traditional or overly familiar group is automatically suspected of evil intent and attacked; meanwhile any foreign, unfamiliar or new ideology is seen as persecuted, helpless, and in need of protection; they are not shy about shaming others into “doing the right thing“; even if they would call their actions evil if perpetrated by a non-Leftist.

The sign that makes this cognitive-dissonance the most obvious to me is the seeming inability of anyone belonging to a partisan group to see their own leaders engaging in hypocrisy or toxically self-serving politics.

Case in point Left:

Three distinguished ‘sociologists‘ having a panel discussion at a prestigious, elite university on the cumulative emotional/political scars of the “Palestinian people” who never even mention the existence of the PA, PLO, Fatah or any non-Israeli leadership, organisation or government!

Case in point Right:

Every bill that is passed by a conservative state legislature regarding abortion or the first amendment that they know will be thrown out by the Supreme Court on a “No Duh” basis; not to mention voting against humane laws only because the law might, possibly, in theory, in a Blue Moon and with a tail wind undermine their goal of passing other laws designed to eliminate the right to any abortions.

Case in point Left:

The partisan Leftie will bend their brain into a pretzel to justify and declare natural and normal any deviant behavior practiced by consenting adult homosexuals while at the same time denigrating the “un-naturally” traditional sexual tastes of more conservative folk, most of whom are not interested in regulating the homosexuals’ lifestyle beyond the usual restrictions on anyone committing rape, pedophilia or other criminal activity.

Case in point Right:

The partisan Rightie will get their panties in a twist contemplating all the heinous and disgusting sexual crimes a homosexual “could” be prone to while ignoring rampant child abuse in the home, or a culture of rape in an institution; that homosexuals in reality have a lower violent crime rate than straights seems to totally escape them.

Case in point Left:

Lefties just hate women who like the idea of having babies and being a homemaker, they simply loathe it! When you pin them to the wall, as happened recently when someone said that Mitt Romney’s wife who raised five sons and battled a deadly illness had never worked a day in her life, they mostly admit that there is nothing wrong and much that is admirable, about a “non-working” home-maker. Then a few days later they will once again say something that denigrates mothers.

Case in point Right:

Statistics show that the highest divorce rates, the highest teen STD rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates all occur in precisely the same areas where the most conservative sex-ed is the norm and sex is only supposed to happen after a person gets married. But, the lowest rates for divorce etc. are found amongst agnostics and secular Jews! I will leave as an exercise for the student the contemplation of reasons why two people with no clue whether they are socially compatible in the long term, or if they are sexually compatible at all, might be a bad risk for marrying; living together first is a  statistically proven better strategy!

Both sides seem to feel that all the worlds problems are sourced in the opposition’s intentionally perverse and stubborn need to fuck everything up for the other guy; I have more faith in my fellow man than that, but the partisanship has got to go!

Economics 001 a Remedial Course for Modern Monetary Morons

Economics is more than just money

Today there seem to be few people, let alone economists, who actually seem to grasp the basic  ideas of monetary theory upon which they build their roads to whatever fantasy land their prejudices predispose them to believe in. Economists pronounce, politicians spout and pundits pund but, how many of them really grasp, and apply, a basic understanding of what money is; how many have a clue how far everyone has strayed from reality?

Come Virginia, let us begin at the beginning; what is the difference between coinage historically (which is not like coinage in the modern world) and paper “monies“, and just what money really is.

I will be analyzing monetary theory without being bound by any politically oriented school of “economics“, instead I will attempt to put money in the same light that Newton put moving objects; money follows laws that do not respect any political need or opinion and I hope to merely describe what it is and what it is not irrespective of what anyone wants it to be.

Let’s start with coinage, a concept that still holds its place at the head of the parade despite vanishing as a concept by the 1970’s.

Historically, coins were what people now mostly think “money” should be, a portable piece of actual wealth, something “worth” just what its face declares. Don’t forget though that all value is relative, if no-one wants gold, it is “worth” little, if they crave it, it is worth a lot.
Cash monies on the gold standard promised payment in hard coin with value of its own.

At first glance this seems a good system, though it does carry hidden “costs.” If the gold or silver or copper in a coin is “worth” exactly its face value the person or group who minted that coin will lose the amount of “value” (manpower and resources) represented by the minting of the coin from bullion.  No matter how cheaply a chunk of bullion quality metal is turned into coinage that amount of value will be lost to the minter if they receive the “face” value in goods or services in return for their shiny, new coins.

This does not change with banknotes; printing costs plus the cost of the raw materials simply replaces the minting costs; remember, the raw material of a coin is the value of the coin.

