❝❝Strictly speaking, what makes you think the apple was unintended in that myth?

---

Think about that very carefully for a moment.

Although never explicitly stated, the implication is that nothing could happen in that garden without the approval of it's Creator. That includes the existence of the tree, the existence of the fruit, the existence of the "serpent," and the curiosity of Eve.

So the "Creator" didn't know the possibilities and what would happen, wasn't the real "Creator" (as some Gnostics believed), or the garden was never supposed to be anything except a transitory state.

This last is the commonly accepted alternative. Eden is a metaphor for childhood, something that must be put aside if the person and the culture is to survive. It's not about the "Fall," it's about adaptation and outgrowing what was once enough.❞❞

Tags: myth ∙ Eden ∙ apple ∙ unintended consequences ∙ metaphor ∙ Christian ∙ Gnostic Christianity ∙ growth ∙ adaptation

❝❝Within our borders, absolutely we should have Truth, Justice, and the American way.

Outside, no. We should be an inspiration, not a hegemony.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ 9-11 ∙ inspire ∙ require ∙ meddle ∙ United Fruit Company ∙ Hawaii ∙ Iran ∙ military intervention ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ Muslim ∙ 20th Century ∙ America ∙ honor ∙ Character ∙ hegemony ∙ reputation ∙ Truth Justice American Way ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Donald Trump ∙ alphabet agencies ∙ conservatives ∙ goverment ∙ culture ∙ liberals ∙ Obamacare ∙ passion ∙ Isaac Asimov ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝Rather than citing examples of "rightness" being a mental illness, I think I will just cite the old idiom Moderation in all things.

I will say that from my perspective it's not "right" or "left" that is wrong per se, but the desire to control others while avoiding the consequences of your own actions. The reasons and the justifications change, not the actions.

---

Just where do you think the "left" learned the self-righteous, sanctimonious posturing?

Frankly, I don't care who did it first, second, or most recently. Or what the scoreboard says.

You're playing the game, perpetuating the problem. And I have absolutely no assurance that if "your guys" win, my life will be better. Just your promises, which are worth exactly nothing based on past experience.

After all, you've just admitted that you can't stand dissent and disagreement.

---

If I've no investment in the ideology and your side "breaks the rules" to suppress dissent, then there is no benefit for me to support "the system" no matter which side "wins."

I'd be better off bringing down the whole mess and helping people pick up the pieces afterwards.

That's the stakes you're playing for. Not if your side wins, but if there will be a game left to play, or even if there will be recognizable sides.

So thought experiments aside, are you willing to play with these stakes?

---

The rules of the game mean you can't win. Neither can they. Oh, each side trades advantage with the other, but the conflict goes on and feeds on itself.

That's not being heroic, that's being damn stupid. What good does it do to protect the widows and orphans when there is no safe place to go?

---

Of course there are rules of the game, number one being winner take all. Number two being that the "truth" of the argument is determined by the winner of the conflict. Number three is that winning the conflict grants the power to silence dissent. Number four is that the conflict is far too important to allow ordinary people to ask questions.

This isn't Darwin, this isn't the nature of man, this is an artificial construct.

Should I go on?

I never claimed that I didn't answer. I implied you were asking the wrong questions. When anyone reduces things to an either/or premise, that is usually the case.

---

There you go again, assuming the only response is either/or.

You think winning is the answer.

I want to remove the possibility of either side winning and starting the conflict all over again.

Because after you win, after you put down your sword and gun, after you take a deep breath on the field of battle, I and those like me will be there.

Pointing at you.

Laughing.

And you won't be able to touch us.

Sometimes you don't have to win. Sometimes it's enough to keep the other guys from crossing the finish line and claiming their bloodstained glory.

---

If you think the socialists winning means that the President, Congress, and the courts have unrestrained power, then you already lost.

And they have exactly as much power over you as you choose to give them.

---

Either/or is a self-imposed trap. It presupposes that there are two and only two alternatives.

The greatest single expansion of the Deep State was signed into law by a Republican.

---

Would it help you understand my point if I (truthfully) told you that since a month or two after the handoff, I've said that Hong Kong will be remembered in history as the City That Ate A Country?

---

It's not a matter of free market DNA. It's the fact that Hong Kong has the most capitalist and competitive society on the face of the planet.

I agree we're talking at cross purposes. You see it as all wrapped up and I see a Gordian knot. In the case of Hong Kong, a free Hong Kong has a greater value than the Chinese military.

But for now, let's agree that we do disagree and move on.

---

And that is when you change the game.

---

Did you accept the rule set before you started playing?

---

Well, that is a interesting philosophical premise.

I'd agree that for most purposes, there appears to be an objective reality. From my purely subjective perspective of course. But pursuing that goes way beyond our conversation here.

Are the units autonomous? Well, that's another philosophical bit. For example, is the planet aware? Restricting our conversation to humans, are humans autonomous? I'd have to say that most individuals are not. No matter what the politics.

Are humans and specifically "leftists" dangerous? They can be, and mostly want to be. Are they more dangerous than "rightists?"

No.

As I said political orientation isn't the problem. Politics is.

---

I prefer Nolan's chart to the right-left dichotomy.

Politics is controlling the other.

I've spent a lifetime dealing with those who want to control others. Some do in the name of environmentalism, some do in the name of Divine moral authority, some do it for the "greater good." The justification changes, but the methods don't.

---

One of my biggest frustrations in today's politics is that people overlook what "their" side does even as they denounce the "other" side for doing the exact same thing.

We've reached the point where what is done is not nearly as important as who did it.

Meanwhile liberty takes a hit.

---

*shrugs*

My problem here is once you've won, then what? Especially if in victory you claim power and authority that you never should have had.

Earlier you told me that if the socialists won in 2020, I'll personally lose. My response was to point out that if the EEEEEVVVIIILLLL forces of government already had power to screw me on some technocrat's or politico's whim, then there is no point in me supporting your side because freedom is already gone.

Sure, you promise to fix it, you promise to Do The Right Thing, and I should believe that why?

““The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.””

— H.L. Mencken

---

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan between them escalated the "War On Drugs" and enabled the narco-state. Mandatory minimum sentences were made possible by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Wide scale civil forfeiture including sharing funds and proceeds with local police agencies was made legal by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. The 1208 program and the militarization of local police dates to 1990, although it was changed to the 1033 program and was expanded in 1996. The USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by Bush League.

This is only a small portion of things that have happened on a Federal level.

I ask for nothing except the freedom to live my life as I choose while accepting responsibility for my choices.

Who is the "right" to deny me those things?

---

I'm going to point out again that you're willing to overlook the abuses of "your guys" while going after the "other guys."

I want less government than absolutely necessary. What I see is a long history of Republicans and conservatives who want to expand government, regulation, and spending. The Deep State owes just as much to Republicans than to Democrats.

I don't care who is "in charge." I don't care who is to blame.

I want less government than absolutely necessary.

---

I gave specific examples of Republicans abusing power in ways that rival anything that Democrats have done or will do.

You are stuck on the label when you should be looking at the institution.

---

“Nothing R's have done in your lifetime can compare to the damage of the D's.”

Watergate.

Ford's pardoning of Nixon.

Ford's "Hail Mary" pass to save the CIA and his nomination of George H.W. Bush to director. Since it was before my birth, we'll ignore the rumors about Bush's CIA related activities between 1959 and 1964. Also before my time but I'm doing extra credit, the question remains why Bush was pretty much the one American in his generation who could not "remember" where he was on November 22, 1963.

Iran-Contra.

Changing of banking laws and regulations during the early 1980s, leading to the savings and loan crisis, the eradication of regional banks, and the consolidation of American banks and investment firms into selected giants.

The USA PATRIOT Act, literally the climax of decades old Deep State wet dreams. Start with Inslaw and PROMIS, look at the Danny Casolaro murder, and then look at what has happened the last twenty years.

I could go on and on. I haven't even touched on what happened with the Contract With America, or how the leaders of both major parties colluded and conspired against the Tea Party.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. Democrats and the left are not especially evil. Republicans and conservatives don't get a free pass because they are doing the wrong thing for the "right" reasons.

I wanted to make this about government, the abuse of power and politics in general. You were the one making the case that Democrats and the left were irredeemably evil while Republicans and conservatives were mostly good.

---

First, stop blaming "leftists" for the evils of government.

Second, accept that the label Republican, conservative, or "rightist" doesn't make you saints or even the best qualified.

When you've done that, I'm ready to talk about the next bit.

---

I gave you examples, including Republicans who actively broke the law.

As for Republicans being the lesser evil, is there a one of them since Eisenhower who did anything other than go through the motions?

---

Start by admitting it is a government problem and not a Republican or Democrat situation.

Stop making excuses because some of your interests happen to line up at the time.

Until you do that, you're not ready to have this conversation.

---

You're treating a premise as an Article of Faith Not To Be Questioned.

As long as you hold onto that, you won't believe what I say or accept any solution that I propose. Because under that premise, it's absolute nonsense and can't possibly be anything else.

Or the premise is invalid.

---

That is not true.

There has to be a commonality to build on, especially for deeply held beliefs.

For example, I don't think humans need to be saved. So talking to me about a guy nailed to a cross isn't really going to resonate. Likewise, unless you accept anthropogenic climate change, the notion of a climate crisis won't make sense.

As for giving my views and the solutions, I have.

---

“There has to be rationality.”

Since when? Empires have risen and fallen without rationality. Trade agreements have been negotiated without rationality. Probably fewer than ten percent of Americans living right now are rational by any definition except they obey the rules they've been given.

Just to point it out again, I have stated the problem and the solution repeatedly. You reject the premise and therefore don't believe me. Government is the problem, even if it is a "friendly" government controlled by people you like. As long as you look to government for solutions, you make the problem worse.

Case in point, you've mentioned several times that we need to remove the left ideology from public schools and universities. Our public school system was created in part so that government could control what was taught. Did it never occur to you that as long as schools were publicly funded and government controlled, you can never remove the ideas that you don't like? Rather than taking control of schools and universities, maybe the answer is let the schools compete in a free market. The schools that can deliver value will thrive, the others won't. It's worked for everything from rye flour to smartphones, there is no reason to think it wouldn't work incredibly well for schools.

---

I haven't said anything about moral equivalence.

I just don't think that we should trust politicos to store and transport nuclear sludge in Hefty bags.

Don't tell me about the "virtues" of Republicans. Tell me why, despite their claimed support of smaller government, they haven't done anything substantial since JFK.

And he was a Democrat.

---

You've been telling me how virtuous the Republicans are. I'm telling you that based on their behavior, they aren't. There's less than a handful of effective Republican politicos on a national level who demonstrate honor and character. It's not because they are Republicans, it's because they have honor and character.

I gave you specific, catastrophic, and freedom destroying examples of highly placed Republicans turning government against the people. Some were felonies, and some weren't felonies only because no one had enacted laws against them yet.

I have offered solutions, you just don't like what I offered since it doesn't give conservatives legal and "moral" advantages that can be exploited against "leftists" because they are leftists.

“Just as we don't want other ideals imposed on us, we shouldn't impose our ideals on others. No matter how convinced we are that we are right.”

“The only thing they are really giving up is the power to compel behavior in others.”

You can't depend on government to do it for you.

---

Before Trump, who was doing it?

After Trump, who will continue doing it?

And that is assuming that Trump is a net benefit, something I do not believe.

All I've said is that Republicans aren't saints or "the better choice" because they are Republicans. The evidence supports my claims.

You've said that Democrats are more inherently more evil than Republicans. The evidence doesn't support your claims.

Show me people of honor and character and I will consider supporting them.

Show me Republicans and I will insist on honor and character. Show me Democrats and I will insist on honor and character. The label doesn't get a pass.

A man is measured in the lives he touched.

---

BTW, mandatory minimums, civil forfeiture of property without criminal convictions, and the militarization of police are hardly minor, superficial issues.

---

Your entire argument boils down to government is worse with Democrats in charge.

My argument is that government threatens liberty and rights no matter who is "calling the shots."

I gave you specific examples during Republican presidencies that have led to massive abuse of power.

I am not saying that Republicans are as bad as Democrats. I am saying that government is bad and it's time we reduced it's power and scope.

Otherwise we're fighting over who gets to be in charge with no evidence that Republicans are better or Democrats are better.

---

As long as we have government, let's make it too small to screw up our lives.

We have conditioned generations to believe that government is all wise and mostly benevolent. That government is the first, best, and last solution. That any problem can be fixed with more money and government expertise.

Provided no one asks inconvenient questions.

Me, I think government is radioactive and corrosive. I think it is occasionally useful in extreme circumstances but only if it is behind thirteen layers of protection. I think the risks of invoking government outweigh the benefits by several orders of magnitude.

And I do not trust anyone to use it wisely.

As far as the criminal abuse of the alphabet agencies, why do you think it began with Obama against Trump?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ game ∙ ideology ∙ break the rules ∙ Hong Kong ∙ City That Ate A Country ∙ objective ∙ subjective ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ War on Drugs ∙ narco-state ∙ mandatory minimum sentences ∙ Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 ∙ 1208 program ∙ militarize police ∙ 1033 program ∙ your guys ∙ other guy ∙ label ∙ institutions ∙ Gerald Ford ∙ CIA ∙ George H. W. Bush ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ Iran-Contra ∙ Inslaw ∙ PROMIS ∙ Danny Casolaro ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ public schools ∙ universities ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump ∙ good ∙ evil

❝❝A terrifyingly surprising number of police officers also have "incidents of domestic abuse in their background." Not most to be sure, but the field seems to draw some really f…ed up people. Worse, police are legally shielded from the consequences of their own actions.

If the current "red flag law" proposals are any indication, almost all the criteria will certainly be political. Considering that most people including psychiatrists and psychologists are incapable of judging competence, motives, or morality without some intense analysis, that is asking for trouble.

Here's what you do not want to acknowledge. Most people are not criminal. Most gun owners don't casually shoot other people or property. And there is not a single background check that will prevent every possible mass shooter.

Now I could go on and on. I could point out that American gun laws originated to keep guns out of the hands of "blacks". I could list the puppycide incidents. I could point out the militarization of police, especially in the "War on Drugs." All of this overlooks one very simple thing. The Second Amendment exists because the Founders did not trust government.

All your suggestions, all your proposals, everything you've said will arm more government agents while making the populace unarmed. Tell me, do you want Trump's government heavily armed while you are not?❞❞

Tags: Second Amendment ∙ red flag law ∙ background checks ∙ War on Drugs ∙ government

If we're going to have a conversation, these facts must be a part of that.

Tags: guns ∙ gun control ∙ laws ∙ violence ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun laws

❝❝Mrs. Bookworm,

Are you trying to make me irritated with you?

You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants. This is what, the ninth or tenth? It's blood libel. You wouldn't stand for it if the targets were Jewish or Christian. I don't see why I should "turn the other cheek" when you target pagans.

Nature worship as such is not the problem. Any more than the KKK (a nominally Christian organization) is. Intolerance is the problem. Demanding that others follow the rules of your faith is the problem. Yes, Nature is red of tooth and claw. So are humans when untempered by civilization. And no, I do not mean civilization is Christianity. I regularly tell people that Christians (and the other two Big Monotheisms) are nicer people when they aren't the only game around. Yes, Christianity says some pretty nice things in that book. But it only plays by it's own rules when there is competition keeping it honest.

The vice or virtue is not in the label. It's in the words and actions of the individual. We're measured in the lives we touch.

You want to go after someone for intolerance, be my guest. You want to go after someone for monoculture and echo chambers, go for it. You want to go after someone for Nature worship, then you'll have to start with me. And I will turn it back on you with a vengeance. Not nicely, like I usually do with these discussions. Because you would do the same if it were your faith that was attacked. And so would everyone else here.❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ anti-pagan ∙ blood libel ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ civilization ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ label ∙ monoculture ∙ echo chambers ∙ Nature

❝❝It's not that capitalism produces no losers, it's that the free market produces fewer losers by a couple of orders of magnitude.

Notice that I am distinguishing between capitalism and the free market.

Again, I'm talking about a "bottom-up" self-organizing exchange versus a "top-down" system imposed by force. In a free market, the way to get ahead is providing what others want. In any other system, it's about controlling the system.

ANY artificial controls will be exploited by the most powerful at the expense of the weaker. Resources are diverted into controlling the rules rather than producing value.

"Moral obligations" will be used to shut competition out of the marketplace in the name of compassion, and it will be backed by government force, diverting still more resources away from the market and into government and control.

The free market has only one real justification, it has produced more wealth and more freedom for more people than anything else we have tried. The key is individual choice, not controlling the system.

In a free market, competition keeps us honest and choice is the only control that works.

---

The two most important phrases in human history:

“Let me help.”

“I can do better than that!”

---

It's not the tools, it's the results.

The free market is an example of people choosing for themselves. Government is controlling people by force.

And yes, the world is changing. It's embracing choice. That doesn't mean that the politicos and technocrats will give up power willingly. But they can't control everything that happens. Who could have foreseen the world wide web, Snicker's bars, or topless maid services? What government agency would have tolerated those things? What Congress critter would have sponsored legislation creating flash mobs, radar detectors, or fantasy football?

I want more freedom for more people today. I want more of the same tomorrow. Choice is the best way to get freedom. That's it, plain and simple. That's my objective.

---

See, you're still talking politics. "Arrange." "Cap." That's about controlling others, implying that government force will be involved sooner or later.

Why should their choice control my action? Why should my choice control your action? Why should your choice control their action?

It's not about creating the framework or tweaking the system. They've got something I want, so I have to find something they want. Voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, and no third party taking a cut or dictating rules.

---

Freedom and wealth. The Apaches could not produce steel knives, antiseptics, or a horseshoe. In one sense they were free, but they didn't have wealth. What freedom and wealth they had was taken at the expense of others.

Freedom taken at the expense of someone else is privilege and is generally recognized as a Bad Thing. Perhaps the keystone to Western Civilization is the Ethic of Reciprocity. This is what makes freedom more than a privilege grab. It also can't be imposed by another.

I'm proposing that the free market makes freedom and wealth possible while making things mostly better today than they were yesterday. So we have steel tools, paracord, duck tape, battery drills, and lights at the flick of a switch. These and seven million and thirteen other things weren't even a possibility with a hunter/gatherer culture.

Freedom is only one part of the payoff.

---

Nice things result in greater freedom.

I grow stuff in my garden, but that is not my source of food. I can go to the grocery store and find a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than I could ever hope to grow myself. My choices are increased by the store, and it couldn't happen without the free market.

A few years back I was looking at an aquaponics set-up. Beyond the design and construction, it would have taken about twenty hours a week and between two and three hundred dollars more per month. And that is if everything went right and I never left town.

Is it necessary that I use the supermarket? No, but it's a better use of my time and resources than if I tried to do it on my own. It lets me use the labor and skills of others at a minimal cost to myself.❞❞

Tags: losers ∙ capitalism ∙ bottom up ∙ self-organizing ∙ exchange ∙ top down ∙ force ∙ system ∙ resources ∙ moral obligations ∙ competition ∙ compassion ∙ wealth ∙ let me help ∙ I can do better than that

❝❝Neo-paganism has nothing to do with devaluing human life. The term neo-pagan is a recent invention and has nothing to do with morality.

Honestly, Mrs. Bookworm, have you ever known me to devalue human life? Have you ever seen me treat anyone disrespectfully unless they disrespected me or someone else first? Yet I am a neopagan under the scholarly definition. I greet the sunrise. I dance naked under the full Moon. I've written and spoken against war, blood sacrifice, and coercion.

The fact is there is no monolithic morality among neopagans. Even most neopagans can't agree what the term means except in the broadest terms.

Neopagan and pagan are not slur words. I'd be happy to answer any general questions I can, or find you someone who can if I can't. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, I'd appreciate it if I could expect the same.

---

That may be true. But using pagan or neopagan as a way to describe low morality is unacceptable. Mrs. Bookworm and others here would not accept a slur like this against Jews or Christians.

I'm not asking anyone to participate. I'm just asking for the same respect that they themselves expect.

---

For what it is worth, I'd say that modern pagans are less tolerant of others who insist that their faith/belief system/rule set must dominate.

Sometimes the trick is convincing them that the nasty ole conservative Christians aren't always or even usually the enemy.

---

There we get into "no True Scottsman."

Just as an example, I can promise you that the first century Christian was a considerably different creature than his sixth century counterpart. Just as the eighteenth century version was very different. And how the early twentieth century version differed from the late twentieth, or even the twenty-first century incarnation. And that doesn't even allow for all the various sects.

The way I see it, faith is between you and the Divine. No one else.

❝I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.❞

By most modern standards, I'm pagan. Certainly in the sense that I look for Divine manifestation outside of an official Book. Some of my stuff came by way of the new age fluffiness, sure. Some of it also came from gnosticism and the silence of a desert dawn. Does that make it less valid for me than yours is for you?

I'm not something less. I'm something else.

---

But is it better than being a gun toting redneck?

See, people today like to forget, but pagans invented civilization. And trade. And philosophy.

The Visigoths weren't intent on destroying civilization as much as they were controlling it.

---

The problem with the Visigoths wasn't that they were pagan. The problem is that they wanted to control others. We have the same kind of people today, and they are just as destructive. The issue isn't paganism, it's politics. Just as it is for certain Christians today.

BTW, my mother was born in Louisiana, my maternal grandfather was born in Tennessee, and my stepdad's family is from Arkansas. I'd put my redneck bona-fides up against any one else's.

---

For those interested in conspiracy theory, the Merovingian dynasty was the "Holy Grail" proposed by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. That is, the bloodline supposedly descended from Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene. If this sounds familiar, Dan Brown lifted it for The Da Vinci Code. This may be the justification of the divine right of the European royals, although there is a (disputed) theory about a sacred king being a sacrifice.

This gets murky real fast, especially since many non-Western royals also trace their descent from gods.

Anyway, I've confuzzled things enough for now.

---

Not to mention that it wasn't unusual for the same sacred sites to be reused again and again and again, which raises the question of who or what was originally worshipped. And so on, and so forth…

Getting back to your point though, yes the Visigoths were pretty civilized. And yes they were pagan only in the sense that they weren't part of the Officially Approved variant faith at the time.

Traditionally, before someone goes after another faith, they always stomp out their own heresies. It's about the politics and who gets to call the shots, not about the purity of faith.

And of course that never happens in pagan faiths.

*ahem*

I might have set off the exaggeration alarm there.❞❞

— comments from No. 4 Bookworm Room Podcast: The Second Amendment, Morality, and Kindness

Tags: cross posted ∙ Bookworm ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ slur words

❝❝There is an assumption underlying American politics and to a certain extent our discussions here. In order for you to win, in order for you to benefit, someone else if not everyone else must lose. Some call it dualism, some call it either/or, and some call it IS or IS NOT. It's The Law of the Excluded Middle (more or less) and it's usually a false premise.

Something doesn't have to be black OR white. Sometimes it can be sour. Or fuzzy. Or octagonal. By accepting two and only two qualifying conditions, you eliminate all other possibilities, even if those other possibilities may serve your needs better.

For example, Sarah Waggoner is very much caught up in dualism. Any criticism of Democrats means she must attack Trump or Republicans in general. The idea that someone can be critical of Democrats without being a Republican is outside her expectations and almost outside her world view.

Meanwhile, from my perspective the problem isn't Democrats or Republicans. Accepting either premise ignores the obvious (to me), that too much government is the core problem. As long as the discussion is about either Party Red or Party Blue, we don't talk about an ever expanding technocracy that consumes more and more even as it restricts freedom. You can't talk about the dangers of government until you stop talking about the misdeeds of whichever party. Dealing only with Republicans or Democrats means you never look too closely at the system.

By design

---

Still, your first reaction to any criticism of Democrats is to attack Trump or Republicans.

You've never seen me "discuss" things like religion, sex, or crony capitalism with Republicans. Not to mention the occasional person who insists that their morality must displace all other choices.

My default is KYFHO. Keep Your F…ing Hands Off!

The fact is (and one of your major issues) that I assume that most people are perfectly capable of making their own choices. I don't think that government should be involved in most things. I don't think that government is first, best, and last solution. I do not trust in the wisdom of government.

Outside of sex and top-down morality, yes, that matches the mainstream "Republican" position. More accurately, the mainstream "Republican" position matches some of the classic liberal position. And yes, there is a vast difference between modern liberals and classic liberals. As I've said, my opinions on religion, sex and top-down morality (and what is dooming our culture) put me outside the Republican mainstream and squarely in with what might be called Democrat positions. Again, more accurately the Democrat positions match some of classic liberal position positions. And since classic liberals had those positions first, well, the Republicans and Democrats stole from their betters.

I could give you a hundred and thirteen things that Trump has done wrong. But I don't see Trump as significantly worse (or better) than his predecessors. At the end of the day (or term), we still have an ever expanding government that is destroying liberty. I don't think we should have a country whose liberty depends on the whims of those "in charge" this week.

Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats both want to expand government, only with their people in charge. The goal is not the government. The goal is not the system. The goal is liberty. Everything else is extra.❞❞

Tags: philosophy ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ dualism ∙ Donald Trump ∙ goverment ∙ system

❝❝Remember when I said that economics was about the flow of value? It's like piping water in a swamp. Yes, you can clean it up the water and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of water flowing around. The more water, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the water and taking away what used to be widely available.

Now let's change that phrasing that a bit.

Yes, you can clean it up the value and direct it where you want, but there is still a lot of value flowing around. The more value, the more it seeps and looks for lower ground. You can only" fix" that by draining all the value and taking away what used to be widely available.

That's a whole new different perspective. Economic activity and free markets create more value. The flow of value and value in the wrong hands threatens the central systems and the elites. As the elites see it, their best interests are served by controlling value and directing it where they see problems. They want their choice to supersede the choices of others, particularly the unwashed masses who don't know when something is being done for the Greater Good.❞❞

Tags: economics ∙ value ∙ maxims ∙ choice ∙ greater good

❝❝The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek.

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell.

Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics by Henry Hazlitt.

For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization by Charles Adams.

The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky.❞❞

Tags: Friedrich Hayek ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ Henry Hazlitt ∙ Charles Adams ∙ Marvin Olasky

❝❝Just going to point this out. Princess Leia was a badass.

When we first see her, her ship has been captured by the much larger star destroyer. What does she do? She hides the secret plans where nobody will find them and records a message. After that she grabs a blaster and holds off stormtroopers. When she's finally captured, she faces down Tarkin and Vader telling them both off and giving a "the reason you suck" speech. When Luke and Han break her out of her cell, she grabs a gun and breaks all of them out of the detention level.

All while never using her sexuality to get what she wants or letting anyone forget she is a woman.

Leia turned the whole damsel in distress thing on it's head. And arguably has the least character development of any of the "face" characters in the first trilogy.

But she's the one who impacts the heroes. The formula isn't damsel in distress. It's catalyst for change.

Going back to Casablanca, Ilsa wouldn't be Ilsa if she didn't have to choose between two men she loved. Yes, part of it was the cause and the circumstances, but it is Ilsa's struggle that defines the film, even as it changes Rick because he can't have her.

Back to the original Terminator, Sarah Connor started as a wimp defined by her victimhood. By the end of the film, she's gone beyond mere survival to drawing a line in the sand and dedicating herself to a higher cause.

Scarlett O'Hara is perpetual victim who ends the story hoping that another man will come along and rescue her.

There's a way to do a strong woman character, and they don't have to be over sexualized or a kick-ass commando. If they start as a victim, they don't end up as a victim. And their impact on the people around them is all out of proportion to their ability.

---

*nods*

The problem with Rey isn't that she is a strong character. The problem is that she is not a hero because she doesn't change. Other than having magic force powers literally given to her, how is she different in at the end of her second movie than she was in the beginning of the first? We don't know anything about her other than she breaks all the rules for force manipulation and Jedi training.

Why the blazes are we supposed to care about her?

The story is not about Rey's journey to be a hero, it's about establishing that women as a class can be heroes too. It's a collective benchmark instead of an individual achievement. It's not Rey that is successful, it's about all women through Rey.

And it's as boring as stale nachos and flat beer.

---

The thing is, we saw the roots of change in Luke. We saw him "trust his feelings" to blow up the Death Star. The scenes where he met Yoda, he and the audience learned not to take things at face value. The bit where he saw under Vader's mask in the tree. And the climax of the second film when he discovered just how outclassed he was.

When have we seen Rey struggle?

I agree that Finn and Poe have changed. But they aren't the viewpoint characters. Part of me can't help but wonder if the films would be better if Finn was the viewpoint and Rey was just the catalyst like Leia was.❞❞

Tags: Princess Leia ∙ badass ∙ sexuality ∙ woman ∙ damsel in distress ∙ hero ∙ Casablanca ∙ Ilsa Lund ∙ Terminator ∙ Sarah Connor ∙ Scarlett O'Hara ∙ perpetual victim ∙ Rey ∙ Star Wars ∙ Luke Skywalker ∙ Finn ∙ Poe ∙ struggle ∙ Yoda ∙ Jedi

Public spectacle to bypass the law and suppress dissent.

Tags: abortion ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ gaming the system ∙ protest industry ∙ 2016 election ∙ climate change ∙ socialism ∙ victimhood ∙ racist ∙ protesters

❝❝HRC was not that likable as a candidate. The image of HRC appealed more than the actuality. She's many things, but she's not appealing, probably because she doesn't seem to connect on a personal level. That was something that Bill Clinton excelled at, and the lack in HRC just came off as disappointing.

---

My claim was that people relied on the polls so much that they couldn't be bothered to double check what was happening.

The election of HRC was already in confusion, not in the least because she manipulated the rules to deny anyone else the nomination. It wasn't the first time that people decided they didn't want her as a candidate. Even her election to the Senate wasn't so much winning as controlling the process to get her a Senate seat as a power base. Without that and without a big push from her husband, she couldn't make it as a candidate. As Bill Clinton's legacy became tainted and Democrats started avoiding him, HRC's "star power" faded.

I don't know why she avoided so many public appearances in 2016, although I suspect it's health issues that she never told people about. That certainly didn't help her.

You can blame Comey, you can blame the LEAKED emails, but HRC was never a strong candidate. She didn't even want to go up against Gore. She didn't dare go up against Bush League in 2004 because she was afraid she be washed up if she lost. In 2007, she got sold out by the Democrat leadership because they didn't want her in the White House. In thirty years, her reasons for running for President was that she was a woman, and it was time. Her whole strategy centered on victimhood while implying that she was owed the Presidency because Bill and others had done her wrong.❞❞

Tags: Hillary Clinton ∙ 2016 election ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ James Comey ∙ Al Gore ∙ George W Bush ∙ Bush League ∙ White House ∙ Democrats

❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”

Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.

Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.

---

Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things

I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.

No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.

---

To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.

Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.

---

The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.

The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.

It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.

I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.

---

See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.

And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.

---

Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?

I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?

Which leaves you better able to go to work after?

---

Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.

Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?

---

No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.

I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.

I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.

Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."

Why?

Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?

Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?

---

You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.

One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.

---

It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.

I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.

The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.

While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?

---

The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.

The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.

My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞

Tags: Western Civilization ∙ America ∙ disagree ∙ crusade ∙ Albert Jay Nock ∙ top down ∙ dualism ∙ Constitution ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ restraint ∙ government ∙ Federalist papers ∙ Anti-Federalist papers ∙ SCOTUS ∙ progressive ∙ solution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ term limits ∙ primary election ∙ CGP Grey ∙ first past the post ∙ system management ∙ milirarist ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ voters ∙ statist

❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.

Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.

Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.

Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.

---

And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.

Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.

If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.

---

Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.

While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.

And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.

---

Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.

It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.

And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?

Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.

---

*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.

I don't accept your premise of either/or.

Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.

If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?

---

The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:

““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.

Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””

— timeDOTcom/3633903/campus-rape-1-in-5-sexual-assault-setting-record-straight/

Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape is introduced into the discussion mentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.

When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.

There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?

Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"

One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.

---

“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”

Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?

Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.

If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.

Just like what is happening now.

The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.

That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.

---

I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.

I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.

Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.

That's it.

Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.

---

*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.

Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.

Is that what you want?

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”

---

Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?

I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.

I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).

Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?

Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?

Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.

---

For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.

Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.

Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.

Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.

Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.

What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right

---

You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.

I don't.

I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.

---

Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?

---

"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.

Accepting responsibility does.

But not if they are denied the choice.

---

Then give me numbers instead of allegations.

At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.

---

It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.

My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."

I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.

I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.

---

I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.

---

I am not saying most women are irresponsible.

I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.

I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.

Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.

Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.

Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.

Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.

The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?

I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.

If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."

If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.

So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.

If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ reproductive rights ∙ privilege ∙ women ∙ fetus ∙ man ∙ rape ∙ health care ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ sex ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Christian ∙ patriarchy ∙ American ∙ presumed guilty ∙ domestic violence ∙ murder ∙ sex rules

❝❝Pardon, but attacking their compassion may not be the best way to go.

I don't have an answer either, but I think if you asked most conservatives if abortion was more compassionate than taking care of unwanted and/or disabled babies, they would laugh in your face. You would hand them both the issue and the moral high ground.

---

First, those are different issues. Conservatives aren't a monolithic block. Not every conservative has issues with vaccines, and not every conservative thinks that autism is worse than death. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect the crossover with the pro-life crowd is pretty small.

Second, I'm not the one you'll have to convince. I have mixed feelings myself and it's one of those issues where I can see more than one side depending on circumstance. But when you tell most conservatives that "killing babies" is more compassionate, you've lost the argument with them and they will fight you to the end. It doesn't help that Democrats have defined abortion as their primary issue and practically THE only standard that matters for a Supreme Court justice. It doesn't help that Roe vs. Wade has no constitutional precedent and would be inevitably challenged as soon as the balance on the court changed.

This has always been a divisive issue. When conservatives look at Virginia, they see it as a call to action. This "slaughter of innocents" is something that they've been forced to accept for almost 50 years, and they are ready to fight back hard.

---

By your standards.

By their standards of compassion, they are saving babies.

And that "they" includes many women who do not believe that feminists, liberals, and Democrats speak for them. You can't win this issue if you dismiss those women as objects who can't think on their own and must be "saved" from the evil patriarchy.

---

I've my own issues with Christians.

But…

How is what they do that much different from what you just did? You just described a "come to Jesus" moment only with a different premise.

If faith means anything at all, it has to be freely chosen. That means that people are going to make choices that you don't like, don't understand, and don't approve of. You are no more entitled to judge their creed for them than they are entitled to judge yours for you. You can't win a battle of faith. Neither can they.

If you tell them that they are ignorant and living in fear and that everything they believe about their god is wrong, they have no reason to listen. All you are doing is feeding their perceived persecution. They don't believe they are victimized.

And not all of them are.

---

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that they are right. And I am certainly not defending them. My own feelings on the subject are way too conflicted.

What I am saying is that in this case the liberal/progressive ideas of compassion and sympathy are completely different from the conservative ideas. You're using the same words but you are having completely different conversations. Attack them in the name of compassion and in their minds you just made their case for them and without realizing it.

The assumptions and perspectives are completely different. Your logic won't work for them, just as theirs won't work for you. Both of you are starting from absolutes for one thing, even if those absolutes are mostly opposite.

---

As a libertarian, I want less government than absolutely necessary. I'm not thrilled with idea of restricting rights, but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of government "picking up the slack" so to speak. And I oppose government interference with sex. But that doesn't mean I'm completely with the "left" on sex either. I don't think there should be government funding for private charities or other organizations. Which means Planned Parenthood shouldn't be getting grants or funding.

Or to cut through all the verbiage, rights good, government meddling bad.

I don't trust in the wisdom of government to "do the right thing."

---

See, my problem is that I see both major parties using government to interfere and push their own agendas. "For Your Own Good!" "For The Greater Good!" "Think Of The Children!"

Sex is mostly a voluntary act. I see abortion mostly and commonly used as the "contraception of last resort." A hook-up and regret after a drunken encounter is not the same thing as rape or incest. I think a case can be made for abortion because of rape or incest provided we accept that a case can be made for adoption as well.

We forget that charity used to happen outside of government. Marvin Olasky wrote The Tragedy of American Compassion. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, Olasky does point out that charity used to be a short-term thing, privately and locally administered, and above all intended to get people on their feet and responsible for their own choices. Instead of a faceless bureaucracy that measures it's "success" by "clients" processed and money spent, private charity measures it's success differently.

If people had to take responsibility, maybe abortion wouldn't be casual.

---

I'm not asking you to do anything else. I am saying that they have their own reasons which make sense to them. Their reasons are just as important to them as yours are to you.

Stars above, I get so very tired of the either/or dualism. It's never going to be winner take all. The longer we pretend that one side can decisively win, the longer the struggle will last. The people pushing hardest for either/or don't care which side wins as long as both sides are so blinded by the "righteousness" of their own cause that the never realize just how much they are surrendering to the "system."

All because somebody has to be in charge. All because we have to meddle in the lives and choices of others. All because we can't trust each other to make the "right choice" and take responsibility for that choice.

I'm not conservative. I'm not defending their position. I am not asking you to accept them on faith or anything else.

I'm saying that to really resolve this, we're going to have to sit down and talk through our differences. Smashing heads, pointing guns, and using the rule of law to declare one morality supreme above all isn't going to do anything for the long term. It will always be a holding pattern until the other side gets an advantage.

Think about all the passion we're giving away. There has got to be a better way.

ETA: I don't care who did it first. I don't care who did it more. I just want the whole mess over.

---

Pardon, but the liberal party also regularly proclaims that they are for the children. The last Democrat nominee ran as the "women and children" candidate. In 1996 a Democrat president proclaimed that the era of big government was over.

I don't think that government is the first, best, and last solution to our problems. I don't think politicos are qualified to decide what should be taught in schools, sex ed or not.

And here's the opinion that is not going to make me popular. If you can't afford children, you should rethink sex. People keep throwing in things like rape and incest, but most sex in this country is consensual. Mixing rape, incest, and consensual sex objectifies the woman and makes her not responsible for her own choices.

No, I am not ignoring the man in these cases. I am saying that rape and incest are the exception to the rule. Even under the ever changing definition of rate in today's culture, where some women do believe that regret equals rape.

At the moment, we're in a mess with both major parties wanting control over sex. You can blame the Republicans all you want, but thanks to #MeToo it's not the "patriarchy" that is collapsing, it's how we deal with one another and how we share sex.

I'm not going to make the conservative arguments for them. I'm telling you how they feel and how they are going to react.

Kavanaugh was asked about abortion. Most of the articles about Gorsuch speculated on how he might rule in abortion cases. And most of the concern about Trump picking judges gets coached in the impact it will have on abortion cases. Like it or not, this has become the standard.

The natural conclusion to the argument that if only a woman has the right to decide, then the man has no financial obligation to ending the abortion or paying child support.

Personally I don't think that tax dollars should go to any organization providing services, medical or otherwise. But that's not the conservative argument. I'll also point out what any accountant can tell you, if government pays for a certain class of services, that frees up funding for other things.

Government involvement in health care (all types) has raised the cost of "essential services." It's no accident that health care prices have skyrocketed since Medicare and Medicaid became law, boosted by every attempt to "control costs." It doesn't help that since health insurance became an employee benefit, people don't know what they are paying for.

If we're really going to have this discussion about solutions, one thing that has got to be on the table is removing government intervention. Yes, that means no government restrictions on abortion, but that also means no government (taxpayer) funded healthcare.

---

“The difference here being that Democrats support policies that help women, children, and families of all demographics.”

I'm sorry, but that is not true. For much of my life I've lived next to the Diné and Hopi. Democrat policies are very selective as to which groups get "helped" under which circumstances. I am not saying that the Republicans are better. I am saying that "public solutions" to social problems don't usually work, especially when they are administered hundreds or thousands of miles away from the actual problem. There are other reasons of course. Words matter, actions matter more, intentions don't.

Politicians are not qualified to determine curriculum, but neither are technocrats who don't live near the school and whose kids don't go to the school. Problems get solved when the people responsible for solving the problems have "skin in the game." Look at this. I say I don't believe that government is the first, last, and best solution and you're telling me why the Democrat experts are better. I'm not praising the Republicans. I'm criticizing the assumption that any Federal experts are better equipped to solve problems because they are Official and sanctioned by the appropriate authorities.

Responsibility for what one chooses to do is conservative? I know that is not what you meant, but it comes off as sex without consequences. Responsibility is important, and as long as sex is voluntary and consensual it's only adult to consider the consequences. Just as it's adult to consider before driving drunk, or stealing a protest sign that you don't agree with. Actions have consequences, the mark of an adult is the ability to make the right choice despite the threat of punishment.

Now I am not talking about not punishing people for their crimes or bad behavior. I'm saying that PIV sex is usually a choice and that, protected or not, might result in pregnancy. If you don't want kids, if you can't afford kids, the best time to think about that is before the moment when the hormones start carbonating.

I've never disputed that women have human rights. What I pointed out was the standard for a Federal judge has become their opinion on abortion. That's become one cornerstone of Democrat policy. Regardless of if I personally believe if abortion is right or wrong or if a women's choice should govern if abortion happens, I do find myself agreeing with those who say that the only way abortion could be made legal nationwide is through judicial declaration and not through the democratic process. Small d there. Throw in public monies and suddenly a right becomes a privilege.

I'm pointing out the logical fallacy of claiming it's a "woman's right" until it comes time to pay the bill. Choice without responsibility usually gives us spoiled brats, no matter what the gender or orientation.

The unregulated world is a charitable one. It's when charity becomes part of government that it becomes Somebody Else's Problem and Americans stop paying attention to what is needed. Americans voluntarily give more to charity than anyone else on the planet. Whether it's a child fallen down a well or a hurricane flooding New Orleans, we're there. More times than not, it's the Official™ charity and relief that gets in the way.

There's a good reason for that, and It is something I touched on earlier. Charity is supposed to be short term. When you tell someone that they will have government health care no matter what or that they will have financial aid to help pay the monthly bills no matter what, what incentive do they have to do for themselves? When you say someone needs government help, aren't you really saying that they are not good enough to do it on their own?

I'm not the first one to point out that the rising costs in heath care drastically outpaced inflation starting right after Medicare and Medicaid became law. Or that continued attempts to "fix healthcare" keep causing prices to go up and availability to go down. Think about it. The relative costs of Happy Meals, pocket calculators, cell phones, and bathroom towels have decreased while the availability and selection has gone up. That's not true with medical care, one of the most regulated industries out there. The disparity in pharmaceutical costs alone should make you wonder.

Removing government from the solution does work even if the government experts and the experts who depend on government tell you it won't. There's a couple of dozen special interest groups right there, all of them greedy for power and money. Somehow the accepted solution is always more government.❞❞

Tags: Christians ∙ compassion ∙ conservatives ∙ moral authority ∙ vaccine ∙ autism ∙ abortion ∙ Democrats ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Virginia ∙ feminist ∙ liberals ∙ patriarchy ∙ faith

Not what they wear, not who they live with, not what they eat, not what happens in the bedroom, not what they read, not how they do it, and not who they do it with.

Tags: Christians ∙ conservative ∙ religion ∙ Christianity ∙ maxims ∙ monotheism ∙ uniform rule of law ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ freedom of religion ∙ live & let live

Basically they didn't want another church telling their church what to do.

Tags: religious freedom ∙ American ∙ Christians ∙ tweeted ∙ English ∙ Protestant ∙ church ∙ compromise ∙ America ∙ UK ∙ Universal Declaration of Human Rights ∙ cross posted

You seem to think I am defending the Republican Party.

Tags: Republican ∙ Democrat ∙ Donald Trump ∙ ibertarian Party ∙ government solutions ∙ last resort ∙ Keating Five ∙ John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater

❝❝Virtue isn't doing the right thing when there is no choice. Virtue is choosing and then doing it because it is the right thing.

That means the choice has to exist. It also means some people are going to make choices you don't like.

Without choice, it's not virtue. If you take the choice away, you're telling the person that you don't trust them and they aren't fully human.

Stuff happens, You can't change that. You can only try to make the World a little better than how you found it . Do you want people who can make the right choice? Or do you want ignorant children who don't know any better?❞❞

Tags: virtue ∙ choice ∙ human ∙ secret of life

❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.

Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.

At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.

Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.

What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.

Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.

---

Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.

The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.

The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.

The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.

The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.

And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.

---

Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."

It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.

That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.

It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.

Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.

How that is not racist is beyond me.

Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.

So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.

Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”

I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ unjustified ∙ assumption ∙ climate crisis ∙ article of faith ∙ American ∙ Amerindians ∙ reservation ∙ Christian ∙ conservatives ∙ community ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ label ∙ marriage ∙ gay marriage ∙ polyamory ∙ people of color ∙ victims ∙ overlook ∙ human rights

❝❝Kudos for not mentioning the shooter's name.

The shooter had absolutely nothing to do with Heathenry or pagan beliefs. I don't understand why any group should change their language, practices, customs or actions when the shooter was not part of the group or the community.

Guns are not the problem. There are many more responsible gun owners than crazy people. The people who pay attention to gun laws are not the ones you should worry about. I say this as a reluctant gun advocate. I hate guns and I would ban them if I could eliminate every gun.

This tragedy does not reflect on Heathens. I understand that you have issues with how some Heathens speak and act. I respect that and I expect that you should speak your conscience. This terrible event should not justify wholesale changes in Heathenry just to satisfy your political desires.❞❞

— comments from Column: After Christchurch, Declarations or Deeds?

Tags: maxims ∙ cross posted ∙ damnatio memoriae ∙ Heathenry ∙ pagan ∙ language ∙ practices ∙ customs ∙ actions ∙ shooter ∙ community ∙ guns ∙ reluctant advocate ∙ conscience ∙ Christchurch ∙ New Zealand

❝❝There is nothing that prevents people from following religious law. But there is nothing that demands others follow those same religious laws.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ religion ∙ cross posted ∙ Jews ∙ Christianity ∙ Buddhist ∙ faith ∙ Divine ∙ pagan garb ∙ Decalogue ∙ imposed ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Story ∙ Journey ∙ pagan ∙ neopagans ∙ vodun ∙ blood sacrific ∙ sexual ∙ consent

❝❝Are you going to insist that Democrats are Democratic again?

---

Actually given the actions of the Democrat party leadership over the last century or so, Democratic is the last thing they should be called. It's always been about establishing an elite outside of the laws and rules that apply to everyone else. Often with veto power over the words and actions of others.

One recent example are the superdelegates. That is about as anti-democratic as you can get.

Just Newspeak in action. Again.

---

And you clearly didn't get my reference to Newspeak.

It's a brand name. It's no more democratic than Acme Company is "the best there is." Progressives and Democrats have a long undeniable history of coopting words into something that means the exact opposite. "Liberal" used to mean what we Americans call "libertarian" today.

---

And there we go. That's Democrat Tactic #45, Alinsky #13, and PeePeeTape #4.

Shift the focus away from the argument and towards the person who made the argument.

---

As I said, "with veto power over the words and actions of others."

Tell you what. I'll call them Brand D. That way you can ever so conveniently ignore the attempts to usurp language without being too obvious about it.

---

Do you really think you have the power to dictate my actions or words?

Do you really think that there is one person reading this site that will have any doubt whatsoever just which group I mean?