For a long time banknotes represented actual bullion in a vault, or somewhere in the control of the issuer of the note, while coins represented actual wealth themselves. But, the ability of coiners to debase the metals they used producing coins “worth” less than their face value, and the fact that not all promissory notes represented an honest promise of actual coinage made the system far from perfect.

Enter “fiat” money. Bitterly fought, this is what “money” is supposed to be, though the transition is far from over globally and nationally.

A “currency” based on the exchange of gold and silver etc. is not in fact a real monetary system, it is barely one step up from barter. In barter or specie based economies not only must a person, or society, have the wealth and productivity to fill their own basic needs, they need to accumulate extra goods (coinage) simply to be able to participate in the system that provides those basic needs and services. Then they must accumulate even more if they wish to enjoy a level of “comfort” far below what is consonant with their current efforts to add productivity and wealth to their communities.

Barter ecomonies belong to an uncivilized past. Coinage was a simple, brute force answer to the problem of trusting someone when you have no way of enforcing that trust. Cash on the barrelhead as they said. Hopefully we have grown a bit beyond that, at least in the Western (civilized, modern) world.

Here is the bombshell Virginia, it is so simple that the “intelligentsia” just can’t get it: In a civilized society the function of money is to serve as counters in the games of economics, nothing more, nothing less. Money is not a commodity as it has no value of its own. Money is supposed to represent the wealth and productivity of the issuer only, not to be “worth” anything at all on its own!

Ideally, if a government wanted a bridge built and had the spare raw materials and manpower to build it, all the gov needs to do is print the right amount of money, and pay for a new road.

They do not make anything appear by doing so, they do not cause “inflation”, they just tossed counters in the game that were needed to let the players turn raw materials and idle bodies into a bridge thus creating wealth, not diminishing it! Or not creating as such, but acknowledging, since keeping the money level in balance with the national productivity is the whole goal.

Ideally, within a nation, it should be practical to pay each citizen with new, non-inflated money in tune with any growth in GDP, just like dividends to stockholders in a corporation. Infrastructure improvements (bridges, roads, universities and research facilities, etc.) would only be “unaffordable” if they used so many resources or manpower that they caused a significant rise in prices and wages in the private sector; wouldn’t that be so terrible, we couldn’t build a road one year because there was no unemployment and people were selling what they made as fast as they could make it!

Practically, especially with the current rats nest of insanity that we call economics worldwide, that kind of system would be almost impossible to implement; more the shame on us for letting things get so messed up.

Simply put, we should not be borrowing the money the government has the sole right to print/mint and regulate!!! The amount of dollars in circulation is supposed to be enough, theoretically, to buy all the goods and services produced this year, instead we treat money as though it is coinage and create a pre-broken system that invites inflation, deflation and puts everyone at the mercy of molehill booms and mountains busts.

What is the Difference Between RightWing and Leftist?

 I have been wondering a lot lately on just what the real difference is between partisans on the Left and pastisans on the Right. I think I have finally put my finger on it; Rightwingers WORK the System while Leftists main strategy is to GAME the System.

Both abuse the system by using their stategy to increase their incluence beyond their representation in voters actual opinions.

More later on this subject…

Political Parties Exist to Subvert Instead of Enable the Voice of the Individual.

heretics-crusade,guy-dewhitney,partisan

My Life for Ze Party und Ze Leader!

Why is it again that, in 2010, political parties still exist? Well, other than for the implimentation of the control of a few who claim the voice of many, I don’t see much reason; member voices are given more lip service than respect from the party’s “leaders”. And, while we are attacking preconception, why a party “leader”? Would not an “impementor” be a more appropriate term for the desired function of the office.? Someome trusted to make the will of the members of the party heard effectively?

But how is that again? A party is supposed to make the voice of its X number of citizens louder than this other bunch’s equal number of voices?

Do you people out there ever completey agree with every part of “your” party’s platform? If one election cycle you do happen to agree with it all have you ever in your life seen the party hold to each and every plank after the election?
Remind me again Virginia; just WHO these parties claim to serve?

A Modestly Heretical Proposal

Get rid of the parties. No labels to hide behind, no pols in pocket of biz or party, pols un-electable without personal support from the community, pol has to listen on every issue and best of all, the most important, the pol would be judged more by accomplishments and record than by their associations.

Today there is no practical reason not to elect individual candidates directly.

Not sure you like the idea? Think about this: neither. Obama nor Palin would have ever been nominated without an agenda following party forcing them upon their supporters. Think about that for a while…

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.

The lure of ego: Who is the leader of the Republican Party?

What in the world has the Republican party become? today on the news sites I see one story repeated over and over as though it is as normal as sunshine in Los Angeles.