Brand D it is then.❞❞

Tags: Democrats ∙ democratic ∙ maxims ∙ elite ∙ laws and rules ∙ veto power ∙ words ∙ actions ∙ anti-democratic ∙ Newspeak ∙ brand name ∙ Brand D

❝❝As far as I am concerned, you have no business going after Republicans until you at least acknowledge that Democrats aren't perfect and are just as good at messing things up.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ Trump Tower ∙ mainstream media ∙ trust ∙ overlook ∙ maxims

❝❝To me, the interesting thing is that most of the mainstream media is willing to ignore things like this so long as it's a Democrat doing it to a Republican.❞❞

— NeoWayland

Tags: Obama Administration ∙ Trump Tower ∙ wiretap ∙ Barack Obama ∙ incompetent ∙ liar ∙ Donald Trump ∙ mainstream media ∙ ignore ∙ rule of law ∙ abuse of power ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ good ∙ evil ∙ greater harm ∙ maxims

❝❝I know people don't want to hear this, but I am posting it anyway.

Maybe the fault isn't in the "Right" or "Left," but in the idea that other people's behavior must be controlled For Their Own Good and For the Good of Society. Rather than teaching people that freedom comes with responsibility, we condition people to obey the duly delegated Proper Authority for the sake of perpetuating the institution.

Politicos want problems they can stage-manage.

Personally I find progressives more intolerant than conservatives. Conservatives, once they accept the idea, are willing to live and let live even if they don't approve.

It's not conservatives telling me I can't watch a pretty girl. It's not conservatives telling me that I have to get permission before I can touch another. It's not conservatives who tell me my every personal interaction is subject to approval, ex post facto if political advantage can be had.

I know you personally don't think politics should be separated from faith, but when do I get to practice my faith without being subject to politics? Do I really need to consider the intersectional implications when I greet the dawn? When I see people whimpering in their safe spaces, why can't I tell them about the strong ones who gained power overcoming adversity? Do we really have to examine the psycho-sexual implications of a cup and dagger before using it?

---

I probably wasn't clear. When I was speaking of 'live and let live," I did not include the "leadership." I was talking about the people on the street. That's not to say that I don't encounter plenty of Christian conservatives who are determined to control everyone else because "God told them so." It's just that these days, there are more progressives convinced that they know what is best.

It's one reason why I annoy conservatives and progressives both. I don't accept that either has the Wisdom of the Ages and I don't think people should be controlled For Their Own Good.

On this site I tend to be more critical of liberal ideas because that's mostly who is here. I could point out that Wilson was responsible for the drug wars, that Obama took the surveillance state far beyond what his predecessor did, and that certain high profile politicos and celebrities (most of them Democrat) took sexual advantage while claiming to be feminist allies.

Or I could just point out that power corrupts, just as freedom without responsibility does, and that it's in our best interest to make sure that government and the self-appointed elites have as little power over us as possible. No matter how much we agree with the politico of the day, government power will be used against us.

If you can't trust your worst enemy with government power, why in the name of all the gods do you think you can trust your best friend?❞❞

Tags: maxims ∙ for your own good ∙ intersectional ∙ psycho-sexual ∙ for the greater good ∙ intolerance ∙ progressives ∙ conservatives ∙ cross posted ∙ live & let live ∙ safe spaces ∙ tweeted

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: health care ∙ health insurance ∙ health care providers ∙ wage caps ∙ employers ∙ Obamacare ∙ prices ∙ availability ∙ government ∙ manages

❝❝I think that for the politicos it was never about saving humans or the planet, it was always the justification for shifting massive amounts of power and cash without accountability.

Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot and a very noisy distraction.

What is going to hit next is The Compromise®. There will be some very well respected and high profile Democrats who will publicly proclaim that of course the Green New Deal goes too far. But maybe we should consider some of the proposals. Carefully. After all, people are scared.

And if the "reasonable" Democrats don't get The Compromise®, they can always throw their weight behind Ocasio-Cortez.

I suspect that "no planes" means no air travel unless it's Absolutely Necessary. With the Democrats deciding what is and is not necessary. Look for that in all the new proposals. That will be part of The Compromise® and how it will be sold to the public.❞❞

Tags: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ∙ green new deal ∙ environmental crusade ∙ Democrats ∙ The Compromise® ∙ it's Absolutely Necessary ∙ exceptions

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

❝❝Unscientific test.

Two video monitors of equal size. A dozen people, some of who were Democrats. Both videos played side by side with the volume turned down. All but one person thought that Trump came across stronger, more confident, better body language, and more convincingly. One guy said that Pelosi and Schumer looked like high school student council candidates.

Again, I don't like Trump and I don't trust Trump. But compared to the Democrat leadership, well, there's no comparison.

Is anyone else reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate?❞❞

❝❝Kennedy vs. Nixon.

Regardless of what was said, visually Trump came across looking very well. Pelosi and Schumer came across looking like two high schoolers running for student council. That observation isn't mine, but I am caging it anyway. Why in the World were they sharing a lectern?

Trump came across as an executive with pictures of his loved ones in the background. And with only one American flag. Pelosi and Schumer looked like they got kicked out of the cafeteria and they dragged in flags to make the walls look good.

As an aside, the trend of using multiple flags behind you to show your patriotism is stupid.

Kennedy vs. Nixon.

---

If you'll remember, I told you before you need to focus on the things that Trump does that are actually wrong. I specifically mentioned his misuse of eminent domain in the past. Lo and behold, the key part of his emergency plan is eminent domain.

Peepers, you focus on the wrong things when you attack Trump. You have from the very first. And you continually mistake my not agreeing with you as support of Trump.

Trump has been making Democrats look bad since he announced. It doesn't help when Democrats continually underestimate him. Even if they ignore everything that Trump did before, there's not a one of the Democrat Congressional leadership who has ever negotiated anything outside government. Trump is playing this exactly right and the optics reflect that.

You want to take Trump down? I'll tell you what to focus on. Eminent domain. The volatility of the stock market. Not the direction, but how fast and how far it changes direction. There's some major instability there. His treatment of the EU, particularly downgrading the ambassador. National security, particularly spying on Americans. Healthcare. War on drugs. Prescription drugs and self medication. The Second Amendment. Social Security and pensions. The national debt. Military spending and accountability. Free speech. Protectionism. Start with those.

You can't treat him as a Republican politico because he isn't one. And don't forget that this man has been dragging his fights and negotiations through the press for forty years. Remember that exchange from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie about the worst pirate. Trump doesn't care if the press is good or bad, he just wants the press.

---

This came from an unscientific experiment that some friends and I did. And yes, some of them were Democrats. We ran the videos side by side on two monitors with the sound turned off.

Trump looked like he belonged. Pelosi and Schumer didn't. Their body language showed that they were unhappy, probably because they were sharing a lectern and neither wanted to share the spotlight. Pay attention to their hands specifically. Trump looked friendly, Pelosi and Schumer looked like they wanted to strangle someone.

I never have liked the multiple American flag thing, not even when it started with Bush League. I think it was him, he was the one I noticed using it first. Certainly the Democrats of that time were doing it. I think it is purposely distracting. Come to think of it, that's when I remember multiple Democrats sharing a lectern. Or at least all standing behind one person at the lectern.

As for the Z group, I adjusted my tactics accordingly. They wanted to ignore the political implications when those same implications were central to the argument, whether they wished to acknowledge that or not.

You on the other hand don't like to deal when facts or actions don't fit your script. You think that opposing someone means throwing every insult and accusation possible at them in the hope that something sticks. You're not willing to look the person's history and adjust accordingly. You let the labels control your expectations and then get frustrated when things don't turn out the way you want.

I was never against criticizing Trump. I was against criticizing Trump stupidly foolishly in ways that would make him look stronger and better. Throwing insults at him doesn't work, he just pushes back. Treating him as the typical Republican politico who will back down out of civility or for the greater good doesn't work because that is not what he does.

It's not that I support Trump. I just think you are attacking him in very stupid and amazingly ineffective ways.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Democrats ∙ Nancy Pelosi ∙ Chuck Schumer ∙ Kennedy-Nixion debate ∙ multiple flags ∙ eminent domain ∙ underestimating ∙ negptiate ∙ stock market ∙ volatility ∙ EU ∙ ambassador ∙ national security ∙ spying on Americans ∙ health care ∙ War on Drugs ∙ prescription drugs ∙ self medication ∙ Second Amendment ∙ Social Security ∙ pensions ∙ national debt ∙ military spending ∙ accountability ∙ protectionism ∙ Republican ∙ politicos ∙ press ∙ political opinions ∙ insult ∙ label

Now, see, I was going to make nice here and just touch on the subject.

Tags: sex ∙ lesbian ∙ not all ∙ Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Chrstianity ∙ men ∙ women

As long as you buy into the idea that one side is marginally better, the circus continues and you are cut out of the decisions.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Democrats ∙ false choice ∙ rigged ∙ distraction

❝❝Critics have also noted that much of the science doesn't hold up and that the ten year deadlines keep getting moved.

---

Pardon, but that is not true. It's a very small minority of critics have publicly claimed the science doesn't hold up. As for the "vast majority of the world's scientists," that's not true either.

This is one area where what little science there is has been buried under layers and layers of politics. It has become heresy to criticize the "conclusions." And the reactions to those who do ask questions are exactly like those historical reactions to those who questioned Islam or Christianity in a less enlightened age. We should be asking why it is necessary to crush dissent. We should also be asking if (notoriously unreliable) politicos are really on the side of Earth and Nature, or if they have their own agenda.

Then we get to the science which really isn't science. It's computer models built on a unproven assumptions, including a carbon dioxide cascade effect that has never been observed either in the laboratory or in the field. The models also minimize other known strong climate influences such as solar variations and atmospheric water, probably because those can't be blamed on human activity. But no, the science is settled and Must Not Be Questioned.

Those of us who follow Earth-centered paths want to believe that we are uniquely qualified to help. Part and parcel of that is the belief that we are uniquely qualified to hurt as well. While there are ecological problems that are human caused like pollution and water table damage and overharvesting the seas and rainforests, Nature adapts. If all humans disappeared tomorrow morning at 7:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, life would go on.

We need to find actual changes that make the World a little better. That doesn't include handing over massive funding and political power to politicos and technocrats who have no understanding of Nature and haven't the slightest idea how to solve the "problem."

---

As a rule, I don't think either/or solutions apply. It's not save the planet OR consume everything.

Are there solutions? Yes, and a lot of them are beyond our reach for now. When we get nanotech going (and we will), I expect one of the first large scale applications will be vat-grown exotic hardwoods that are virtually indistinguishable from the "real thing" other than cost and availability. Vat-grown stone will follow. Already vat-grown meat shows promise.
And that is just short to medium term.

We can make it better without the need for noble sacrifice.

We also need to address capitalistic solutions that may work. The American bison population is growing because some herds are privately owned and managed. There's evidence that works with African elephants as well. People take care of what they own.

---

"Eppur si muove."

This is public science we are talking about. Public science means telling the politicos what they want to hear. In living memory, public science has flip flopped on things like forest management, eugenics, recommended diet, humans have only five senses, and the role of sodium in human biology. When discussing public science, we should always ask "who profits?"

I focus on the political of climate science because unlike almost any other field of science, dissent is not allowed. It's not merely a matter of dismissing results, it's discrediting the researchers who don't toe the line.

For most of the 20th Century, we humans have treated Science as the new god. We forget we know much less than we think we know. We forget that science is a process and not an absolute. I just keep remembering a commercial I heard on an old-time radio recording. "Eight out of ten doctors recommend Lucky Strikes for their patients who smoke."

I'd probably ignore the whole mess except governments are demanding tremendous power to Act Now despite having no real solutions. And of course, it's too urgent for debate or to submit to public vote.

---

I am not anti-science.

I really don't want to turn this into a long debate on climate science or government power.

What I'd like is for people to ask more questions. Why the goalposts for action keep moving. Just what is supposed to be done and how much of an effect it should have. What will be done if the predictions fail to predict.

While Why neopagans of all people are treating this as an Absolute Revelation when we know that the World does things we don't expect.

Why we can't start with simple things like planting more trees.

I think asking these questions is important.

---

It's the political aspect that worries me. I won't kid you, the extreme climate change crowd are a major inspiration for what I call the True Believer™.

I think the science could work itself out, but partial conclusions and unproven techniques have been placed front and center of an agenda that has very little to do with saving the planet.

---

““The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.””

— H. L. Mencken

---

*shrugs*

Like I said, if it wasn't for the politician's rush to do something now, and incidentally completely remake every social structure and institution, I'd be content to sit this one out.

I've done more than a little research on this subject over the years. I've written about it quite a bit. I'm notorious in some circles for being the pagan that doesn't embrace the climate change panic.

But more and more I see this as political. It's not the scientists who are making the noise. It's not the scientists who are calling for massive financial and social changes. And it's not the scientists who want to punish "climate deniers."

---

I've no problem with bottom up changes providing better alternatives.

I've every problem with unquestioned top down solutions imposed by force.

I firmly believe that there are two phrases which have done more to shape humanity and human history than anything else.

The first is Let me help.

The second is I can do better than that!

---

Can you name another topic where "science" is defined by consensus rather than it's ability to predict?

---

Science isn't neutral. Science is a process. As a process, it shouldn't be treated as a conclusion.

The Brontosaurus was, wasn't, and then was again. Our perspective changed, our acceptance changed, but those old bones didn't.

No one is measuring the value of plate tectonics by how many people agree with it. Validity is measured by how well the theory explains observed phenomena and predicts what will happen.

Yet when it comes to climate change, there is always an overwhelming percentage of consent consensus cited, as if this measures validity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ critics ∙ science ∙ islam ∙ Christianity ∙ heresy ∙ dissent ∙ politicos ∙ Earth ∙ Nature ∙ agenda ∙ computer models ∙ cascade effect ∙ science is settled ∙ Earth-centered religion ∙ adaptation ∙ either/or ∙ nanotech ∙ noble sacrifice ∙ capitalism ∙ government power ∙ true believers ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ consensus ∙ process ∙ Brontosaurus

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: textual differences ∙ new covenan ∙ Judaism ∙ Hawaiian culture and language ∙ Rome ∙ label ∙ deeds ∙ Decalogue ∙ New Testament ∙ tolerance ∙ extreme ∙ Hong Kong ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ Greece ∙ measure a man ∙ faith ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ Jews ∙ Bible ∙ slavery ∙ trade ∙ religious freedom ∙ pluralism ∙ American ∙ religious virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Orthodox Jews ∙ Mormons ∙ Christian Scientists

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: George Soros ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ super villian ∙ right wingers ∙ left wingers ∙ labels

Someone else decided that obviously you couldn't be trusted to make the Proper Choice.

Tags: Max Dashu ∙ ideas ∙ dangerous ∙ associates ∙ for your own good ∙ choice ∙ proper choice ∙ neo-Puritanism,

So does that mean that the Decalogue has no value?

Tags: Christianity ∙ individual ∙ people ∙ pagans ∙ atheist ∙ secret of life ∙ Satanists ∙ force ∙ coercive power ∙ vice ∙ virtue ∙ Christian ∙ Jewish ∙ cross posted ∙ rules ∙ laws ∙ Divine ∙ Decalogue ∙ Nature ∙ World ∙ humanity ∙ colony ∙ organism ∙ cooperation ∙ Chas S. Clifton ∙ label

When they have eliminated superdelegates, they will have earned the designation.

Tags: Democrats ∙ democratic ∙ superdelegates ∙ Republican ∙ Hubert Humphrey ∙ Robert Kennedy ∙ nomination ∙ 1968 ∙ Cyrano de Bergerac ∙ language ∙ qualifiers ∙ restricting ∙ open primaries ∙ decisions ∙ judicial intervention ∙ ballot initiatives

That's the only thing we can really measure about each other.

Tags: monotheism ∙ sin ∙ Divine ∙ Jesus ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ afterlife ∙ secret of life

❝❝First, let's acknowledge that almost no one becomes a billionaire without active government intervention. Whether it's a patent, the existence of a corporation, or the exclusive right to sell colored sugar water, you can't concentrate money on a large scale without government.

Second, money depends on movement. Money stuffed in a mattress is just lumpy nesting material. It's cashflow that makes economies work. Yes, that dingus sells for $350, but there is the raw material cost, the manufacturing costs, the overhead costs like salaries and government fees, and so on. Very few things have a profit margin of ten percent, and most are well under five. So that dingus sells for $350, but most likely it cost the company about $333 to make and distribute. Money has to circulate or there is no value anywhere.

Third, you can't overlook competition. Well, at least not without government suppressing it anyway. A company has to compete for employees, just as employees have to compete for jobs. Multiple employers mean better wages and benefits. Regionally, multiple employers means that a town or city is less subject to the whims of a single company or the demands of a single industry.

As far as there being too few jobs, that kicks into government intervention again. In a healthy economy, there will usually be more jobs than employees.

Fourth (and this is the really important bit), companies expand by providing better quality goods and services cheaper, faster, and with more distribution than the competition. This instability is the keystone to the whole process. If a company can't compete, it loses money. More accurately, resources (including employees) are freed to other companies.

Companies want shortcuts, so they lobby and change the law rather than create new products and services. If a large company can pull it off, it's usually much cheaper. Again, this is government intervention. Short of government protection and favor, the only way a company can stay in business is by being at least as good as it's competition.

---

I should add that digital services and products throw a spanner in the works. On the one hand you have companies like Google offering "free services" by selling your data. On the other hand you have companies like Disney selling movies produced 25, 30 years ago for $20 a pop. We're still working out how all this will work in the long run.❞❞

Tags: billionaire ∙ government intervention ∙ patent ∙ corporation ∙ exclusive right ∙ money ∙ movement of value ∙ cIrculate ∙ competition ∙ employees ∙ better wages and benefits ∙ healthy economy ∙ cheaper ∙ faster ∙ distribution ∙ lobby ∙ Disney ∙ Google

❝❝There's also climate change. Some treat it very much as a religious issue, right down to attacking dissenters as heretics. Using the law to compel belief is wrong.

After all, if it is Divine Will, how can mere humans dare question it? Which gives non serviam some very interesting implications. By some interpretations, the absolute demands of monotheism may be less about the Divine and more about the political power of princes, potentates, and priests.

It's easy to laugh at those crazy monotheists until you see some demands of the RadFems, the trans activists, the environmental groups, the redistributionists, and anti-hate speech types. Always, Always, ALWAYS there is a Grand Cause that demands total submission and absolutely no denial "for the greater good."

Anytime you see "thou shalt not dissent," it should be a flashing red strobe and a triple siren.

---

Kosher certification for restaurants is one private alternative for food safety that has worked. One author, L. Neil Smith, suggested in one of his novels that insurance companies would do a better job with driver's licenses because they are liable if something happens. Obviously these are not the only possibilities. But with government, we end up with only one Official Solution® allowed.

Personally I prefer the free market and competition. And by free market, I mean no government to pick winners or losers, and no government to give advantages over others. Just voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. Many companies especially international ones owe their competitive advantages to special privileges from governments and/or government regulation and control.

The only times I think government should intervene is to protect life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, the only role I see for government is enforcing contracts and agreements, but even that could be done privately.

But that is just me.

I do believe that Meddling in Other's Lives For Their Own Good is one of the great evils unleashed on humanity.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ religious ∙ beliefs ∙ dissent ∙ Divine Will ∙ non serviam ∙ mere unbelievers ∙ monotheism ∙ absolute ∙ princes ∙ potentates ∙ priests ∙ RadFem ∙ trans activists ∙ environmental crusade ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ kosher ceritificaiton ∙ insurance companies ∙ driver's license ∙ food safety ∙ competition ∙ government ∙ winners or losers ∙ voluntary exchange ∙ consenting adults ∙ special privileges ∙ government regulation ∙ life ∙ liberty ∙ property ∙ enforce contracts ∙ meddle ∙ for your own good

But none of that is a reason to impeach him.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ like ∙ trust ∙ economics ∙ tariffs ∙ exaggerations ∙ spending ∙ threatening reporters ∙ crassness ∙ popularism ∙ stock market ∙ Instability ∙ impeach ∙ 2016 election ∙ none of the above ∙ hexes ∙ publicity ∙ deep state ∙ The Octopus ∙ goverment ∙ disrupt ∙ status quo ∙ institutions ∙ context for change ∙ politicos

The Gods Do Not Vote, So Why Are You Asking Them?

Tags: election ∙ Florida ∙ Congress ∙ Arizona ∙ Republican ∙ AZ Prop 126 ∙ Martha McSally ∙ Kyrsten Sinema ∙ Doug Ducey

❝❝My idea for campaign finance reform.

You can't contribute to a campaign unless you reside in the area affected by the campaign. No one from Phoenix could contribute to a city council election in Tucson, no one from California could contribute to a proposition in Nevada, and so on.

No anonymous contributions. A current public list of all contributions must be maintained.

Any unused funds must be returned proportionally to all contributors or to a specified charity. If someone contributed .01% of the campaign's funding, then they would receive .01% of any monies left over.

Violating any of these rules would render a candidate legally unable to serve in any public office until the end of term for the office they ran for. If they ran for Senate, violation would make them ineligible for six years. In the case of a ballot proposition, the election would be voided and must be held again.

---

Money is not speech. No matter what the USSC says.

If they want to spend money, they can do so in their own home. If they want to speak against someone, they can do that where ever and when ever. But someone in Idaho doesn't have to live with the aftermath of an election in Illinois.

---

It's part of my SUPER SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY THE POLITICAL PARTIES.

Don't tell anyone.

---

People forget that the party system wasn't created by the Constitution. Yet they essentially control the nomination process. Take the cash flow and war chests and political action groups away and the parties collapse.

All without arguing over if cash is free speech.

Oh, and banning corporate campaign contributions. And union contributions. And political "matching funds."

*grins*

---

Money isn't speech any more than money is press. Money is a tool, a way of keeping score, and power, but it is not speech.

If money was really speech, there would be no legal limit to campaign donations.

If someone has more money, does that mean they have a bigger right of free speech or a bigger right of the press? If that is the case, we might as well do away with elections and just hold auctions.

It's telling that prior to campaign finance "reform," no one thought otherwise. It's also telling that the CFR was used to restrict speech.

Just because the law says something doesn't mean it's so. I'm still convinced that anyone born with a penis is a male.

Under my proposal, there are two restrictions on donating money. You have to be a voter and you have to reside in the area affected by the election. These are the two restrictions that every other proposed form of campaign finance reform tries to do away with.❞❞

Tags: campaign finance reform ∙ contributions ∙ Phoenix ∙ Tucson ∙ California ∙ Nevada ∙ charity

❝❝No news source is going to be unbiased. Everybody has a narrative they believe in and everybody is the hero of their own story. I've no problem with people advocating for what they believe in. I have every problem with one side presented as THE Only Acceptable Solution and all other sides demonized. I also have problems when one side is presented as nearly saints and people looking the other way when it comes to the flaws of their champions.

As a rule, absolutes don't.

No one person and certainly no group has all the answers. The Christians aren't all wholesome, but neither are the pagans. The Republicans aren't all righteous, but neither are the Democrats. The labels have no vice or virtue. Only individuals can take responsibility for the consequences. The answers lie somewhere in the middle where we meet and work out how to live without killing each other.

I'd be worried if I agreed with everything written here. That would mean that there is no room left for growth on any side. That would mean that we have silenced the magick for political expediency. It would mean that perception was more important than change.

There's good work here. Sometimes that means telling people what they do not want to hear. ❞❞

Tags: unbiased ∙ narrative ∙ hero ∙ Story ∙ demonized ∙ saints ∙ champions ∙ as a rule absolutes don't ∙ answers ∙ Christians ∙ pagans ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ perception ∙ political expediency

The FedGovs.

Tags: murder ∙ theft ∙ vandalism ∙ qualify ∙ labels ∙ bias ∙ complications ∙ lawyers ∙ experts ∙ justice ∙ system ∙ pass-alongs ∙ thoughtcrime ∙ intention ∙ hate ∙ proven ∙ politicos ∙ societal control

Will they tolerate similar "resistance" from conservatives?

Tags: vote ∙ bad choices ∙ listen ∙ do something ∙ growing government ∙ less liberty ∙ no ability to change ∙ problem.

I'm for individual freedom and personal responsibility. That's not "alt-right," it's not right wing, and it's certainly not left wing.

Tags: news ∙ The Nation ∙ New York Times ∙ Utne Reader ∙ government overreach ∙ liberal solutions ∙ individual freedom ∙ personal responsibility? ∙ alt-right ∙ right wing ∙ left wing ∙ Jesse Jackson ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ dishonor

Will they tolerate similar "resistance" from conservatives?

Tags: progressives ∙ conservatives ∙ alt-right ∙ Democrat ∙ leaders ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ election ∙ 2000 ∙ 9-11 ∙ flyover country ∙ repressed ∙ campaign finance reform ∙ Bush League ∙ gun control ∙ political correctness ∙ gender issues ∙ global warming ∙ Portland ∙ rule of law ∙ KYFHO ∙ neighbors

❝❝For the record, there are no LGBTQ rights. There are no black rights. There are no women's rights. There are no Hispanic rights. There are no pagan rights. There are no Chinese rights. There are no Christian rights. There are no police rights.

There are human rights. Period.

It's not a right unless the other has it too.

Too many times there are privileges passed off as rights. Privileges benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else. Too often, what should have been rights for everyone were enforced privileges for some. This is a big reason why rights and privileges are confused.

It's not a right unless the other has it too.

---

Which means they get a head thump when they demand I submit.❞❞

Tags: rights ∙ LGBTQ ∙ black ∙ women ∙ Hispanic ∙ pagan ∙ Chinese ∙ Christian ∙ police ∙ human rights ∙ Other ∙ head thump

❝❝*sigh*

Pardon, but global climate change is a scam designed to take political power and money away from people. The figures are not accurate, the goalposts keep getting moved, and the solutions always seem to boil down to "give us money and don't ask questions."

I've done the research. Short of reducing the number of people or removing access to energy, there is not a lot that can be done. At present, there are exactly two off-the-shelf technologies that can meet power needs without adding to the "carbon footprint." Those are hydroelectric and nuclear plants. There are a limited number of rivers that can be dammed up to produce power. There are very few alternatives to high-pressure fission plants. Nobody wants either close to their homes.

Despite what you've been told, most "green" technologies are anything but. Ethanol can't be produced economically without subsidies. It's much more chemically unstable, making it harder to store, transport, and use in engines. Electric cars don't mass as much, making them more dangerous in an accident. Manufacturing and maintaining electric car batteries has a bigger impact on the environment. Solar and wind require parallel systems to meet peak demand. The cost of solar is prohibitive. Wind power attracts and kills birds. It may also contribute to local warming.

This is a big mess, and it's not going to be fixed by a top down legal solution.

Given the games that have been played over the years, we don't know what contributes to global climate change. We don't even know if there is human caused climate change. Climate changes, it happened before humans were here, and it will continue long after our descendant's descendants have turned to dust.

Meanwhile, we're still pumping water into swimming pools and golf courses. We still have waste plastics and trash piling up. We're destroying the rainforests and wiping out species.

But that doesn't matter because we're going to fix global warming. Eventually.

---

Pardon, but I didn't say that nuclear or dams are an acceptable solution. I said that they were the only existing off-the-shelf solutions that could meet demand and not add to the "carbon footprint."

As far as the predictions being short of reality, well, no. Back in the 1970s, the fear was about global cooling. In 1990, the IPCC predicted that temperatures would rise by 1ºC by 2025. As of the end of 2017, the actual change has been between .3ºC and .5ºC, depending on which database you use. Wildfires were supposed to increase, they declined. Snow was supposed to become a rare event, it stayed about the same. The Arctic Ocean was supposed to become ice free, but there's been no measurable decline. The sea level was supposed to rise four feet by now, it's been three or four inches. In 2005, there were supposed to be 50 million "climate refugees" by 2015.

This is the problem. Someone will proclaim disaster, but they are never held accountable for previous predictions. The goalposts keep moving.

---

What I'd like to see is the ecological issues separated from the climate change claims. There is a tremendous amount of power and money at stake without any accountability.

That is what I meant by a scam. People want to help. Pagans and Earth-centered faiths especially want to help the planet. Somebody is profiting without actually "saving the planet." If it were anything else, we'd call them out. But because it's climate change, we accept the outrageousness.

---

I agree with you about the dams. They aren't a good solution. They are one of the very few proven technologies that can deliver the energy.

Pardon, I wasn't clear. Electric vehicles devote most of their mass to batteries. There have been some impact studies that do not show electrics in a good light.

I don't advocate reducing the population. But it is one of the solutions that is "on the table." Oddly enough, it's focused mainly on highly industrialized nations.

---

Pardon, but it is not about "deepening our understanding."

Somebody predicted something, it did not happen, and rather than owning their mistake, they predict more disaster just around the corner.

We don't know what makes climate work. I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to know what the temperature "should be."

I do know that we don't have big enough baselines. They talk about "the worst weather in a century." But the planet is more than four and a half billion years old. That's about .0000022% more or less.

---

If I told you that your favorite relative was coming in a red car, wouldn't you notice more red cars?

If the news was telling you that there were more storms, wouldn't you notice more storms?

You should ask IF there are actually more natural disasters or if someone wants more viewers/readers.

I'm not disputing that there are ecological problems. In my first post on this thread I mentioned water and waste disposal. What I am disputing is if global climate change is human caused or even a problem.

Electric cars have always had the battery problem. Add to that generating the electricity in the first place. Both have a huge environmental and economic impact.

Solar and wind are cheap, but converting them into something we can use is not. I live in Arizona, one of the sun shiniest states in the union. But that won't produce electricity at night or during a storm. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Don't underestimate the power of profit and the free market. It's why we have things like grocery stores and comfortable shoes. Not to mention dirt cheap ballpoint pins, cheap computers, clean water, and affordable eyeglasses. See, the thing about the free market is that you have to offer as good as your competition or you lose business. If the competition makes it better or cheaper, you have to match them just to stay afloat.

And that brings us back to solar. In a world where practically anything can be sold at a profit at WalMart, don't you think that if cheap, durable, efficient solar cells could be made they would be?

I'm not asking for predictions to be one hundred percent accurate. But I do think the accuracy should be better than chance. Especially if the people doing the predictions want scads of money and tremendous political power to fix the "problem."

---

You're using solar supplementally. That's good.

Let me make it clear that I do not oppose solar. I just do not think it's practical or affordable as a primary source on a mass scale as it has been sold. I'm a big fan of decentralization. I also think that much of our architecture doesn't support the wise use of energy.

I'm not sure that solar is practical as a primary electrical supply, even on a small scale. Aside from AC, there are things like freezers, refrigerators, hot water heaters, washers, and dryers. These appliances are designed for a constant flow of power.

Ideally I think there should be earth houses or something along the lines of the works of the late Malcolm Wells.

---

The weather isn't the same every year. My high desert is having a very dry year on top of several others. Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at very low although not record low levels. It's enough to trigger the restrictions on the water treaties though, which means that Arizona and Nevada won't be getting their full allotment from the Colorado.

There was one year when I was a kid that there was snow every two or three days. Not a lot of snow, but very unusual for a desert and unheard of.

Even a human lifetime is not enough to establish a baseline. What is weather in a century when the planet is billions of years old? The planet has had several ice ages, which means there were warm periods too.

I want to stress that I am not dismissing environmental issues like clean water. When I first saw the PBS series based on Cadillac Desert I was horrified. That made me take a hard look at what was happening with water in the Southwest.

No, my issue is with anthropogenic climate change. From what I can tell, there are alarmists but no evidence. And a lot of failed predictions.❞❞

Tags: climate change ∙ scam ∙ money ∙ hydroelectric ∙ nuclear power ∙ green energy ∙ anthropogenic climate change ∙ water ∙ swimming pools ∙ golf courses ∙ plastic ∙ rainforests ∙ species ∙ global warming

People tend to repeat behavior that has been successful or will bring them an emotional high.

Tags: SCOTUS ∙ Brett Kavanaugh ∙ allegation ∙ crime ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ Democrat senators ∙ credible ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Senators

Religions are created by people claiming to speak for the Divine.

Tags: religion ∙ Divine ∙ universal rules ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ E. E. Smith ∙ freely chosen ∙ invisible overlord ∙ responsibility ∙ secret of life

❝❝Did I ever mention how the income tax isn't designed to produce revenue, but to spy as needed on American citizens?

---

Yep.

You can start with how the IRS is the "go to" agency whenever someone does something the Federal government doesn't like.

You can continue with the fact that your employer and any financial institution you do business with are required "under penalty of law" to report any transactions on demand. There's a reporting threshold for "as they happen," but the IRS still has the (questionable) power to demand any and all going back for years.

Speaking of penalty of law, have you read that bit on the 1040? In fact, take a close look at the entire form. It doesn't say you are required to report your income, it just says that it must be accurate reported on the form before you sign.

No one, including the IRS understands the tax code. It can be manipulated and interpreted as needed. And remember, the first few levels of the tax courts are administrative courts run by the IRS with their own rules of evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply. You have to prove the IRS wrong, and then you might get your seized money back.

By definition, a "standard" deduction means taxes are too high.

---

What, you wanted it stated in the authorizing law?

Everything I said was drawn from truth.

From Al Capone on, the IRS has been used against those the Federal government doesn't approve of. Or occasionally found politically inconvenient. Any other uncovered crimes are just a bonus.

Reporting financial transactions have proven so useful in so many cases that it has become literally the reason the IRS exists.

The 1040 form is unusually and carefully worded.

Since at least the 1970s, IRS agents and supervisors have been shown to have a very focused knowledge of the tax code and an appalling ignorance about the rest.

The IRS does have it's own court system with it's own rules of evidence. And you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

More importantly, look at how Presidents have used the tax code against their enemies.

---

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion because they couldn't get anything else to stick.

You tell me, if you were a prosecutor and you knew you had a guilty man and you had the evidence, would you want to charge them with murder or tax evasion?

Prove me wrong instead of labeling it conjecture and innuendo. It's right there, I showed you were to look.

Remember, it took amending the Constitution to make a Federal income tax legal.

---

Going after him for tax evasion wasn't even part of the plan.

Pay attention, because that is a critical point.

Did you know that the IRS was used to enforce Prohibition?

That was a critical point too.

I understand your confusion. Many assume that Government is a Good Thing. It's not commonly acknowledged that taxes can be some of the worst abuses of government authority. Might I suggest Adams' For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization as a starting point?

---

No I am not.

I'm stating that law is not good in and of itself, and that law is more likely to be abused than not.

For example, people are usually taught that the progressive income tax in particular is a way to get the rich to pay "their fair share." That's not true and it never has been. We know that whole histories industries have grown up to help people use tax loopholes. What's more, we know that politicos and technocrats benefit from selectively applying the law.

Which returns to my comment, that the income tax as designed is intended to spy on American citizens. It's not uniformly applied. It's subject to change and political influence. And the majority of the public is locked out of changes. And for what? A mala prohibita law. Not paying taxes is does not harm someone, it's just bad because government has declared it to be bad.

The graduated income tax has done more harm and destroyed more freedom than any other law in American history. "Innocent under proven guilty" stopped because of the income tax and no longer applies in American law.

I should have warned you. Never argue taxes with a libertarian.

---

Yeppers.

That standard deductions line makes people think. And it should.

That's usually when I point out that if they are getting a refund, they just gave the government an interest free loan.

---

Oh my, that's just so adorable!

Look at it this way.

Taxable income = 100 dollars
Standard deduction = 17 dollars
"Taxed" income = 83 dollars

You are still paying taxes. It's only on paper that there is a difference. They messed with the rate, not with the tax.

They lie.

Don't even get me started on itemized deductions.

ETA: I'm the one with the line of "by definition, a standard deduction means taxes are too high." I'm proud of it, so I want credit.

---

Yep, and the claim stands.

The politicos and technocrats are playing word games to convince people that the IRS is looking out for the little guy.

They don't reduce the tax, they tell you that there is a standard deduction.

Speaking of which, let's look at that word standard. As in, everyone gets it. If it were really about "giving something" to someone with lower income, you'd think the deduction would be less for higher incomes. But then it wouldn't be a standard deduction.

Nope, we give everyone a standard deduction.

And that certainly looks like taxes are too high.

---

The fact is that the government hides to actual tax rate to make people think they are getting something for nothing.

The tax rate is too high, so they play word games.

The graduated tax is another issue.

The point is, the mere existence of a standard deduction means that the standard is to deduct. Hence, by definition and the admission of the government, taxes are too high.

---

That's the same form that is worded to hide the fact that they don't care about you paying your taxes as much as they don't want you to lie about it and make sure that it is correct, right?

The whole thing is deceptive from the payroll deduction to the falsity that a progressive tax that impacts higher tax brackets more to which deductions may be allowed this year if you are lucky enough to know about them.

Not to mention the undeclared interest free loan that many make to the government every year without realizing it.

If it were really just about the income, the whole thing could be done on half a postcard.

Including the instructions.

---

But this US doesn't do it simply. The code is created to distract, to obfuscate, to hide what government wants.

It's not about the revenue.

It's about tracking the flow of money. Something which isn't authorized by the Constitution.

The whole business of a "standard deduction" is just another way to confuse citizens and convince them that they are getting something for nothing.

It's three card monte by government regulation. You aren't supposed to look close.

Meanwhile there is a surveillance system that is the envy of tyrants all over the world. And Americans accept it even as they complain about it.

---

Tax income, but not track money.

The 16th was a product of the time, and NO ONE at the time expected it to be used against the poor and the (emerging) middle class. It was sold as a way to make the rich pay "their fair share." I'm pretty sure that if people knew then what the income tax would become, there would have been another revolution.

The graduated income tax was intended to foster class envy. At that point, the upper class did not have the political clout to protect themselves.

Don't you find it interesting that a sales tax doesn't require nearly the administration that an income tax does?

Don't you find it even more interesting that no one understands the tax code and just accepts that is how it is supposed to be?

And then there is the fact that in the name of "protecting" the poor, they still have to declare their income under penalty of law.

---

As I said and have shown, the American income tax system is more about spying on the American people than producing income.

All you are doing is saying that the system is necessary.

---

One of the things I quickly learned as a Corporate Clone is that the budget expands to consume the sales income. It's always easier to spend someone else's money.

Remember I said that taxes are too high.

Still, I stand by my point. The spying on the American public is more important than the revenues.

---

If you state a tax rate and then give everyone a "standard deduction," then taxes are too high.

Taxes are too high for many other reasons, but I agree that distracts from this argument.

---

A standard deduction goes to everyone, not someone on a graduated scale.

Deductions have nothing to do with a graduated tax, especially since most deductions go to the middle and high end income groups.

---

It's not a reduction of tax on graduated income, it's deliberately confusing what the rate is.

Which isn't necessary for the higher ends of the income scale who can afford to have someone do their taxes. On the very high end, that means hiring a professional accountant to minimize tax liability.

Deductions are not intended to help the poor. Even if they are standard.

Of course the easiest thing of all would be actually lowering the tax without deductions.

---

Not true.

The modern version of the income tax started as a class tax. It was not expanded to a mass tax until WWII. Even then (in 1944), the "standard deduction" started as ten percent of taxable income. When the standard deduction was changed to a flat fee, that fee deliberately wasn't linked to the rate of inflation. Which means that over time, people on the lower end of the income scale paid more. But that wasn't the justification in 1964 when the deduction was changed from a percentage to a fee.

Because the fee amount wasn't linked to inflation, inevitably people started falling through the cracks. Meanwhile the income tax provided an unprecedented (and expanding) monitoring of cash flow (not the economy). That monitoring power could not be sacrificed.

And that is where the Earned Income Tax Credit came from. A direct payment from government that did not interfere in the existing tax structure or the government's ability to monitor cash flow. If anything, it expanded the latter.

---

And if you lower taxes, you don't have to lie about deductions to convince people that they are getting something that they are not. The actuality is that it's easier to manipulate a fee than a percentage all while hiding that people are paying more and getting less while being told what a Good Thing it is.

Reagan signed the expansion of the EIC, but it was originally created in 1975. It's also constitutionally questionable.

---

And if you eliminate the standard deduction and lower the tax rate to 8%, they pay less.

Manipulating the process is not the answer.

---

Um,yes.

Because now we are going to talk about the unintentional side effects of a graduated tax system.

Higher taxes aren't just absorbed by businesses and those with more income. The higher costs are passed on. In the case of a business, that means higher prices. In the case of an individual, that means they will buy less, which means few jobs creating or selling.

All this results in lower economic opportunity overall, but especially on the margins. That in turn means that those trying to increase their income will be most affected, especially if they are on the lower end of the income scale.

These are well known second order effects. Look them up.

Simply put, modifications and exceptions to the rules usually benefit those most able to influence the system. Or, as I like to put it, government authority tends to be used against those least likely to resist.

The more complex and convoluted a law is (any law), the bigger negative impact it has on the lower levels of income.

---

Extra rent and utilities due to displaced costs $50 per month or $600 per year.

Extra costs of food $15 per month or $180 per year.

Extra costs of clothing and miscellaneous $60 per year.

Company downsizing and freezing salary, adjusted for inflation $200 per year.

Just for the stuff I've listed, $1040 additional costs per year due progressive and distributed taxes.

---

Taxes are costs. They certainly aren't revenues to the people who are paying them.

The costs I provided were approximately middling. See, it's not just the amount of the tax that is shifted. It's also the cost of collecting and administering the taxes. Not to mention all the other costs of government, from the salary of Congressional pages to the paperclip allowance in the Department of the Interior.

Economies are based on the movement of value, we usually talk cash flow as a shorthand. The movement of value acts a lot like water. You can block it off, you can divert it, you can tap it, and you can channel it. Every change influences the whole system, you can't isolate one bit from the other without removing the cash flow. Think water pressure and you're close to the mark. The more you mess with the pluming, the more unstable the system becomes.

Governments tend to use the myth that the economy can be managed and controlled. But it is a myth. The only reason some governments can get away with it is because the cash flow is usually high enough to compensate for the really stupid things.

But if the goal is more money and not lower taxes, then the people with the lowest cash flow (i.e. water pressure) will be most impacted by any changes.

That's why lower taxes alone is a false and misleading measurement.

---

If you reduce taxes and costs go up, then there is no benefit to a "standard deduction"

Manipulating the system at a higher cost is going to hurt the people the deduction is supposed to help. The government sells a line, "We're going to reduce your taxes." But the politicos never admit the obvious, it's going to cost more.

Revenues are not neutral, that is another lie. There is an increased cost to administer the system. Any changes in process will increase this cost. And government has no incentive to reduce this extra cost.

So in the name of compassion, the system screws the people least likely to resist.❞❞

Tags: spying ∙ taxes ∙ IRS ∙ tax code ∙ tax courts ∙ politicos ∙ Prohibition ∙ income tax ∙ technocrats ∙ goverment ∙ standard deduction ∙ Constitution ∙ Al Capone ∙ economics ∙ movement of value ∙ cash flow

❝❝That is a phenomenally inaccurate and simplistic view.

---

"Run by blacks…"

They are run by Democrats who have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible.

Gods, the absolute last last thing you should do is blame skin color.

Do you want to make things worse?

---

Of course you're blaming skin color.

Those "heritable characteristics" vanish when you start adjusting for quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Next time read the disclaimers and qualitifications qualifications.

---

Yes, yes they do. Check the studies again. Better yet, follow it to the inevitable conclusion. If the "heritable characteristics" exist and are not modified by environmental factors, then by your logic "blacks" are inherently inferior.

Think about that very carefully.

---

The fact that you are relying on IQ tells me quite a bit.

The IQ tests are culturally biased. What's more, studies from the late 1970s forward have shown that the tests are sub-culturally biased. Those scores are significantly linked to quality of education, early childhood environment, and family support.

Yes, those things I mentioned earlier.

What's more, there's evidence of an inner-city sub-culture that is adamantly against doing well in school or on tests.

---

Look, here's the problem.

You're defining people by skin color, no matter what their individual accomplishments.

Benjamin Banneker, Frederick Douglass, George Washington Carver, Daniel Hale Williams , Booker T. Washington, James West, John J. Jasper, Daniel "Chappie" James Jr., Thomas Sowell, Huey P. Newton, Carter G. Woodson, W. E. B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, those are just some of the remarkable American men I remember off the top of my head.

---

Those averages only matter if you've allowed for all other factors.

For example, how many sub-Sararan sub-Saharan nations have a free market based economy? How many recognize the rights of the individual?

I already told you a third theory. There are significant cultural and environmental differences. What's more, put any skin color in unfavorable circumstances and watch how fast the "average" drops.

---

Unless a government recognizes & defends individual rights, corruption follows as surely as night follows day.

Those white South Africans you mention had special privilege and exploited people because they had the power to do so. When things changed, there was no living memory of anything except special privileges. The corruption stayed and the exploited targets changed.

A version of the same problem is happening in those Democrat controlled cities that you incorrectly insist on labeling "black run." Recognized rights have long given way to special privilege, and no one remembers anything else.

---

I didn't say anything about it not being their fault. I specifically said Democrats "have spent the last 50+ years telling minority groups that they are victims and don't have to be responsible."

Not so long ago, the Republican idea of race relations was to get out of the way and tell people to take responsibility. That's no longer the case.

I don't care about blame. I just care about fixing the problem. And you are making things worse.

You're making the Democrat case for them. You're saying that "blacks" will fail if left to themselves.

---

You mean other than the examples I gave you?

If you are interested in statistics, try the upward mobility of "blacks" between 1900 and 1960, before government interfered. The welfare statistics and the rise of single mother families are particularly telling. These have been well documented.

On the whole, two parent households do better over time. When the immediate cost of having children is reduced by government intervention, then a single parent household is less likely to move up the economic ladder.

---

I told you some of what was necessary for a society's success. Recognition and protection of individual rights. A free market economy. Those things are rare.

Those things are also not dependent on skin color.

I don't recognize "black" societies, I recognize human societies. Almost every single time when someone talks about "black" societies or "black"nations or "black" cities, it's about racism.

There's one race and it's human.

---

I said no such thing.

I talked about political systems designed to exploit victimhood and grant privilege.

That has almost nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with denying rights.

---

People designed those systems. Generations of people over centuries, trading, interacting, arguing, fighting, failing, and trying again. It wasn't because of one skin color even if you could define "white."

---

Because I said that people designed the systems, for good or ill?

Because I pointed out that it took generations?

Because I pointed out that you can't define "white" anymore than you can define "black?"

You lost this one the second you used skin color as a substitute for individual merit.

---

You haven't managed to identify any significant differences that aren't environmental in nature.

Instead, you keep focusing on skin color, a poor indicator under the best of circumstances.

There are hundreds of other factors, starting with how many parents the child has and if the child is raised in a loving environment. That doesn't even include the social factors I've already touched on.

As long as you focus on skin color, you're just perpetuating the problems.

The only way the question is reduced to a binary condition is by focusing on insignificant measurements such as skin color.

---

We've already established that IQ is culturally biased. There are also strong indications that IQ is sub-culturally biased as well. That means that part of what IQ measures is cultural conformity.

That's assuming that IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence to begin with. There are theories that one measurement of intelligence isn't nearly enough.

Like it or not, you have to allow for environmental and cultural factors in IQ scores.

---

Me and about two thirds of the researchers studying the possibility.

I suggest you do a web search for IQ cultural bias.

---

First, it's not the "warrior gene." A variant is popularly (and inaccurately) referred to as the "warrior gene." Technically the variant produces less MAMO MAOA .

Second, the evidences seems to show that the people with a low level of MAMO MAOA show higher levels of aggression when faced with social stressors such as ostracism, exclusion, or overwhelming loss.

You know, environmental factors.

ETA: Sorry about that, spell check fixed something I didn't want fixed.

---

With environmental factors, yes.

Would you like a list of genetic variations that are activated by environmental stressors?