It seems Rush Limbaugh, the well known comedian and self-ordained spiritual leader of all that is truly American has been persuaded to forgive the (elected only due to the will of his party rather than his stunning intellect and wisdom a la Rush{tm}) chairman of the Republican party for daring to speak of the the Sacred Rushness in less than glowing terms.

After several groveling apologies that amounted to saying that his thoughts were not his own and he spoke differently than he believed the Mighty Rush is now “All Good” with the contrite elected official.

Now that this pesky politician has been banished to the back rooms to make deals in private to further Almighty Rush’s goals (Complete humiliation for the American people under the Obama administration so they will finally listen to HIM) the country can go back to the patriotic task of shutting down their minds and dittoing the thoughts of Our Master and Living God of Anal Hypocrisy, Herr Fuhrer in His Own Mind, Limbaugh the Infallible.

If any of this strikes the reader as a touch sarcastic then I will gladly plead guilty. How is it that an explosion of indignity has not overwhelmed the “conservative” audience of Mr. Limbaugh? Limbaugh has never had to run anything, his job is to entertainingly complain about things he has no clue how to accomplish himself. He can freely ask this pol or that why they don’t “just do this” or “just do that” without ever having DONE any such thing. As far as I can see about the only thing the Most Holy Limbaugh has accomplished for his party was to cripple McCain’s campaign. And why did Rush do this? For the same reason he has snapped the chain of his audience at the leader of his party. Ego. Specifically the Ego belonging to a man named Rush Limbaugh. McCain was not the man Limbaugh had anointed and therefore Limbaugh refused to close ranks other than symbolically in order to deny this hated deviant the election. Why was Steele taken up with such rage and vigor by Limbaugh? He said, lets see, here is the quote from the CNN article this morning:

“Steele’s original remarks came from an interview on CNN’s “D.L. Hughley Breaks the News,” which was taped Thursday and aired Saturday. They came as Democrats, including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, have tried to paint Limbaugh — who has said he wants to see the Obama administration “fail” — as the effective head of the opposition party.

Steele rejected the idea, saying, “I’m the de facto leader of the Republican Party.”

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment,” Steele told CNN. “Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.” ”

Here we have it in black and white, Steele dared to deny that a paid entertainer, a media whore, a talking head elected by no one but himself is not the TRUE head of the party. All you so called “republicans” out there ask yourself something. By the way Steele jumped to heel, isn’t he right? Hasn’t the Republican party, in it’s lust for the warmth of group think allowed an ego of Hitlerian, nay Stalinesque proportions to hijack the ideology of a democratic institution?

In Rush’s mind he was never guilty of the sin of “illegal drug use” because his lawyers prevented him from being convicted. His decades of opposition to even the CONCEPT of rehabilitation for drug users rendered his own doctor shopping and elephantine oxycontin habit the depths of hypocrisy given that he has never moderated his stance since his own outing as a pill popping druggie.

If Master Rush had gone public after his own ordeal and admitted that treatment and support were the key, not persecution and jail he could look in the mirror and call himself an honest man. Sadly, that is not the case. Rush’s titanic ego was unable to admit that he had erred in either public policy or private “mistakes”.

I have an idea, let us have a dedicated conservative town somewhere in America volunteer to allow Their Holy Father to be their mayor for one year. I would even go so far as to allow him to alter the very constitution of America in this one little town of volunteers. After the year is done we will send in the national guard and expose the Hitlerian nightmare that will have resulted. That is assuming the townspeople do not revolt and lynch him before the year is up once they realize the Jim Jones quality of Master Rush’s ego.

Any party that allows a comedian to declare himself it’s titular head and PROVE IT should quietly disband and fade into the dustbin of history.

Maybe the Libertarians can have a go at being the 2nd party. God knows that the Republicans days are numbered. And don’t think I see this as a good thing. Without a strong, REAL conservative voice in government we are just as screwed as a nation as if we had no Liberals at all. Anyway you look at things the Rush Phenomena is NOT a good thing for America.

And as a final note, Mr. Limbaugh’s famous attitude that he would rather see America fail than succeed under leadership with which he disagrees is surely as close to treason free speach can get. Can the Repulicans who flock to his show connect the dots on that attitude? IT means Rush would rather see economic collapse, chaos, starvation, riots and civil war than have a leader he disagees with be right. OR even have A right solution for a situation that might admit to more than one solution. If the solution is not the Rush Solution it must be made to fail.

That is the same crime the Communists and Leftists in the State Department where accused of: wanting to destroy the country in order to impose their own ideology. Rush, Thomas Jefferson would spit in your tea and George Washington would hold the cup for him for your brazen attempt to usurp democracy with the hot air from your….um, lungs!!