---

I don't lie.

You keep stressing differences that derive from environmental factors.

Yet you keep blaming skin color.

---

Remember when I mentioned "family support?" Have you accounted for the incredible cultural pressure to succeed at schools and testing?

---

Yep, Obama was all about skin color. And his solutions worked out just so well for everyone, right?

There's a line I've been throwing around for a couple years now.

❝There were so many patting themselves on the back and proud that a black man had been elected President that no one bothered to ask if a good man had been elected President.❞

---

The politics are a much bigger part of the problem than the skin color.

It's the politics I blame.

---

And there's your problem.

You think it's about America.

It's about freedom.

---

Who said anything about pretending it's not there?

I'm disputing why it is there.

---

Actually I did. I talked briefly about incentivizing single parenthood and telling minorities that they are perpetual victims and how they don't have to take responsibility.

---

No, it wasn't the same environment.

I specified "telling minorities."

Politics are bad enough, but the politics are of victimhood are just despicable.

---

Because they don't have the same incentives.

Do you have any idea how much has been written and spoken about this over the last sixty years?

You might start with Goldwater's objections to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

---

I believe they are indoctrinated to believe that they could only be victims no matter what.

---

Talked with more than a few. Slept with a couple.

I'm a bilagáana born on the res. I grew up next to the Diné, the Hopi, and the Havasupai. Spent a lot of time in Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, and Albuquerque.

Still want to lecture me on the "races?"

---

Gods, you really are so ignorant that you can't be bothered to do a web search.

Roughly translated, bilagáana means "white man." There's more to it than that, especially for one born on the reservation. I'm what happens when Louisiana farming stock takes root in the Four Corners region.

---

Check again.

I never denied cultural differences, I just pointed out that they alone don't determine IQ or aggression.

---

I don't think I've done it in this thread, but I have pointed out that there is one race and it's human.

"Peoples" is a completely different concept and doesn't usually rest on minor genetic differences. The term is slightly more accurate than tribes.

Go back and reread what I wrote on this thread. I started by pointing out that what was being passed off as racial and genetic differences were actually due to environmental and cultural factors.

---

Ah, someone is making the right points.

First, IQ is not an objective measurement. One of my favorite examples is the Diné, their culture doesn't recognize time and distance as linear. With the possibility of multiple intelligences, things get more complicated. Gross motor coordination doesn't translate to spatial mathematical. Yes, I know the theory has problems like leaving out fine motor control, but this isn't the place.

We've not defined intelligence very well. There's a difference between following a recipe and walking in a kitchen just to whip up amazing food. IQ tests look for proven solutions, not for that creative spark. Sometimes that mostly works, sometimes not.

One set of parents can produce a musical genius, a good accountant, and a total slacker. It's impossible to say if a specific genetic line might produce. We know from domesticated animals that some traits will probably breed true, but we have to allow for environment and chance. We can't say that this family always produces good Rotarians and never any gamers. We can't say that every puppy from that Labrador will be good with kids. If you expand it to a group, the uncertainty grows too.

---

Interesting. You get to keep your preconceptions but I have to give mine up.

Okay, let's go back to basics. Part of science is eliminating variables.

The people we're comparing, are they on the same economic level? Did they have the same number of parents? Did they attend the same or comparable schools? Are they married? Do they have the same number of kids? Is their debt level the same? Is their education level the same? Do they live in the same or comparable neighborhoods?

We know that every single one of these environmental factors can influence someone's mental abilities, their tastes, their chosen activities, and their obligations.

And these are just the big ones.

Otherwise you're comparing apples from last year to next year's bananas. There's no way to establish a baseline.

There's no real comparison until you can account for most of the major variables.

---

I'm telling you (again) that until you can account for environmental differences, your measurements are useless.

There's a difference between a Walmart special and a finely made bookshelf. You can't just say that the one that is forty-one inches wide is better than the thirty-five inch one. You don't have enough information to judge.

---

It's a trick question.

It presupposes that there aren't any other variables that matter.

At the very least, acknowledge that the quality of schools makes a difference.

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Does that mean that you can't answer it?

Mona Lisa Vito: It's a bullshit question, it's impossible to answer.

D.A. Jim Trotter: Impossible because you don't know the answer!

Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!

D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!

Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?

Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
     — My Cousin Vinny

---

From my second response to you on this thread, I've pointed out again and again that you can not eliminate cultural and environmental factors.

The differences that you chose to highlight directly resulted in part from the culture and environment.

These are facts that we know and can easily be verified through a web search.

Children from single parent households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Children from abusive households tend to do worse at school and hold lower paying jobs.

Single parent households tend to stay at lower income levels.

Some schools fail so much that most of their students can't read, write, or do basic math.

If children don't have enough to eat, they don't do well in school.

If people don't have shelter, they tend to have more health problems.

How much did environment and culture play a part? There is no way to know unless you can eliminate variables.

There's no comparison unless you can account for most of the major variables. This is true in science. This is true in statistics. This is true in life.

Your question makes no sense because there can be no comparison.

---

But you haven't presented evidence.

You've gone out of your way to dismiss the very idea that the culture and environment can have any possible influence on the differences you chose to highlight.

All you've done is lay out a premise that presupposes that no other factors can change what you choose to measure.

It's not science. It's not statistics. It's not even logically verifiable.

It's just prejudice.

---

You don't have evidence. You have observation, but you haven't shown cause or correlation because you have not allowed for environmental and cultural factors.

It's not even a matter of "interpretation." You've deliberately chosen one measurement and claimed that it defines the whole discussion. Can you say selection bias?

---

You can put tomato seeds in a salt shaker for nine months. That doesn't mean you'll be harvesting.

---

But I don't blame skin color at all. That's when I talk about this at all. Most people don't want to deal with uncomfortable truths.

I talk about politics, history, and the lies of government. Also basic economics and self-ownership.

---

Self-ownership and responsibility are a big part of what I write and talk about.

I also talk about strategy that exploits the politics of victimhood. I point out that the people who don't accept those lies from politicos and technocrats do better over time. Usually better than their parents. Which used to be a measurement of success in this nation.

A significant number of politicos (easily more than half) use the message that people are victims and their friend, the government, can help.

I tell people that government is not your friend, no matter how much the politicos say that it is.

That's not making excuses. That's showing that most politicos want problems they can stage manage. The politicos can't do that by solving problems.

---

It's a loaded question.

The premise is insufficient.

---

Neighbor, you're telling me that I am dealing in absolutes when I just listed seven major variables that we know affect intelligence and ability. These variables change everybody no matter what their skin color, nationality, sex, or ice cream preference.

---

I can stop you with nothing more than a few words.

Think about it. You're taking offense at what I write on a website when all I am really saying is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…"

You would deny that?

---

I'm not defending today's mess.

I've written against it.

But (and this is the important bit), you're still defining people by skin color instead of what they are individually.

There's a phrase about "content of their character" that comes to mind.

---

I know, you keep defining people by skin color.

---

Tell me, what nationality are "blacks?"

If a "Chinese" has been granted American citizenship, when does he stop being "Chinese?" Three seconds after? Three generations? When he changes his name to Jones?

If Jesus Fernandez was born in Michigan and barely speaks Spanish, is he "Mexican?"

Or American?

---

I didn't say anything about stopping the Left with words.

I said I could stop you.

And I have.

---

Think you so?

Look at what's happened.

I've held my own against you and your "friend." Along the way, we've discussed history, psychology, morality, biology, and ethics. We've done it in real time for a few hours, and right now you are focused on taking me down, not in proving that "blacks" are inferior.

And all you can do is tell me that I don't deserve my citizenship.

You got stopped.

---

"The fact that blacks are not us."

Pretty sure my neighbors would disagree. Pretty sure your neighbors would too.

---

"Wait until your neighbors are Hindus, Muslims, Mexicans, or Asians."

Um, they are.

---

I could ask my across-the-street neighbor, but I'm pretty sure she's happy with her husband. I don't know their kids that well.

---

Because they are us.

The commonalities outweigh the differences.

These barriers, these labels that people like you keep using, they separate us. The labels keep us apart.

❝Those are the same stars, and that is the same moon, that look down upon your brothers and sisters, and which they see as they look up to them, though they are ever so far away from us, and each other.❞
     — Sojourner Truth

---

The Hopi are surrounded by all sides by the Diné. Can you tell me the genetic differences between the Hopi and the Diné? Good luck, because they've been intermarrying for a long time.

So what are their national characteristics?

As I said, I'm an American. I'm a mix. Part of my ancestry is Irish, part of it is English, part of it is Creole, part of it is German, part of it is Russian, and there's probably stuff on both sides of the bed that isn't officially acknowledged.

What are my national genetic characteristics?

I'm pretty sure I could father a child with any fertile human female if we tried hard enough. That's sort of how the species works.

And that's the important thing. We're one species, one "race." Throw us together and those distinctions fade. We get down and funky. We rut. We mix our genes.

It doesn't stop there. Ideas mix too. We argue with each other. We try to one up each other. We try. We look at what the other guy is doing. We borrow what works and tweak it a bit.

Synchronicity and syncretism happen, no matter how much you want "purity."

---

I'm not trying to change the labels.

I'm pointing out the truths.

Those labels are controlling your life.

---

"Truth and lies don't miscegenate."

Miscegenation has nothing to do with truth and lies and everything to do with sex and children.

Truth is subject to change. There was a time when people thought the speed of light was infinite. Now we know it's about 186,000 miles per second. In a vacuum. Put it through an atmosphere or water and it's something else.

We're human. That humanity matters more than any "racial" difference. It's why there are children of "mixed race." As time and people go on, the differences fade.

Until we meet a new population and it starts all over again.

I don't lie. I serve veritas.❞❞

Tags: Democrats ∙ minorities ∙ victims ∙ responsibility ∙ skin color ∙ cyberscare ∙ heritable characteristics ∙ MAOA ∙ cultural differences ∙ intelligence ∙ environment ∙ IQ ∙ culturally biased ∙ education ∙ family ∙ individual rights ∙ schools ∙ Republican ∙ two parent households ∙ single mother households ∙ human ∙ race ∙ racial discrimination ∙ racial identity

There are valid criticisms against Trump. But he's made his career on bad press.

Tags: The Label™ ∙ bisexual ∙ bisexuality ∙ homosexual ∙ homosexuality ∙ lesbian ∙ society

❝❝Ever notice when someone picks a scapegoat, it's because they think the scapegoat can't fight back?

---

I agree with you that politics is a source of great evil in the World.

I disagree that the Trump and the Republicans are the cause. Or even most of the cause.

One annoying thing about politics is that people are willing to overlook the misconduct of "their" side even while slinging wild accusations against the Enemy. The accusations may or may not be accurate. But you can count on the Enemy not being quite the Ultimate Horror Unleashed on Mankind. And you can count that your side is not quite the paragon of virtue and self-sacrifice that they claim.

Politics is about controlling the other. Never you, always the other. When government is involved politics is about control backed by force.

Politicians are never on your side. Even as they stand wrapped in the flag clutching holy writ promising that they will be your bestest friend ever no matter what.

---

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Obama used the IRS and Justice Department against his enemies, among other things. And the Democrats looked the other way.

Rather than get into a long and pointless discussion of who did what worse, I want to point out something that most people overlook.

The politicos NEED you to blame the other party and never question the wisdom of your party's decisions. It's always the other party that is doing things Too Terrible and always your own party that promises to Save The Day. When you buy into that, you perpetuate the system. You're always going to be victimized and you're never ever going to be saved. If you were saved, you'd have no reason to vote the party line.

---

I know I have my political critics on this site, but believe me when I tell you that there are conservatives who are just as threatened by the Democrat leadership as you are by Trump.

Too often today, people make excuses for what their side does by trotting out the disasters from the other side.

I want less government. I think government is a terrible danger to liberty. I think politicos and technocrats complicate things because they don't want you asking questions and they don't want you changing the status quo. They don't want you understanding what they do.

So when I see someone insisting that this flavor of politico is slightly less objectionable, I tell them they are wrong.

---

Accurate, as far as it goes.

*sighs* Look, I know that other pagans think I am simplistic and partisan when it comes to politics. And believe me, I realize how ironic it is for me to denounce mixing paganism with politics while having a political blog called Pagan Vigil.

Politics is one of my darker passions. I'm better at it than any amateur has any right to be. I understand the temptations and lusts because those are my temptations, my lusts, but for a bit of discipline and some promises I made. There's a line from Doctor Who, “Good men don’t need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.” These days I try to use my abilities and urges in a good cause. Mostly I succeed.

I've said that politics is about controlling the other. It's literally "power over." All the processes, all the carefully defined rules to protect democracy, all the blame exists SOLEY to keep people from looking too carefully at "the sausage being made." To keep people from asking how much freedom they are "supposed" to sacrifice for "the Greater Good." To keep them from asking themselves why expecting the other guy to sacrifice and compromise is GOOD but they themselves aren't supposed to sacrifice and compromise. To keep them from accepting that POWER OVER for their principles just might not be as as effective as power with based on things we all share.

Smashing the opposition just makes more pieces that can regrow.❞❞

Tags: scapegoating ∙ World ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republicans ∙ control ∙ politicos ∙ Barack Obama ∙ IRS ∙ Justice Department ∙ party politics ∙ Democrats ∙ government ∙ technocrats ∙ political flavor ∙ pagans ∙ simplistic ∙ partisan ∙ blog ∙ darker passions ∙ temptation ∙ lust ∙ amateur ∙ discipline ∙ promises ∙ Doctor Who ∙ power with vs power over

I'm not something less, I'm something else.

Tags: bureaucrats ∙ power ∙ government ∙ voters ∙ exploit ∙ government is not your friend ∙ advances ∙ culture ∙ technology ∙ plastic surgery ∙ kidney machine ∙ capitalism ∙ poverty ∙ competition

I'm not something less, I'm something else.

Tags: monotheism ∙ dualistic ∙ IS ∙ IS NOT ∙ GOOD ∙ NOT GOOD ∙ works ∙ rule ∙ different ∙ something less ∙ something else ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ traditional values

❝❝The problem with making the personal political is that you drag everyone around you into politics, whether they want to be or not.

The environment is a hugely complex topic. Where do we start? Water rights? Ethanol eradication? GMO seeds? Climate change? I'm willing to bet that no one here is going to agree on all of those.

Likewise the "religious right." Obviously we need to take a stand against people like Roy Moore. It took me twenty-plus years to get on speaking terms some of my relatives younger than me, I'd rather not throw that away. Not all of the religious right is a monolithic block, any more than all pagans. Individual relationships work better than shunning everyone with the wrong label.

---

Pardon, but I've found environmental issues particularly troubling, to the point where I'd rather discuss ecology rather than environmentalism. There are some in the climate change crowd who are just as absolutist as any hard core evangelical Christian. As another example, when I call for the eradication of ethanol because it is subsidized, requires food crops, consumes more than a gallon of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol, and is harder to store and transport than gasoline, I'm attacked because I am "in the pocket of big oil."

Perhaps it's that absolutist quality that is the real problem. There's more than one answer and one answer doesn't fit all. I'd say there is more than one problem too, but most don't want to deal with that.❞❞

Tags: environment ∙ personal ∙ water rights ∙ ethanol ∙ GMOs ∙ climate alarmist ∙ religious right ∙ Christian ∙ Roy Moore ∙ pagans ∙ absolutist ∙ answer

❝❝Okay, time number three. We've been through this twice before.

For something with no moral relativism, there's an awful lot or relative morality going on. Of course there's the Catholic Church mess going on in Pittsburg right now. Granted, that was priests breaking the laws of "God" and man. But there are plenty of other examples.

Child labor used to be not only allowed, but justified by people quoting the Bible. Women were denied property rights and the right to vote. Slavery was justified and encouraged before some good people decided that not only was it wrong but it should be abolished.

You cite the Decalogue, but number one on that list denies any other religion or faith system. Using that, at best non-Christians (okay, non-Abrahamics) exist only at the sufferance of their "betters," to be indulged as children and tolerated for their misunderstanding.

If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Syncretism happens and we're better for it.

We're not measured by our faith, but how we treat others. There is this urge particularly among evangelical Christians to meddle in the lives of others. You yourself cite "the" Native American experience. It wasn't "the," different tribes and groups were treated differently. Usually that led to stealing land, women, and children. Not to mention Indian wars, relocation, and reservations. How is that higher morality? Yet the American treatment of "Indians" was usually justified by Bible quotes.

I could go on and on but I won't. The vice or virtue is in the individual, not the label. By pagan lights, monotheisms have their own sins which they seldom answer for.

Yet there is hope. The "Golden Rule" is the true keystone of Western civilization. It exists in many faiths and cultures. Arguably it is core of the best ethical civilizations. Applied correctly, it can do everything that your Judeo-Christian values can. And we won't be arguing over whose morality should be "in charge."❞❞

Tags: Bookworm ∙ monotheism ∙ Christianity ∙ Decalogue ∙ Catholic Church ∙ child labor ∙ women ∙ rights ∙ Amerindians ∙ non-Christian ∙ good ∙ righteous ∙ Golden Rule ∙ cross posted

❝❝No, they are not monopolies.

When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.

With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."

For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.

Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?

Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.

---

I agree it's a mess.

To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.

Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.

If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.

ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞

Tags: virtue signaling ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Apple ∙ server space ∙ Google ∙ iOS ∙ domain name ∙ macOSX ∙ competition ∙ government intervention ∙ fake news ∙ politicos ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ Wordpress ∙ MacHighway ∙ lease ∙ offensive

❝❝There was a late night bull session I attended. One very drunk person announced, very authoritatively, "Socialism is jealousy."

Then she passed out.

She may have had a point.

---

I'll go you one farther. There are studies that show primates have a strong sense of fairness. Some other studies show the fairness idea is linked to play in wolves and coyotes. I've seen speculation but no mention of studies that the idea exists in elephants as well. Taken together, these may indicate that it is part of the biology, at least for social animals.

---

I'd say it relies on control and orientation in time. Given that it's extremely difficult to control other's behavior except through force, someone who is past-orientated will choose coercion and false signals. Especially if their behavior was controlled in the past.

Future orientation and risk taking are more likely to depend on cooperation. Especially if one doesn't have the resources to pull off the future alone.

Going forward, power with beats power over. But someone stuck in the past won't see that. As for the "leaders," they're gaming the system and don't practice what they preach. "But just do as I say, don't do as I do," as the old Genesis song says.

---

❝Everyone who lives in America is a socialist to some degree.❞

True. But did they choose, or was it chosen for them "for the greater good?" In many cases before they were born? Did they ever have an alternative choice? Were they even allowed to think about it?

That's how socialism works. It's always involuntary except for those calling the shots.

❝It’s just that the rank and file among us don’t have $12 billion to buy votes from farmers we’ve screwed over.❞

If he had bought votes, the farmers wouldn't be screwed, would they? You've moved beyond mixing metaphors here, you're mixing conspiracy theories.

---

Your premise about vote buying is wrong. There's plenty to criticize about Trump's tariff strategy (which I've done), but there was no vote buying. That's the problem with most of the accusations against Trump. The loudest people ignore what Trump has done and blame him for things he hasn't done. You can't buy votes after the fact. And you keep overlooking all the other people adversely affected by the tariffs.

I used the word choosing because we are supposed to live in a representative government. Socialism removes choice. Socialism removes freedom. Socialism removes prosperity. The only reason why the United States works economically is because of the partial free market. The free market works. The free market works better than anything else in history. The only reason Americans can afford even partial socialism is because of the abundance produced by the free market.

So are Americans socialist? Yes, but not from choice. Someone had to do it to them. Someone had to lie to them about what they could get. Someone else had to pay the bills. Would Americans choose socialist programs? I don't think they would if they understood the costs.

I didn't claim you wrote anything about choice. I asked about choice. That's not words in your mouth, that's a question you don't want to answer.❞❞

Tags: sociaism ∙ choice ∙ primates ∙ fairness ∙ prosperity ∙ freedom ∙ wolves ∙ coyotes ∙ elephants ∙ biology ∙ control ∙ orientation in time ∙ coercion ∙ false signals ∙ future ∙ past ∙ power with vs power over ∙ involuntary ∙ bought votes

❝❝Since the last time I read your stuff, I've been racking my brain to remember any libertarians who "pandered" to pedophiles. I can't remember any. "Consenting adults" is a big priority.

As for "pandering" to homosexuals, well, we also "pander" to Jews, women, Rotarians, Red Sox fans, and classic car owners. Not to mention people with piercings, people with tattoos, people with nine toes, and almost anyone else you can name.

If you're threatened by "live and let live," by all means run away.

---

These are two different issues. The only one that I'm denying is that libertarians pander to pedophiles.

You want to use it as the modern political equivalent of blood libel.

It's probably because I am pagan, but I've found keeping minors at an arm's length when it comes to religion and sexuality solves more problems than it causes. It's one of those necessary compromises that keeps neighbors.

---

I think you'll find that most small "l" libertarians like me consider it a minor issue, if at all.

I will point out that the laws are not self consistent. Driving at 16 (some farm states allowed it at 14 in rural areas), voting and draft eligibility at 18, drinking age of 21, well, those are just some of the best known examples.

I've pointed out before that the whole extended childhood thing is mostly a post WWII American urban phenomena. Attitudes towards "child brides" were very different a few generations ago.

---

Can you tell me what the "American" position is on taxes? Does every single American agree with that? What about public schools? And immigration?

I call myself libertarian with a small "l" because when I say "classic liberal" most folks in the U.S. don't know what I am talking about. It has nothing to do with a political party and everything to do with liberty.

I believe that the freedom to choose is the mark of an adult human. Make of that what you will.

---

Classic liberalism predates the founding of the American republic. That is why I distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "libertarianism." Big "L" versus small "l." Party platform versus individual responsibility.

If you'll look closely at what I've written, I've always stressed "consenting adults" when it comes to sexual practices.

I pointed out that even the All Wise Forces of Government & Society® can't decide when a child is responsible or not.❞❞

Tags: libertarian ∙ pedophiles ∙ homosexuals ∙ Jews ∙ women ∙ Rotarians ∙ Red Sox fans ∙ classic car owners ∙ piercings ∙ tattoos ∙ nine toes ∙ driving age ∙ age of consent ∙ classic liberalism ∙ American republic ∙ consenting adults ∙ sex

❝❝For years, I've asked the question what makes a "hate crime" worse than another crime for the same offense. I've never gotten a straight answer.

Well, here it is. "Hate crimes" are absolutely justified if it's for the correct reason. Thou shalt not dissent from the approved narrative. Victims are victims unless they strike out against the Man as declared by progressive experts. And collective victimhood counts, especially if it acts against collective oppression. The individual MUST be subservient to the label, all in the name of The Greater Good and to Protect the Children.

So now we know. If it offends progressives, anything is justified so feelings can be protected and any questionable behavior can be ruthlessly suppressed.

Yep, definitely about the hate there.❞❞

Tags: hate crime ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ victims ∙ The Man ∙ individual ∙ subservient to the label ∙ The Greater Good ∙ protect the children ∙ questionable behavior ∙ ruthlessly suppressed

Tags: goverment ∙ rule of law ∙ Republican ∙ religious right ∙ progressives ∙ major parties ∙ politicos ∙ rescue ∙ false equivalence ∙ Their Cause Is Just ∙ expand ∙ government power ∙ increases taxes ∙ increased costs ∙ more laws ∙ more regulations

❝❝Abortion is one of those things I have mixed feelings on.

First, even in this modern day, every pregnancy may not result in live birth, even with the best actions of the parents and the doctors. I say this because many conservatives act as if it were not so.

Second, even a potential human life should be more than gulp-a-pill and POOF it's gone. Assuming the sex is consensual, there is no reason that both partners should not take precautions if they don't want a child.

Third, ❝Unless it's with me, who you have sex with, how you have sex, and how many times you have sex is frankly none of my business. Likewise, unless it is sex with me, I'm not responsible for the consequences.❞
— NeoWayland's lexicon, sex

Fourth, no agency or entity that receives taxpayer funds should provide abortion or abortion counseling. I know they'll say that taxpayer funds are never used for either, but providing any money just frees other funds for those uses. It's one of those legal fictions that lets politicos skirt responsibility.

Fifth, there is a right of privacy, although not as defined by Roe vs. Wade. It's there in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and (yes) the Fourteenth Amendments.❞❞

Tags: abortion ∙ pregnancy ∙ live birth ∙ sex ∙ agency ∙ taxpayer funds ∙ right of privacy ∙ Roe vs. Wade ∙ Third Amendment ∙ Fourth Amendment ∙ Fifth Amendment ∙ Ninth Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Fourteenth Amendment

❝❝You are aware that you just tried to shame me into keeping quiet and not offer a dissenting opinion, aren't you?

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I did not deny that discrimination and oppression takes place.

Now, let's look at what I actually did.

I said people had tried to shame and shun me because of my sexuality, faith, and politics.

You know, like you tried to do.

I didn't proclaim my victimhood gave me the power to command others.

You know, like you tried to do.

It's only shame if I accept the premise.

I refuse to give blanket special privilege because of proclaimed victimhood.

If an individual wants help, I'll give what I think I can. If a vague class demands constant unquestioned deference because of some poorly defined list of potential offenses that may have been committed on alternate Tuesdays, I'll probably laugh.

The World needs heroes more than it needs victims.

I despise the politics of victimhood. That always ALWAYS means a hierarchy and oh so carefully deciding who has it worse. It's never about injustice, it's about injustice shown to a particular class. Injustice against other groups gets downplayed if not ignored entirely.

For example, I gave three reasons. You picked sex sexuality. Not just sex sexuality, but sexual politics as it applies to your letter salad. So heterosexual feminists don't rate high on your victim scale. And you treated all those carefully defined letters as One Monolithic Block, as if the needs and desires of the transfolks matched those of the gay bears.

You're not a hero because someone hurt your feelings or didn't give you what you thought you deserved. Heroes overcome adversity.

---

Yes, you did attempt to shame me. It's kafkatrapping, specifically invoking model A and model C. It was old when Alinsky wrote about it, under a different name of course. The goal of shaming is to morally prevent me from speaking or writing. It attempts to manipulate guilt of both the target and the spectators.

You're right, I don't know you. Nor should what you have experienced have any influence on my behavior. Unless you're expecting my guilty pity to overcome my beliefs and self-interest.

Even now you are ranking comparative victimhood as if that is what defines people. That is what intersectionality does, isn't it? It's all about the victimhood. Emphasizing the victimhood isn't going to do anything except create a pity party. It's not particularly healthy and it isn't a practical solution.

There are radical feminists who routinely try to shame and shun men all the time. Starting with allegations that America is a "rape culture" and that any PIV sex is rape by it's very nature.

You'll never get social justice because people don't agree on what it means.

You obviously don't know me or you'd know that I carefully think about everything I write. I pride myself on it. You have a problem in that my thoughts don't slavishly follow what you think is important.

I've seen people called heroes over hurt feelings. So have you. I've also seen people cashing in on the ordeals of others. So have you.

You chose to respond to my post. I had done you no harm. All I did was challenge your belief. You don't know who I am or what I've done. You don't know who I've helped or who I've hurt. All you know is that you think I should not be allowed to speak or write my opinion.

---

Pardon, but you're deigning to respond so you can prove a point. You're not doing me any favors and the act comes across a little hollow.

Yes, you did try to shame me. You're not the first or thirteenth or thousandth person to try. You don't get to set the terms of my shame.

Of course I want a better world. What I may not want is a better world on your terms. That's not because of my politics, it's because I'm human.

Yep, I did bring up self-interest because it's a major reason for people's behavior. You're not having this discussion because you're feeling selfless. You've convinced yourself you're doing it for the Greater Good.

Speaking of self-interests, one reason why private alternatives become better, cheaper, and faster is because of competition. A public program doesn't have the incentive to improve so it can keep and get more business. But that is a long subject well beyond the scope of this discussion. I will point out that if something is cheaper and more available, that means that more people can get it if they want it.

I'll also point out that the free market, voluntary transactions between consenting adults, has done more to raise people out of poverty than anything else in history.

Just so you know, I was born on the Navajo reservation and I've spent much of my life near it or the Hopi reservation. I've also lived in Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, Provo, and Albuquerque among other places. I know about "people of color," but mine go beyond your definition.

And that brings us up to women, doesn't it? I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. Your issue here is not that I don't have empathy, it's that I don't have the empathy that you approve of. Actually the radical feminists I was talking about called themselves third and fourth wave. When I can, I regularly seek out people who disagree with me. No one person and certainly no one group has all the answers.

I didn't pass judgement on sexual assault and harassment. I said that power from victimhood is not a good thing and heroes overcome adversity.

You yourself cited the experiences of others to justify fighting injustice. So yes, you're cashing in and you know people who have done so.

You chose to confront my "hypocrisy" but you haven't proven it. It may not match your opinion, but that is a different issue.

By the way, asserting that I have a "privileged position" is kafkatrapping Model P.

Isn't it interesting how you can tell me that my ideas are flawed but you think I can't tell you the same?

Before you proclaim that US Aid is the answer to all the World's problems, you might ask yourself how much of it actually gets through the many corrupt levels of government? That's the essence of libertarianism you see. It's not that we don't care, we just don't see government as an effective way to deliver what needs to be done.

If I see a victim, I don't want them to stay a victim.

I didn't put the web addy up for you. ❞❞

Tags: shame ∙ shame game ∙ competition ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Phoenix ∙ Provo ∙ Albuquerque ∙ Tucson ∙ Los Angeles ∙ kafkatrap ∙ victimhood ∙ social justice ∙ self interest ∙ empathy

When the press shows that it can't be trusted with even some truths, why should the press be trusted?

Tags: rights ∙ privilege ∙ power ∙ goverment

❝❝Pardon, but the media set the stage for their own demonization well before Trump's election. No, not everyone of them and not most of them. But the shift from news to liberal-opinon-passed-off-as-news has been going on for decades now. In the mission to present "THE truth," the media has forgotten that there is often more than one truth and that truth needs something more than passionate writing.

Anyone remember supply-side economics? The common narrative is that it was a product of the Reagan administration and that it was a catastrophic failure. But truth shows that Kennedy tried reducing taxes and regulations first. And under both Kennedy and Reagan, it boosted the economy. But that is not what the media says.

The common narrative is that people of faith demand that minorities be suppressed. Unless of course you are a minority person of faith who depends on government protection. But truth shows that Christians (yes, Christians) made American pluralism possible and even to this day are among the strongest defenders of religious freedom. In some minority communities, local churches are bedrock. Good luck finding that in the news today.

The common narrative is that conservatives mistreat and suppress women. But one truth that #MeToo has demonstrated is that certain (scumbag) high profile liberal politicos and celebrities gave lip-service to feminism so they could take sexual advantage. Many more liberals than conservatives in fact. But the stories that we get are that liberals Are Taking Steps while conservatives could care less.

In all these cases and many more, conservatives and conservative ideas are disparaged while the press presents liberal ideas as the Only Practical Solution. Never mind that many of those liberal ideas don't work and make things worse. After seeing that happen again and again, conservatives naturally distrust the media. They don't see the stories where their ideas and beliefs are celebrated. Those stories with a NEUTRAL bias are hardly ever there. The press passes itself off as mainstream when it isn't, and goes out of it's way to avoid stories that show conservatism in a good light.

As for libertarianism (CLASSIC liberalism), we get labeled as the kookiest of the those scary alt-right types. Never mind that isn't who we are. Never mind the merit of our ideas. No, we're the dangerous nutcases that you dare not listen to.

When the press shows that it can't be trusted with even some truths, why should the press be trusted? They demonized themselves long before Trump did.❞❞

Tags: freedom of the press ∙ demonization ∙ Donald Trump ∙ supply-side economics ∙ John F. Kennedy ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ people of faith ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ religious freedom ∙ women ∙ #MeToo ∙ feminism ∙ conservative ∙ liberal ∙ libertarianism ∙ press ∙ media bias

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

❝❝I realize that this is going against the narrative, but the immigration mess predated Trump. The difference is that Trump has decided to mostly enforce the law while Obama decided to sometimes not. The Obama administration is on record telling Congress that it was a lousy law.

Democrats are remarkable at ignoring bad law if a Democrat is President.

If you don't like the law, change it. Don't go selectively protesting because a government functionary does their job. That's virtue signaling.

Where were the protests before Tump was elected?

---

It's bad law. It was abused before Trump decided to run and the only reason it's getting all the attention now is because a Republican is in office. This is literally being sold as evil Trump while almost no progressives are talking about changing or revoking the law. It's propaganda telling people that if a nice Democrat is in office, they won't have to worry about that bad old law because the Democrat President will have the moral courage to ignore it.

“Family separation was a frontline issue for immigration activists for the last decade or more. They warned of a generation of orphans scarred by the loss of their parents. They cautioned that Obama expanded deportation forces on his own to a degree that would be horribly exploited by a Republican president. (At the time, they were worried about Mitt Romney.)

The Obama administration conceded as much on the issue of separation in 2011, when Cecilia Muñoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, told PBS, “Even if the [immigration] law is executed with perfection, there will be parents separated from their children.”

Many liberals contend Obama never ripped babies from the arms of screaming parents. They should ask, for example, the over 150,000 immigrant children separated from their parents due to detention and deportation proceedings in 2012 if that’s true. Or the over 500,000 immigrant children, who experienced separation between 1998 and that year.”
➢ Separation Of Immigrant Families Was Part Of Deportation Under Obama—Now Trump Is Expanding The Practice

---

Again, it's bad law. Trump can only do what he has done because of laws on the books for years.

It's not just one law. We keep trying to fix the problem with more law which creates more problems which need more law.

---

Except it is the law.

Would you have government ignore the law if the politicos didn't think it was moral? Remember we have an AG who was spouting Bible quotes to justify his immorality.

If the law is wrong, it should be changed. Preferably removed. Anything else puts us at the whim of the politicos and bureaucrats. If we are to have freedom and protection by law, then the rule of law must be uniform. No enforcing it when this man is in office and ignoring it when that woman is in office.

I know you don't like what is happening and you blame Trump. But it it is the law. Selective enforcement just means the threat of tyranny is always there.

Change the law.❞❞

Tags: immigration reform ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama

❝❝See, that’s what I mean. No one has all the answers and certainly no group has all the answers.

Let me tell you what I think they see.

First, a nation where some people believe victimhood has become more important than merit. A place where people have been taught that certain groups must be forced to sacrifice so that the unworthy may prosper.

Let me talk about that word unworthy for a bit. In this case it means someone who expects that their desires be fulfilled with minimum effort on their part. It’s one thing to march with fuzzy pink hats. But who shows up to do the work? And no, marching with a hat is not the work. Work means getting your hands dirty. Work isn’t about raising awareness or pointing out injustice. Work is the every day effort to provide for yourself and those you care for. Work is not taking a weekend to show your solidarity.

Because for them, it’s not about skin color. It’s about merit. If it were about skin color, then people like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell wouldn’t be celebrated. For them it’s about fixing the problem and getting the job done. It’s not about curing past injustices or preventing any possible future injustices (definition subject to change). A hand up instead of a hand out.

Thomas Sowell said “When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” And he was right. Too many privileges today are passed off as rights. Temporary measures become permanent. Privileges are sold as rights, despite only applying to certain victim groups.

And when there is criticism of any of this, it’s called racism.

Second, a government that has lied to them repeatedly. And a bunch of politicos who keep promising that government will fix the problems.

And by the way, this crosses the “skin color” barrier. It’s just that we’ve been lectured that you can’t be a “real …” (black, Hispanic, minority) unless you oppose Republicans and conservatives because “the Man” wants to take it away. See the Sowell quote above.

Third, that Democrats exploit the victimhood.

I disagree with your figures about “the young.” I think the media have their own reasons to skew the news (90% negative stories about Trump).

I also think you are making a major mistake focusing on Trump.

I told you before that it is not Trump. People are losing faith in institutions because our institutions are failing to deliver what was promised. Trump is a symptom not the cause.❞❞

Tags: victimhood ∙ merit ∙ unworthy ∙ work ∙ skin color ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ preferential treatment ∙ equal treatment ∙ discrimination ∙ privilege ∙ rights ∙ racism ∙ government ∙ lies ∙ politicos ∙ Donald Trump

I'm so very tired of progressive "elites" and reporters focusing on the "dirty tricks" of Republicans all while excusing the excesses of their own side.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Presidency ∙ Republic ∙ legitimacy ∙ campaign finance reform ∙ Citizens United ∙ McCain-Feigngold ∙ astroturf ∙ exile

Under what circumstances does the state or the people have the moral authority to compel someone to act against their beliefs?

Tags: kosher ∙ pork ∙ BBQ ∙ equality ∙ past wrongs ∙ equal rights ∙ granting privilege ∙ denying rights ∙ moral authority ∙ freedom ∙ Eric July ∙ discriminate ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ goverment

At the same time, the privilege of being a protected class is regularly exploited to excuse behavior and escape responsibility.

Tags: James Meredith ∙ University of Mississippi ∙ 1962 ∙ racism ∙ privilege ∙ excuse ∙ behavior ∙ responsibility ∙ 1964 ∙ Civil Rights Act ∙ equal rights ∙ equal protection ∙ moral wrong ∙ oppression

❝❝If you wish to ban me, it is your site and your choice.

I'm also the one who says "not all men" when I am told in uncertain terms that America is a rape society. And I am the one who says "not all Christians" when I am told that "religious freedom" is a code word for dominionism. And I am the guy who politely and upfront told you and your readers I am a trouble maker, even if it is in the cause of truth and liberty.

Mr. McCain, you and I have had some epic disagreements. We've also had some epic agreements. If you checked, you would see that I seldom disagree with you about the individuals you single out. I just disagree with attacking a label and a class of people.

So, I hope I can stay around. I will not stop saying "not all …" when I think it applies. And now, I have at least one more comment to answer before I am banished.

---

Maybe it's because my experience with feminism didn't start with loud People Who Want To Be Noticed and write books.

Maybe it's because when I had my first direct experience of the Divine, She was just a mite put out that it had taken me so long to notice. I still look for the Divine in every woman I meet. I don't always find it but I always look.

Maybe it's because I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. When her contemporaries were out protesting, she was busy making her part of the World just a little better. All while not claiming the feminist label or accepting anything less than the respect she had earned.

Maybe it's because I learned early on that while words matter, actions matter more and intentions don't.

And maybe I am just too damn stubborn.❞❞

Tags: cross posted ∙ not all ∙ feminist ∙ Divine ∙ People Who Want To Be Noticed ∙ strong woman

❝❝The only reason to follow the rules is if the other does too. If they don't follow the rules, you aren't bound to the rules.

Tit for tat.

You play by civilized rules until the individual doesn't. Then you crush them.

Not the group they belong to, the individual. You refuse to treat the label as the enemy. That prevents them from retreating into the safety of the group identity, and it delegitimizes the moral claims of that group. It also demonstrates that rules work only if everyone follows them. And when someone doesn't follow the rules, then they don't have the protection of the rules.

I might have had some small experience fighting this type of battle.

ETA: Oh, it also makes someone who believes in collective identity for the greater good feel very exposed when they can't retreat. Very exposed.❞❞

Tags: tit for tat ∙ rules ∙ Other ∙ civilization ∙ group identity politics ∙ individual ∙ moral claims ∙ collective identity

❝❝So some religions should get protection and others should not? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that if we start making those distinctions we've just sacrificed religious freedom.

---

There are times I want to discriminate.

There are people I do not want to have anything to do with. Yes, sometimes those people are Christian fundamentalists. But sometimes those people call for imprisoning climate deniers. Sometimes those people call for the redistribution of wealth. Sometimes those people call for the suppression of ideas they are "triggered" by. Sometimes those people want others removed from history because of things the others have been accused of.

So tell me, why should any of those people get their way?

We draw the line for a reason. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will be happy. But it comes down to parity. If I don't think someone has legitimate power to tell me how to think, what to say, or how to act, then I have no legitimate power to tell them how to think, what to say, or how to act. Which means that public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws are so much bunk.

Otherwise we're just raising one victimhood over another. Last week it was women, this week it is transgenders we're "protecting." Can't have equal rights because Black Lives Matter. If your faith offends, you aren't allowed. At that point, at this point, the only "solution" is to control the law so that you can control what is "allowed." Never mind that just sets up a future where you will lose control. You must be free, but the Other is not allowed.

---

Everyone should have freedom to discriminate.

The moment that the law declares this group of people off limits is the moment when you invite the law to be abused.

Look at the bill that sparked the original article. It's a "fix" of another law, which was a fix of a previous law, and so on.

The solution to government is always more government. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

The only practical solution is making sure the law gives no advantage. "Protecting" one group over others is just going to perpetuate the injustice.

---

As far as the rest, I don't blame labels. There's no vice or virtue in the label. "Christian" includes Roy Moore and MLK. It's not every Christian and we should stop declaring that Christianity is a threat to our chosen way of life. Like it or not, American religious pluralism made American paganism possible.

As far as scapegoats go, well, you (among others) are blaming Christians because they are Christians and not because of what the individual has done.

My point all along this thread is that the law should not benefit or harm any religion. There are some very vocal Christians who want the law to shield Christianity. There are some very vocal people who want the law to contain Christianity. Both groups are wrong.

---

Actually yes.

Starting with a big one. I'll repeat it for you.

If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.

Freedom of religion is exactly that. Neither help nor hinder. You can't fix bad law by making more law. You can only repeal it. Politics is about control. Freedom is about choice.

---

Ah, but that isn't what people like Bill Nye, Lawrence Torcello, Mark Hertsgaard, and Brad Johnson said. They all said that the mere act of climate change denial should be a crime.

Behold the new heresy. You are not allowed to dissent.

And yes, that is every bit as authoritarian as anything any Christian fanatic demanded.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ fundamentalist ∙ climate alarmist ∙ imprisoning ∙ redistribute wealth ∙ trigger warnings ∙ history ∙ victimhood ∙ equal rights ∙ Black Lives Matter ∙ faith ∙ offends ∙ transgender ∙ women

We're so conditioned to accept public schools as a Good Thing™ that we resist looking at options.

Tags: public schools ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ private alternative ∙ private sector ∙ competition ∙ school year ∙ internet ∙ education ∙ quality of life ∙ Alexis de Tocqueville ∙ Republicans ∙ Democrats ∙ Clinton administration ∙ Obama administration ∙ affordability ∙ private companies ∙ choice ∙ truth

❝❝You do realize that if "the Bible is all one piece," you can't pick and choose bits and pieces to quote, don't you? If you eat all your veggies and are especially nice, I won't demand that you start following all those bits in Numbers and Leviticus. We won't talk about the deleted texts now.

How do you suppose those disciples did it? They had to work without a New Testament.

---

So, only the True Believers® are allowed to quote the Bible as they choose because they are special.

I told you before, that says more about your faith than it does my arguments.

It's not enough that I be a good person, I must supplicate myself before the altar of your dogma and beg forgiveness.

Not going to happen, My gods gave me a pass. They also told me what was up.

It's not your god who demands those things. It's certain pesky humans who claim to speak in his name.

---

All this fixation on the Bible is missing the forest for the trees.

Your scripture isn't nearly as important as how you manifest it.

I don't care about your god. I do care about the people around me. I'd rather not fight a religious war, but I can fight to defend me and mine.

The way I see it, it's better if we humans at least talk to each other. Maybe argue and wave fingers in each others faces.

You have your god, I have mine. For all we know they may go out together for beer and wine every seventh year. So let's honor the gods and treat each other decently.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Bible ∙ New Testament ∙ disciples ∙ Numbers ∙ Leviticus ∙ true believers ∙ good people ∙ gods ∙ pesky humans ∙ manifest ∙ scripture ∙ religious war ∙ argue

❝❝One reason why the public school movement gained so much ground in America was in direct response to Catholic schools. Control over what should be taught in public schools is a distraction.

Hardly anyone asks if there should be public schools in the first place.

Mandatory school attendance is backed by the force of law. Much of it has degenerated into who gets to control the conditioning. Which raises some interesting questions. The Daily Caller reports that the Mountain Ridge Middle School in West Virginia requires students to write out the Shahada to practice calligraphy. There are no requirements to write out Christian or Jewish affirmations, and apparently those are not part of the curriculum. Obviously Buddhist and pagan beliefs aren't included either.

Why is this a big deal and a much bigger deal than is being reported? According to Islam, reciting the Shahada makes one Muslim forevermore.

I want to stress that the issue is not Christianity, Islam, or any other faith. The issue is public schools requiring faith lessons. If public schools force religion on the students, then most likely they are teaching other questionable propaganda as well. We notice the religion because as members of minority faiths that is one thing our antenna are tuned for, we overlook the other.

All of this returns to the question why have public and compulsory schools to begin with?❞❞

Tags: public schools ∙ Catholic school ∙ mandatory attendance ∙ Daily Caller ∙ Mountain Ridge Middle School ∙ West Virginia ∙ student ∙ Jewish ∙ Christian ∙ Buddhist ∙ pagan ∙ beliefs ∙ islam ∙ faith ∙ Muslim

❝❝There's at least one blogger who says that Jordan Peterson's advice is banal and obvious. I haven't been able to get through Peterson's book, but I think Greenfield (the blogger) has a point. We need more men acting like men do, especially with kids and VERY ESPECIALLY with boys. I still worry about the American inner cities, where the Federal government in their Official Incompetence decided that families could work without fathers.

---

Scott Greenfield, different blogger. I think I got the article link from Claire Wolfe.

Honestly there are many libertarians and a fair number of conservatives who just don't get why Jordan Peterson is such a big deal. It's like "yeah, we knew that, it's obvious."

---

There's a lot to be said for standing up for what you believe.

---

See, I think it's way too early to compare him to Rush. I also think it's giving Peterson too much credit.

I haven't gotten through his book yet, so maybe there's something there I haven't seen.❞❞

Tags: Jordan Peterson ∙ Scott Greenfield ∙ Rush Limbaugh ∙ Sultan Knish ∙ men ∙ kids ∙ role model ∙ Inner city ∙ Federal government ∙ stand and fight

❝❝As far as the world's reserve currency, as a whole that's a bad idea. I doubt that Trump sees that, but competition is good. This is one instance where he is doing the right thing by accident.

---

Yes, Trump is contributing to the debt, but so has every national politico since the "reform" of 1974. The continuing resolutions instead of actual budgets and the exploding bureaucracy are creating greater problems than Trump did. Both also predate Trump's election.

Meanwhile, that has nothing to do with the (BAD) idea of a single reserve currency or fractional banking. Both of which by their very existence distort the free market and introduce instability. But that is another topic or six.

---

The aging population is a problem because a) government promised that it could provide better, more reliable retirement income than the private sector, b) government mandated contributions, thereby reinforcing the idea that Government Knew Best when it came to retirement and driving out many private sector alternatives, c) government mismanaged the funds it collected, and finally the REALLY Big One, government borrowed against those funds without payback.

A good smartphone can get up to the minute currency exchange information, along with futures markets, stock markets, index funds, and football pools. Understand this, the only "practical" reason for a single reserve currency is so the government producing the currency can control the economy.

None of which has anything to do with the Korean negotiations of the impact of Chinese trading.

ETA: I should warn you, some libertarians spend a lot of time studying economics.

---

When people are told that they will be taken care of because it is their right, they stop paying attention to the numbers. That's true with pensions, Social Security, health care, public schools, roads, the post office, and clean water. I call it Somebody Else's Problem after a fictional FTL drive introduced by the late Douglas Adams. On the other hand, if they have to take responsibility, they pay closer attention. Just as one example, why should there be a mandatory retirement age? Just as interesting now that you brought it up, the current interest on savings accounts is artificially low because of government currency manipulation. It doesn't even beat the rate of inflation. Basically if you put money in a bank, you're losing money.

I'm not saying that the U.S. didn't benefit when the dollar was unquestionably the single reserve currency. That tends to happen with monopolies. I'm saying that competition and the free market can do better, with less government control and more choice and more benefits for people.❞❞

Tags: reserve currency ∙ fractional banking ∙ 1974 ∙ reform ∙ budget deficits ∙ budget process ∙ football pools ∙ aging population ∙ retirement income ∙ private sector ∙ mismanaged ∙ borrowed ∙ smart phone ∙ currency exchange ∙ futures markets ∙ stock markets ∙ index funds ∙ single reserve currency ∙ Somebody Else's Problem ∙ Douglas Adams ∙ pensions ∙ Social Security ∙ health care ∙ public schools ∙ roads ∙ post office ∙ clean water

❝❝Okay, seriously though, and this relates to one of my long standing criticisms of women's studies (and any number of gender studies, skin color studies, etc.)

If these various fields of study have any worth at all, they have to acknowledge that they are only part of the picture. Limiting your studies to one subgroup is going to limit your understanding. Especially if you dismiss without question other subgroups. It's the difference between rigorous study and fantasyland. It's why the theoretical has to cross over with the practical. It's not enough to say how things should work, you have to examine how things actually work together. You have to look outside your preconceptions and expectations for the things you can't explain. Otherwise you never leave the echo chamber.

Or, women's studies without human studies is sh*t.❞❞

Tags: women's studies ∙ human studies ∙ theoretical ∙ practical ∙ echo chambers

❝❝I'm not a Trump fan. I don't trust him and I don't like him.

That being said, when some of us said we didn't like Obama, we were told to sit down and shut up. Obama won, and it was his ball game.

That alone should raise people's hackles.

Right after Trump was elected, there was the woman's march thing. I asked a very progressive group just what was it that Trump had said or done that presented such a threat to women in particular. The only real answer I got was something about woman's reproductive rights. That's when I pointed out that Trump supported Planned Parenthood.

One year later, the same group was talking about supporting the next woman's march. I asked what Trump had done in the previous year that was a particular threat to women. I got something vague about the judges he appointed. I asked how that was different than a liberal President appointing liberal judges.

The complaints about Trump not being legitimately elected are mostly recycled from Bush the Younger. The complaints about Trump being a danger to world peace and being totally incompetent are being recycled from Goldwater and Reagan. I know, I went back and checked. Progressive will complain about Trump tweeting from the toilet, but they can't tell you what he has done that they find repulsive. Except judicial appointments, of course.

We've reached the point where we're told that Trump is E-V-I-L, but they can't say why. And meanwhile with overwhelming bad news coverage, he still has an approval rating of more than 50%.

I don't like him. I don't trust him. I think he is going to make some very bad decisions that will be very bad for the country. But meanwhile, he's screwing up the established government traditions and driving the technocrats crazy. He's disrupting things that need to be disrupted. He's changing government. I have to give the man credit for that.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama ∙ election ∙ Women's March ∙ Planned Parenthood ∙ Bush League ∙ reproductive rights ∙ judicial nominees ∙ World peace ∙ legitimately elected ∙ incompetent ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ Ronald Reagan ∙ evil ∙ approval ∙ establishment ∙ disrupt ∙ goverment

❝❝I'm not totally convinced that North Korea has anything left to work with. Something happened to that mountain. Most likely it's because of NK's own testing. Now they have the Chinese looking over their shoulder saying "Don't put radioactive stuff over our country!" Meanwhile, the NK leadership doesn't know how to deal with Trump and is looking for help where ever it can find it.

This isn't business as usual. It never is with Trump. The old diplomatic games won't work. He doesn't care about the shape of the table. Trump cares about getting things done.

ETA: Pardon, that was the wrong China article link. Here's the correct one.

---

Obviously I disagree.

I will say two more things. The people saying that Trump is going to bungle this are many of the same people who said the conference would never happen, that Trump couldn't bring the North Koreans to the table, that answering threats with threats couldn't possibly work, and most importantly, that Trump would never win the Presidency.

And I think it's too early to say how the table is set.

---

I think you are seriously underestimating Trump.

But more importantly, you are expecting Trump to act like a politician.

North Korea is treading new ground dealing with Trump.

---

I remind you how many times you have been wrong about Trump on this thread alone. You really should brush up on negotiating, not the diplomatic version but the commercial version.

I'm also amazed by how many are writing off this meeting before it happens. Many of them said there would never be a meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea, and that happened.

Kim Jong Un can't feed his people. After that happens for a while, even tyrants have to shift course.

---

I didn't say it would go well. I said you have been wrong about Trump. And so have a lot of "experts." Trump does things in his own way and he has accomplished quite a bit.

Quite frankly, the President (ANY President) should make his own decisions and not be bound by what the staff thinks is important. That's part of the institutional climate that needs to change. The staff serves at the pleasure of the President.

And if this were a Democrat President, you would be cheering his courage and independence.

---

Given that most of the news stories about Trump have been extremely negative, I think it's safe to assume there is a bias there. It's not that the news has been negative, it's been that is how it is written. Many of the "open sources" have long considered it their Duty to deliver the narrative, not the news. Stormy Daniels is a non-story, or rather it's a story in a way that no one wants to report. If she took money at the time to stay quiet (a voluntary act), then what kind of person is she to break her word and contract? And if she is that kind of person, how can she be trusted to tell the truth now?

The point is, the information that is being published about Trump isn't necessarily accurate. Career Washington politicos and lobbyists don't know what he is going to say from day to day, much less what he is going to do. And if they don't know and if the media regularly alters the news to fit the narrative, just how much good do those sources do for the North Koreans?❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Kim Jong Un ∙ experts ∙ President ∙ Democrat ∙ North Korea ∙ business as usual ∙ diplomatic games ∙ China ∙ mountain collapse ∙ underestimating

❝❝Trump has many faults, but he is intelligent. At least take the time to do some basic research before throwing out accusations.

---

You don't make millions of dollars again and again by being an airhead. Even bending and breaking the law, you have to have something on the ball.

Look, I don't like or trust Trump. I don't want to defend him. But only an idiot assumes that just anyone can function for decades in high finance, television, sports, and all the other things that Trump has done. If he didn't have intelligence, he would have been reduced to poverty decades ago. I keep telling people that to understand Trump, you have to realize his strength is negotiating. Nobody thought North Korea was going to come to the negotiating table, but guess what. Trump agreed on camera to everything the Democrat leadership said about immigration, knowing that when they broke their promise he'd be free to act as he wished. That's exactly what happened.

Blazes, the "most intelligent" Democrat minds picked Trump so Hillary would have an easy win, and we know how that worked out. At a fraction of the cost.

---

Look, I am not a Trump supporter. I think there are some terrifying things happening here, but no one is talking about those!

As long as liberals and anti-Trump people can't be bothered to learn what made him successful, they can't oppose him. And yes, Trump is successful. Before he went after the Republican nomination, some of his biggest critics now were tripping over themselves to kiss his ass. So when I read about how Trump is barely literate or how he owes it all to his daddy's money or how he can't negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag, I know that the person writing doesn't know Trump. And I know that they are still trapped in the old mindset of dealing with uppity Republicans. None of that is going to work on Trump. He's been dealing with bad press for decades. He's taken everything that can be thrown at him for the last two years, including television news that runs 90% anti-Trump, and he still does things while hitting around 50% in the polls.

The "Trump is an idiot" meme played out more than a year ago. The longer you use it, the less people are going to listen. The more you try to make this about Trump instead of his policies, the more ineffective you'll be.

I'm telling you this on the remote chance you'll pay attention. I think Trump does need criticism. But all this "Trump is a buffoon" junk just waters down legitimate concerns. The more you do it, the stronger he'll be. There's already a pretty good chance Republicans will gain seats in 2018, and I think Trump will win in 2020. There's a sharp first rate mind there, and he doesn't care about playing the clown if it gets him what he wants. I know this because it's been what he's done for decades.

Which you would know if you bothered to pay attention instead of sticking your head in the echo chamber.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ success ∙ criticism ∙ echo chambers

❝❝For the record, I'm from Arizona. I've also actively worked against John McCain's reelection for decades. I was willing to give him a pass until the Keating Five scandal.

Being a prisoner of war doesn't not give license later in life to screw your constituents. John McCain is selfish, as proven by his last stunt. There's almost no chance of his returning to the Senate. So why hasn't he resigned? Why did he even run in 2016?

---

I don't care if it was talking about George Washington. John McCain is a dishonorable scumbag who is in it only for political advantage. He's cashed in on that POW experience so many times that it ought to have disintegrated by now.

I can't help but wonder if it would have defending John McCain so hard in 2008.

---

No. I mean running for office when one is pretty sure one will be dead before the term ends.

That should have been incredibly obvious by how I worded it.

Obviously your understanding lacks something. If you are not sure what I mean, ask me and I will explain.

One thing I will explain now is that I am not Republican.

ETA: Speaking of incredibly selfish actions, why is anyone discussing John McCain's funeral and his disagreement with Trump before the man has passed?

---

But why is McCain's funeral being discussed in the national press? And don't tell me it's because McCain is a National Figure.

It's not anyone's business except the family until after the man has passed.

Unless McCain thought he could get one more bit of of political posturing at Trump's expense out of it.

Like I said, the man is selfish.

---

I wish I could agree. Unfortunately, the man fancies himself a part-time kingmaker and has done harm to my state.
And. You. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Criticize

---

Sometimes not even then.

You get lectured on how he is an Institution.

Goldwater was an institution, and earned that status. Funny thing is, he didn't have people around him telling other people how important he was.

I met Goldwater when I was in high school. He makes McCain look like a drunk javelina with a missing back leg.❞❞

Tags: John McCain ∙ Barry Goldwater ∙ javelina ∙ Keating Five ∙ funeral ∙ prisoner of war ∙ Senate ∙ 2016 ∙ selfish

“Delusions of Justice”

Tags: California ∙ secession ∙ Constitution ∙ American history professors ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ people ∙ state ∙ water rights ∙ Southwest ∙ Arizona ∙ Nevada ∙ Imperial Valley ∙ Mexico ∙ SCOTUS ∙ splitting the state ∙ treason ∙ MacGuffin ∙ Dred Scott decision ∙ Minersville School District v. Gobitis ∙ United States v. Rabinowitz ∙ First Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ commerce clause ∙ individual citizens ∙ Thomas Jefferson ∙ Declaration of Independence

When government is "responsible" for something, regular people stop paying attention.

Tags: cross posted ∙ power with vs power over ∙ Somebody Else's Problem ∙ Douglas Adams ∙ EPA ∙ Obama Administration ∙ Silent Spring ∙ Superfund

❝❝One flawed legacy of Keynesian economics is that government can control individual action by government. Taxes and budgeting are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. Taxes on the revenue side of the ledger are calculated in terms of their cost (expense side of the ledger) to government. This is probably the most fucked up part of modern government accounting. It's not about how much money government has, it's about how much money government takes from people. Money is power and choice, the more government takes the less people have. Government can't create value, it can only divert it.

There hasn't been a real government budget in years. What there has been is a series of continuing resolutions, essentially a short term agreement to spend at least the same amount as before unless specifically changed by Congress. There hasn't been a balanced budget in even longer. There's no cost to Congresscritters for not passing a balanced budget. If it were up to me, I'd say that Congress and it's staff only gets paid in years that a budget is passed and the budget is balanced. In years that the budget isn’t balanced, a Congresscritter should pay it’s salary to the government with interest.

In the case of the tax cut, the original CBO scoring said that the cost to government would not be offset by the revenue it generated. The new CBO report says that the cost to government was offset. Since people like having more money, Trump's popularity went up. People don’t care about the deficit. People do care about money in their pocket.

I’m not “you guys.” I’m not cheering for massive deficits (which happen with Democrat presidents too). I specifically said that he gave the economy a (mythical) boot into growth and that the tax cuts have paid for themselves and boosted his popularity. This is not the action of a drooling idiot. It’s not smart enough and it’s only short term, but it makes Trump look good and gives people more power today.

What I am doing is pointing out that Trump plays the populist better than any recent president, possibly any President since Jackson. The reason he can do this is because government has become more and more oppressive, no matter what party is “in control.”❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Keynesian ∙ economics ∙ Congress ∙ budget ∙ taxes ∙ cost to government ∙ money in pocket ∙ revenue ∙ expense ∙ government accounting ∙ value ∙ continuing resolution ∙ balanced budget ∙ Congresscritter ∙ CBO ∙ popularity ∙ deficit ∙ economy ∙ populist ∙ Andrew Jackson ∙ oppresive

❝❝Okay, let's talk about the ACA, a law so "good" that nobody was allowed to read it before Congress passed it. A law so well written that it had to be illegally modified by executive order again and again just to work. A law that was supposed to pay for itself, but was so dependent on government subsidies that states had to withdraw just so their citizens could have health insurance. A law deliberately designed to reduce the number of health insurance companies and choices available to consumers. That last bit and raising prices is the only thing that the ACA has accomplished.

The only reason government is involved in healthcare to begin with is because government enforced salary caps and companies had to offer something more to recruit and keep employees. Every part of healthcare that government has been involved with, costs have outpaced inflation, availability never meets demand, and innovation has been stifled.

If this is Obama's legacy, it has resulted in less medical care at a higher price and almost impossible to use. But it looks good.❞❞

Tags: Obamacare ∙ ACA ∙ Congress ∙ executive order ∙ states ∙ health insurance ∙ heathcare ∙ inflation ∙ Barack Obama ∙ legacy ∙ subsidies ∙ looks good

❝❝The ability to earn, keep, and move money without government monitoring or control.

The ability to travel without being searched and having my belongings seized.

The ability to practice my faith and others as I choose without harassment, including celebrating rites and rituals that aren't "mine."

The presumption of innocence if charged with a crime.

Ownership of property without the threat of government seizure.

The ability to speak and write my thoughts and beliefs without prosecution.

There are others, but those are the biggies.

---

"Yeah, taxes are a bitch. But how do you think you get that massive military and corporate welfare you guys love so much?"

That has nothing to do with Libertarianism or libertarianism.

You keep trying to get me to justify Republican positions of the things that certain conservatives have done. Why should I point out that income taxes by their nature require massive surveillance powers when you just assume that I support a massive military and corporate welfare?

You want specific examples? Fine.

I don't support corporatism, crony capitalism, corporate welfare, or any variant. If a company can't succeed without government help, it doesn't deserve to exist.

The only reason the U.S. "needs" a massive military is because we are actively meddling in the internal affairs of so many other nations. And then we take offense when other nations try to meddle with us.

All but three of the 9-11 terrorists were in direct violation of American law before 9-11. Nearly everything the U.S. has done since is security theater and plain oppression while expanding the police state.

Yes, I have had belongings seized, and none of your business.

No, I can't practice any rite or ritual I choose. Even leaving out the ones I usually practice nekkid, there are so-called liberals who object to any religion. Then there are the conservatives who object to any non-Christian religion, especially if their version of Christianity is not placed above all others. There is a casual assumption of "Judeo-Christian" values in public life that implies that other faiths only exist at the sufferance of "good Christians." There are rituals which by law I am not allowed to participate in, such as the peyote rites of the Native American Church. By law if I am not from a recognized tribe, I am not allowed to possess the feathers of a raptor, even if I found them on the ground. In some jurisdictions, this extends to ravens and crows.

I have "selective" free speech. There are hate speech laws on the books in this country. Universities and political gatherings regularly confine dissenters to "free speech zones." Microsoft just announced that they will be reviewing private accounts to screen for hate speech and "unsuitable content." Twitter regularly deletes conservative and libertarian posters. YouTube either demonetizes or deletes conservative and libertarian content. Lately YouTube has even gone after prepper and gun review videos. The only way to get around this is to own your own domain and pay for a hosting service, but that is no guarantee.

I want a world with less government than absolutely necessary. If I wanted a world where nothing bad happened, I would want more government to protect me. Of course more government couldn't protect me, but that is another topic.

Drug laws came from progressives, just as Prohibition did.

I'm not a conservative. Quit lumping me in with them. I don't believe in warrantless searches, period.

I was born on the Navajo reservation. I grew up in Arizona and I still live here. I've witnessed oppression. And yes, I've lived through it too. But I am not doing this for "poor little me" or because I want people to acknowledge my victimhood. It's not me that is important.

I'm doing this because there is a right and a wrong and the difference is not hard to find. I'm doing this because we're measured in the lives we touch. I'm doing this because we're here to make the World a little better than how we found it.

So quit trying to make it worse because a "white" did something to a "black." Quit trying to make the Democrats heroes because they care for the "little guy" even as they work to keep them victims. Quit slapping labels on people to excuse their bad behavior.

I'm human. You're human. That person over there is human. Don't judge by the labels. Words matter. Actions matter more. Intentions don't.❞❞

Tags: money ∙ travel ∙ siezed ∙ faith ∙ rites and rituals ∙ presumption of innocence ∙ property rights ∙ speak ∙ write ∙ thought control

❝❝I never expected Trump to do anything except disrupt.

Pardon, but you're making the same mistake they did. You think that if the right person was in charge, everything would be okay.

Government is not your friend.

---

We will have a government regardless - until we replace it. The replacement may or may not work as well, it may or may not get better, but the ability to replace is inherent in the promise of America.

We've not had a "better" government in decades. Good government is not measured by how much government controls, but by how much it doesn't. It's no accident that America's greatest advances come from places that government doesn't regulate.

Sometimes (and more times than we'd like to admit), the best way to fix something is to replace it. Sometimes the only way to replace something is to destroy it. It works that way with food, clothing, houses. It works that way with cars, companies, and marriages. And yes, sometimes it works that way with government.

---

There is some opinion that NASA exists to keep other (and particularly American private interests) out of space. There a fair-to-middling novel Kings of the High Frontier, that explores that. I'm rereading it right now.

We understood the principles behind the internet years before. AT&T had adopted some of them years before to keep long-distance phone calls from being interrupted. Even after the internet became public, the real driver for bandwidth and video compression was porn. Netflix owes it's existence to horny men looking for naked pictures.

Building roads has always been easy. Maintaining roads is the hard part. There government has failed so much that "infrastructure" is a code word for raising taxes.

My faith is in the free market, not consumer capitalism.

Trump is changing things (and disrupting things), but he's only a small part of what is happening.

---

First of all, they were poor before Trump was even a candidate. And they weren't helped by Obama's war on the coal industry. If you read the article, state and local authorities had a hand in there too.

I haven't looked at this in depth, but I know there wasn't much of an economic base to begin with. Despite what is claimed, that's not something that any government can create. At a minimum, it requires good ideas and private investment.

Oh, and the jobs vanishing overseas? That's something the Democrats and Republicans share the blame for.

---

Like Venezuela?

I could give you pages of proof, but long story short, central control distorts the economy. The more pressure focused in one area, the bigger the disruption. On a small enough scale, you may escape second and third order functions. But if you are using a healthy economy to support massive intervention, you are pretty much guaranteeing those second and third order disruptions.

Think of it like tapping a water main without turning down the pressure. It will give way, it will require replacement, and while it is being fixed most of the system will have to be shut down. The only question is when.

---

I'm not a conservative.

I picked Venezuela because in just a few short years socialism destroyed a robust, expanding, petroleum based economy.

Your other examples aren't exactly socialist either. They are more progressive than the US, but they have not nationalized their means of production. Unlike say, Venezuela.

---

Have you taken a closer look at the Obama Administration? Cronyism, emotional appeal, basically everything that Trump does except it was (mostly) within the system.

Government is not your friend.

---

I repeat, have you taken a look at the Obama administration? A good, long, hard, unbiased look? Have you seen how many of his contributors benefited?

Nor is the Obama administration alone.

This is what annoys me. You're all set to blame Trump and the GOP for crimes against humanity all while excusing the crimes and excesses of the Democrats. And you are still calling for more government control.

Now if you really want, we can match abuse of power against abuse of power. I can tell you horror stories about Congresscritters and technocrats. I can show how almost everything you've been told about economics is designed to confuse you and keep you quiet. I can prove that almost everything government tells you is a lie just to convince you that government is necessary and that one flavor of politics is better than the other.

---

How about I tell you truths instead?

Government is not your friend.

Politics is about control, not truth, not compassion, not liberty, and not funding.

There's no Man on a White Horse riding to the rescue. You shouldn't trust anyone who looks like that because they are cosplaying.

The Republicans and the Democrats are about equally as guilty for the mess we're in. Each will blame the other, then you for not caring enough. Each will want more money and more power.

There's no objective difference between the party on the right and the party on the left. The only difference is who gets screwed now and who gets screwed tomorrow.

Blame Trump. Blame Obama. Blame Smith. It doesn't matter because government is the problem.

Government is not your friend.

---

Obama didn't reduce the debt. He reduced the deficit. That means the government didn't overspend as much as it had in previous years. Oh, and by the way, they printed more currency to "cover" some of the difference which raised the inflation rate and the interest on the national debt.

Trump didn't nuke North Korea. He responded to provocation, as Presidents at least as far back as Kennedy have done. And by the way, the Norks are willing to negotiate now.

I don't remember seeing anything about Trump going after gay marriage.

Before you defend the ACA, take a look at the costs of healthcare starting when Medicare became law. It's no accident that the costs have exceeded inflation every year since. Thanks to the ACA, dozens of states are scrambling to try to cover healthcare costs. Some are opting out of the program. Legally they aren't supposed to, but there is no way they can cover costs.

I'm not familiar with Golden Valley.

Only Congress can decriminalize marijuana. Since they are exploiting an opioid crisis created by government action, I don't expect them to act soon. Basically when Obama's DoJ stopped enforcing marijuana law, they were breaking the law.

The cities and counties who have the strictest gun laws are the same cities and counties who have the highest rate of gun crimes. Pay specific attention to Chicago and Baltimore. Most of those areas have had Democrat administrations for decades.

"Vote Democrat." Why? So we can fall off the left side instead of the right side?

Government should be smaller than absolutely necessary.

---

You mean the multinational corporations who pay both sides but mainly the left ones to pass laws and regulations that benefit them and shut out competition?

You mean the alt-right is a bigger threat than unaccountable race hustlers and movements like BLM who focus on events that fit the narrative and exclude things like "black" on "black" crime in the major cites?

You mean like the attacks on Christianity that happen just because someone professes their faith?

And let's not forget all those people who are only too willing to tell "white" people what they can and cannot say, what they can and cannot think, what they can and cannot do, because of "white privilege."

Government is playing all sides (not both sides, all sides) against each other, and the politicos just keep getting taxes and more power.

Like I told you before, if you want to keep the people you distrust from having power over you backed by government force, the only sure way is to drastically reduce government power. That way you can't mess with them and they can't mess with you.

---

But it is possible.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense: “Society is produced by our wants and, government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices.”

Milton Friedman wrote: “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”

James Madison said: "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

People are perfectly capable of making their own decisions. Those choices won’t always be ones you agree with. Sometimes those choices will be bad ones with terrible consequences. Still, freedom is based on choice. Without choice, there is no freedom. Without freedom, we aren’t human.

You are perfectly capable of making your own decisions. That is your right, that is what makes you human, and f*ck all to anyone who tells you different.

KYFHO now and forever. The only protection you should get is the certainty that NO ONE ELSE can use government to control you.

But, if you expect that right for yourself, you’d better damn well defend if for others. Even if you don’t like them. Even if you don’t trust them. Especially if you don’t trust them. Otherwise you will lose your choice.

Otherwise you will lose your freedom.

It’s simple. If you want to live free, you can’t meddle in other’s lives.

The second you start meddling is the second you sacrifice your own rights.

“The greater good” is just as big a tyranny as “for you own good.”

You only think it’s fantasy because that is what you’ve been taught by those benefitting from the current power structure.❞❞

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ disrupt ∙ government is not your friend ∙ NASA ∙ space flight ∙ internet ∙ AT&T ∙ Venezuela ∙ socialism ∙ Obama Administration ∙ abuse of power ∙ national debt ∙ North Korea ∙ Obamacare ∙ Congress ∙ marijuana ∙ opoid crisis ∙ DoJ ∙ gun control ∙ network ∙ infrastructure reforms ∙ Netflix ∙ pornography ∙ Barack Obama ∙ coal power

We'll start with basics. The game is not what you think it is.

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ racism ∙ alt-right ∙ DNC ∙ GOP ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ Colin Kaepernick ∙ LBJ ∙ Strom Thurmond ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Barack Obama ∙ projects ∙ aid for families dependent children ∙ privilege ∙ civil rights ∙ legacy

I am not going to go into gun rights here.

Tags: guns ∙ gun laws ∙ Keystone Cops ∙ Florida ∙ local government ∙ mass shootings ∙ gun ownership ∙ homicide ∙ concealed carry

No one person and no one group has all the answers. No one group should be vested with THE moral authority to decide who is and is not a hate group.

The SPLC needs competition.

Tags: Southern Poverty Law Center ∙ hate groups ∙ competition ∙ religion ∙ authority ∙ FedGovs ∙ press ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ KKK ∙ Nation of Islam ∙ pro-life Christian ministries ∙ militias ∙ hate crime ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Mark Potok ∙ hypocrites

The American extended childhood is a post WWII phenomena. That's also what gave us the Baby Boomers, the less said about the better.

Tags: WWII ∙ extended childhood ∙ labor force ∙ industrial base ∙ parents ∙ kids ∙ generations ∙ social engineering ∙ competition

❝❝There comes a time when the only way to win is not to play.

---

Just pointing out again that if you don't like government power, maybe the real answer is taking the power away from government.

---

At that point I'd have to stand and say no.

You can't exile someone because of what they believe. It's what they want to do to you. That doesn't make it right.

We need to have our ideas challenged by people we don't agree with. If the ideas are good, they will stand on their own merit.

---

Maybe it's time the libertarians (small l, not the party) were in charge. We could start by abolishing any political party, reducing the total amount of taxes to ten percent and making the politicos pay for anything government spends above that amount.

Then we can talk about who is allowed to have influence.

---

And organizing everything from the words anyone is allowed to say to the calorie count of a pizza slice, just how well is that working out?

The problem isn't who is calling the shots. Experience has shown that no matter what promises someone makes, as soon as they have power they will be just as tyrannical as the opposition. Look at this discussion. You are literally writing about who is and is not allowed to have influence. And making sure that capital L Libertarians are on display, but not allowed to influence policy. That's better for people how? We are supposed to trust in the benevolence of conservatives?

The answer is massively reducing the size and scope of government. Let people make their own choices.

---

Can you do that without pointing a gun at people?

Do you have enough courage in your convictions to do it without force?

---

And I am not convinced that conservatives can be totally trusted. As I rule, I trust conservatives more than I do progressives, but I don't trust you that much.

It's not easy to do it without a gun, but it's possible. The thing is, progressives don't start with guns. They start by establishing Moral Authority. You can do more by taking that away than you can with guns. Hurting them or killing them just makes martyrs to the "cause."

The Left doesn't like it when I do a lot of things. That doesn't stop me much.❞❞

Tags: goverment ∙ power ∙ exile ∙ believe ∙ challenged ∙ ideas ∙ libertarian ∙ political parties ∙ taxes ∙ spends too much money ∙ tyrannical ∙ conservatives ∙ progressives ∙ gun ∙ Left

I remind you that no American political fact for the last two years has been easily ascertained. Or static.

Tags: facts ∙ Donald Trump ∙ HRC campaign ∙ DNC ∙ verify ∙ USAPATRIOT ∙ NSA ∙ military spending ∙ audit ∙ reporters ∙ news outlets ∙ War on Drugs ∙ as a rule absolutes don't ∙ Islam ∙ Other ∙ Higher Truth™ ∙ American politics ∙ subjective ∙ Great Depression ∙ government experts ∙ capitalism ∙ myth ∙ goverment ∙ rules ∙ Republicans ∙ guilt by association ∙ Barack Obama ∙ White House ∙ 2008 ∙ 2016 election ∙ email probe ∙ Pied Piper candidates ∙ Bernie Sanders ∙ BLM movement ∙ grassroots ∙ experience

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: state ∙ individual ∙ product ∙ service ∙ compulsory ∙ consequences ∙ legal framework ∙ religion ∙ civil rights ∙ cosmetic surgery ∙ gender reassignment ∙ service ∙ abortion ∙ minority ∙ religious right ∙ freedom ∙ choice ∙ the public good

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: conservatism ∙ progressivism ∙ civil forfeiture ∙ posse comitatus ∙ military surplus ∙ common good ∙ higher taxes ∙ more laws ∙ increased regulations ∙ less freedom ∙ goverment ∙ military spending ∙ law enforcement ∙ emergency aid ∙ War on Drugs ∙ someone else's money ∙ limiting government ∙ Ronald Reagan

Sometimes, you're wrong.

Tags: truth ∙ either/or ∙ solution ∙ progressives ∙ conservatives ∙ corruption ∙ ideas ∙ person ∙ life or death

❝❝Pardon, I don't think anyone is capable of judging what is and is not a "real" religion. I can't tell you how many times certain Christians have told me that my faith isn't real.

Pauline Christianity is something completely different that what Yeshua Ben Yosef preached. Gnostic Christianity is something completely different yet again. Which is true? Who knows? Who am I to judge what happens between someone else and the Divine?

I think these are the wrong questions. Christians are much nicer when they aren't the only game around. From what little I've seen, the same applies to Muslims.

I think what matters is how we treat others, especially others who do not share our faith and culture. Ramming it down other's throat by force will cause resentment. That's where some monotheists go wrong. It's not that they have the True Faith™, its that no other faith can be allowed. Because of their Greater Understanding and enlightenment, they can break society's rule for the Greater Good. Thou shalt not dissent.

Climate change alarmists stole the game lock, stock, and barrel. It's common for some of the radical feminists too. If anything, I think it indicates a weakness in the argument. Their faith isn't strong enough, they can't convince others, so it must be forced.

Getting back to Christianity, how much would history have changed if Constantine hadn't made it the state faith? How would it have developed if it had stayed one faith among many? How much of the Official® was really about politics and controlling the populace?

Could it be that control is really the issue?❞❞

Tags: cross posted ∙ Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ Christian bash ∙ Gnostic Christianity ∙ Constantine ∙ Muslims ∙ thou shalt not dissent ∙ enlightenment ∙ radical feminists ∙ climate change alarmists ∙ Yeshua Ben Yosef ∙ Pauline Christianity

Odd tactic from the Grand and Glorious Imperious Leader

Tags: Diné ∙ oppress ∙ Native American ∙ capitalism ∙ borrow ∙ Voting Rights Act of 1965 ∙ Western Civilization ∙ pluralism ∙ choice ∙ responsibility ∙ clear title ∙ Hernando De Soto ∙ American Dream ∙ government ∙ Amerindians ∙ the Rez ∙ victimhood

Great quote that's right on the money

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ pure democracy ∙ unconditional surrender ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ progressives ∙ Democrats ∙ Republicans ∙ misogynist ∙ racists ∙ sore losers ∙ ever expanding ∙ goverment ∙ self apponted ∙ elites ∙ demonized ∙ protesters ∙ positive changes ∙ sacrificing freedom ∙ smash storefronts ∙ we're here now

❝❝There are two assumptions implicit in public accommodation laws. First is that there is a class of people who no matter what can never ever do things on their own. Second is that most people no matter what can never ever be trusted to do the right thing.

I think both assumptions are wrong.

---

Good law has been used for bad purposes since someone bothered to write down the law. The question you should ask is which is more important, freedom or misuse of the law?

It's my old friend, the parity test. If Christians can be barred from living their faith, what's to stop pagans from being barred from living theirs? Or atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, or any of a thousand others?

Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean that it should be illegal and that someone should be punished for it. I'd say that the guideline should be measurable harm to someone's person, liberty, and property. Hurting your feelings shouldn't qualify. I deal with the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita laws at my politics blog at www DOT paganvigil DOT com SLASH files SLASH RootsGovPower061204 DOT html.

Incidentally, the right of free association was one of the "understood" rights covered by the Tenth Amendment. After all, the U.S. had just fought a war over it.

---

Up until that time, it was one of the biggest wars about non-association ever fought.

Freedoms seldom clash with each other. Someone wanting to control others through religion isn't freedom, it's politics. Knowing the difference can be helpful.

I'm not responsible for how someone feels, especially since both the feelings and the standards used to justify those feelings change often. Measurable harm to someone's person, property, and liberty is one of the few objective standards we can agree on. A microaggression is what the victim says it is, and some things become microaggressions that weren't last week. It's privilege. I don't have time or energy to indulge it anymore.❞❞

Tags: freedom ∙ misuse of law ∙ parity test ∙ measurable harm ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ microaggression ∙ victim ∙ privilege

As it exists right now, local, state, and Federal governments allow and protect area specific telecommunications monopolies.

Tags: net neutrality ∙ cable service ∙ telephone ∙ network ∙ unused capacity ∙ monopoly ∙ goverment ∙ regulation ∙ competition ∙ Facebook ∙ Google ∙ Twitter

Moving quotes to individual entries

Tags: hearsay ∙ radical progressives ∙ climate change crowd ∙ toxic feminist ∙ truth

❝❝Ah, somebody finally said the C word. And that means I can say not all Christians.

I can say something else too. For all of the evidence of Christian bigotry, there's tolerance and pluralism right there beside it. America is the probably the only nation where it could happen. Religious diversity made it happen. And it goes right back to the Civil War. While there were plenty saying (with reason) that the Bible justified slavery, there were others making the case that a human was a human no matter what the color skin. The ones fighting hardest against slavery took their best arguments from their faith. That continued through the woman's rights movement, through the civil rights movement, and on through the gay rights movement. Without Christians speaking and fighting, those movements would have stalled.

As a newbie back in the 80s, I had a lot of baggage. I spoke and wrote against Christians with the best of them. Some of my stuff is probably still floating around there. But I discovered that I didn't like who I was. There were other things too, I was not a nice person. After some serious soul searching and couple of Divine thumps on the head, I came back to a very simple idea. In magickal terms, the energy you put out is the energy you get back. It's the Ethic of Reciprocity, Christians call it the Golden Rule. It's probably the cornerstone of Western civilization. Long story short, if you look for the negative in others, that is precisely what you will find. And that is precisely what you will allow to shape your own life.

But if you look for the positive, "catch them doing right," there will be enough good to overcome the bad.

Christians made marriage legal in the first place. But do you honestly think there would be legal gay marriage without a whole lot of Christians saying, wait, we have to fix this to be fair to everyone.

Because not every Christian, you see. Sometimes in the places you least expect and from the people you'd never consider, there is tolerance and acceptance and even encouragement. Not everyone wraps themselves in the fire and brimstone of the OT. Some really do believe that their god is love.

We need those people badly.

So, not every Christian.❞❞

Tags: Christian ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ bigotry ∙ tolerance ∙ pluralism ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Western Civilization ∙ cross posted

You don't demand that others submit to your religion. If I can object when the Islamists do it, if I can object when the climate change crowd does it, I can damn well object when a theocratic Republican passes it off as religious freedom and tells tales of his "oppression" because of his faith.

Tags: Roy Moore ∙ Decalogue ∙ freedom of religion ∙ public space ∙ cross posted ∙ Watch List

❝❝Let's talk about infrastructure. Specifically, let's talk about Puerto Rico's infrastructure that was mismanaged and mostly ignored for decades before Trump took office. We could also mention Chicago, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and a number of other cities. What makes these places unique is that they have massive overspending, crumbling infrastructure, and Democrat leadership for decades.❞❞

Tags: infrastructure reforms ∙ Puerto Rico ∙ Chicago ∙ Baltimore ∙ Washington D.C. ∙ Democrat

❝❝The best thing that government can do to lower the prices of medical care is get out of medical care and medical insurance. There's a lot of reasons, but at it's core politicos and technocrats have no incentive to contain costs, make a profit, and get a bigger market share. Competition means that companies have to make things cheaper, faster, and more available or they will lose business. Today's smart phones have more computing capacity than the Cray 2 did in 1985, they are more reliable, more capable, cheaper, more available, and a lot more profitable. That's what 30 years of the free market and competition without government interference will give you. Government has shielded the medical industry and the medical insurance markets from the very things that would make medicine better.❞❞

Tags: government ∙ medical care ∙ medical insurance ∙ market share ∙ competition ∙ smart phone ∙ Cray 2

❝❝OK, taxes. According the the OMB, the top 20% of taxpayers pay 95% of income taxes. In 2015, the WSJ reported that the top 20% paid 84% of income taxes. In 2015, the top .1% (yes, that's one-tenth of one percent) of families paid 39.2% of income taxes. In 2015, all but the top 20% of taxpayers paid more in payroll taxes than they owed in Federal income tax, effectively giving the Federal government an interest free loan. Meanwhile, the bottom 20% of taxpayers have the Earned Income Tax Credit, a negative income tax. The government pays them. The thing is, smart rich people don't stuff their money in mattresses. They put it to work. If their money doesn't earn more than the rate of inflation, they've lost money. So they look for ways to maximize returns. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are the most common methods. This pumps money back into the economy. Lower prices, more companies hiring, and better distribution of goods and services are direct results. In other words, cutting taxes at any level gives people more choices and more economic power. It's not cutting taxes for the rich, it's cutting taxes. If you like, I can show how a progressive tax system locks people into income tiers and suppresses the natural movement up in income.❞❞

Tags: OMB ∙ Wall Street Journal ∙ income tax ∙ Federal government ∙ inflation ∙ competition ∙ progressive tax systems

Sometimes we pagans take our sex way too seriously.

Tags: reddit ∙ Donald Trump ∙ pagan ∙ sex ∙ rape ∙ accusations ∙ Harvey Weinstein ∙ witch hunt

❝❝I believe that competition makes us honest. I believe that the "free market" applies more to just products and services, it applies to ideas and creeds and politics and practically anything else human. I believe that no one person and no one group has all the answers.

And yes, I know I've said all that before. But for me, it's as certain as the Earth beneath my feet and the stars above my head.

We need our ideas challenged. We need to argue with each other and wave our fingers under each others noses.

We don't need violence in the streets.

We don't need scapegoats.

And we don't need people using some undefined Moral Authority to prevent others from speaking.❞❞

Tags: competition ∙ honest

❝❝My critique wasn't intended to capture the movement.

In the various moments however, I see one group excuse their violence and their racism because of their narrative. This one group gets a pass but others do not. That's certainly privilege and it hurts their case.

I've told people before. You want equality, I'll fight with you. You want privilege, I'll fight against you.

I can't take BLC BLM seriously when I read or hear the trash-talk some of the leadership directs at "whites." I'm not the only one. I'm against injustice, I don't think BLC BLM is.

You know the really ironic thing about this conversation? The motto of my political blog Pagan Vigil is "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black and white."

---

If group A gets something and groups B, C, and E are not allowed, that's a privilege. If things change and group B gets something and groups A, C, E, and H are not allowed, there is still privilege.

The definition of oppression keeps changing. Arguably things were worse for "blacks" in the 1920s after Woodrow Wilson re-segregated the civil service and the military. Not to mention all the Jim Crow laws that were still on the books. While there are issues today, they are no where near what they once were.

One of the biggest issues today is the prison population. This is usually one key argument about how the US is still a racist society. Before we can really look at that though, we should consider if there are some laws that in and of themselves might be unjust. Personally I think it's stupid to arrest people for being under the influence but not arresting people for being drunk. So if we take out all non-violent drug offenders, that reduces the prison population quite a bit. We're left with the violent offenders.

We know that a strong family, especially one with at least two parents, usually means the kids don't break the law. We also know that "black" inner city children in single mother households used to be about 7%, at one point that rose to well over 70% and is still a majority today. We know that this was made possible by well meaning government programs meant to provide. In other words, "the Man" paid single mothers not to get married and raise kids on their own. Yet any talk of reducing these benefits is immediately called racism. It's privilege, it promotes dependency, and yet it's seen as "compassionate." There's racism and oppression for you, but in popular opinion it's a "right." That doesn't mean that single mothers are evil or wrong. It just means that when a majority of households in a given population are single mothers, the kids (and especially the males) are much more likely to push the boundaries and get into trouble.

These aren't the only two things that put more "blacks" in prison, but they are two of the biggest. Yet instead, we hear how cops are racist. These are also two things that would take years, maybe decades to fix.

There are many other things too. Inner city public schools which are more and more like prisons. Public housing projects that displace neighborhoods and quickly become crime infested. Licensing laws that make it almost impossible for small household businesses to get started. These are real oppressions with absolutely devastating results, and yet we're arguing over who gets a slice of the pie. The oppressed demand action from the government and the institutions that are keeping them down. Star Parker does a much better job explaining this is her book Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.

Maybe the pie isn't limited. And maybe the person on the street isn't the oppressor.

---

Peer review? Then the next question will be if the correct peers reviewed it. And that still doesn't answer the real question: Is Star Parker wrong with either her observations or her conclusions?

Look at what happened here. In one reply you've moved from Black Lives Matter to certain Black Lives Matter more than the ones who have not been politically approved. It's Orwell. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

What critical race theory doesn't tell you is the how and why of institutions, particularly those created to fight one cause or another.

I'm not going to assume the collective guilt. That's not my style, and that's not the way to fix racism.

---

Critical race theory isn't a part of sociology, it rejects much of sociology. It was designed as a political tool to silence dissent from an approved ideology.

I am not discounting peer review which can be a valuable tool. I just do not think that it should be the only tool, nor do I think that the only certain people should be allowed to do peer review.

I've run into abuse of the latter kind in third wave feminism "scholarship" where ideas aren't even considered for discussion unless the author has been approved.

Those are Star Parker's beliefs, she still has the right to write and talk about them. But she isn't hitting people if they disagree with her.

I was trying to find a quote from Thomas Sowell on critical race theory, but I can't seem to find it.

---

How widespread is critical race theory outside those who study it? Can it produce predictable models of human behavior? How well does it withstand analysis outside the discipline? These are some of the things that mark a science. At one point I was studying to be a Christian minister, that doesn't make Christianity true. These same things could be said about third wave feminism too. Even more in the case of third wave feminism, how well does it tolerate behavior that goes against what it teaches.

But the people in BLM who aren't hitting people aren't denouncing the people in BLM who are. And there have been pages and pages written about how the leaders of BLM are justified in their racism against "whites" with no one calling them on it.

If BLM is going to denounce the neo-Nazis for being racist and violent, shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

---

We let generations be victims when they deserved to be heroes.

---

You seem to want understanding and validation for your sexuality. You won't get that from me. But if you want the right to make your own choices as long as you accept responsibility for those choices, count me in.

Which is more important?

I don't care about BLM's "cause," especially since I think it's only cover for their politics. I care about human rights and making sure everyone has them.

Which is more important?

---

See, I don't think there are as many oppressors as you do.

Nor do I think that people should take a back seat to talking and solving things because of their skin color, gender, creed, political affiliation, sexuality, gym membership, or the coffee they like. If there is a problem, let's fix it together and figure out who to blame afterwards.

---

I'm sorry, but this keeps getting more abstract.

What I saw was two groups using violence. One was condemned and the other was not. Both have highly racist members. Both have said and done some despicable things.

Why is the one group that has bigger numbers, much better funding, better political connections called the oppressed and therefore allowed violence without comment?

---

I don't approve of violence, particularly against bystanders. I said that in the original article.

But if you are going to overlook the violence of one group because they are oppressed, those same standards apply even more against the neo-Nazis. BLM is less oppressed by almost every measure you can name.

You keep excusing BLM and antifa's behavior. I don't. Not because I support the neo-Nazis, but because any excuse for violence is wrong. The fact that many BLM leaders are actively and openly racist and that BLM is constantly involved in violence even without neo-Nazis is enough to tell me that BLM is just another gang demanding tribute. Just as people were wrong to support the KKK in it's heyday, people are wrong to support BLM today.

---

I'm saying that by the standards that you yourself used, the neo-Nazis are more oppressed than BLM is. Do I agree? No. Do I think that the racism and violence of the neo-Nazis is despicable? Yes. Do I think that the racism and violence of BLM is despicable? Yes.

BLM shouldn't get a free pass. Excusing behavior usually encourages more bad behavior.

In this specific case, I think BLM and antifa came spoiling for a fight and they want moral justification.

---

Pardon, this conversation was never about white privilege.

It was never about me denying that people are oppressed. It was never about me, period. What we have is two groups that have used violence and racism. Violence and racism are terrible things.

One group gets excused and the other does not.

Yet the bigger group, the better funded group, the group with the better political connections, the group with academic support, blames the other for all the violence and racism **People deliberately excuse them from the consequences.** They get what they want with minimal costs. This leads to further bad behavior. Which is then excused.

I've pointed out that it was good intentions of the FedGov that has kept people trapped in poverty and crime. I can't and won't be responsible for something that happened before I was born. As a libertarian, I won't take responsibility for government failure. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, that's the history that I can do something about.

It's not about me. It's about the behavior I've seen and experienced.

There's a story about how after the assassination of MLK, Jesse Jackson came out waving a bloody shirt. The shirt didn't belong to Dr. King, it couldn't have given the timing. Yet there was Jackson, waving the shirt, accusing everyone in sight. Because even if they had nothing to do with the shooting, they should have done something. Even if it wasn't possible, they should have done something, faster, louder.

Jackson was aiming to be the new face of civil rights, and unfortunately he mostly succeeded. He turned it into an extortion racket in the 1970s and 1980s. If Jackson said that company X was racially insensitive, the company paid him off and he said the company had mended their ways.

That's how I see BLM, only with more thugs.

In Shelby Steele's White Guilt, he argues that the real problem is not racial oppression but white guilt. There are many people who have gotten power and money exploiting that guilt. I won't be a party to it.

You seem like a nice enough person. You and I are not going to agree on this issue. We can't even agree on what the issue is. I do think your heart is in the right place.❞❞

Tags: equality ∙ privilege ∙ fIght ∙ BLM movement ∙ oppression ∙ Jim Crow ∙ prison population ∙ family ∙ Inner city ∙ single mother households ∙ public housing ∙ license ∙ peer review ∙ critical race theory ∙ George Orwell ∙ sociology ∙ collective guilt ∙ Star Parker ∙ Thomas Sowell ∙ sexuality ∙ violence ∙ Antifa ∙ white privilege ∙ Jesse Jackson ∙ Shelby Steele

What is to stop someone else from deciding that it's a good cause to thump you over the head? Once the excuses start, what's to protect you from the politics of the day?

Tags: baseball bat ∙ violence ∙ right cause ∙ justified ∙ libertarian ∙ non-aggression principle ∙ progressive ∙ pagan ∙ Republican ∙ religion ∙ Charlottesville ∙ H.L. Mencken ∙ bilagáana ∙ Navajo reservation ∙ Four Corners ∙ marginalization of minorities ∙ Antifa ∙ black bloc ∙ violence justified ∙ morally justified ∙ Tef Poe ∙ Yusra Khogali ∙ racism

I don't think religion belongs in the public schools. Public schools are compulsory, students can't walk away if they do not agree.

Tags: faith ∙ path ∙ public schools ∙ compulsory ∙ Christianity

❝❝Let me point out that tax exempt status is at best a "devil's trade." In exchange for the tax deduction, the organizations (and sometimes the officers) lose their political voice and the IRS gets itemized lists of what was donated and who donated it.

There's also the small bit that if there are tax deductions, then by definition taxes are too high.

However, “Religion cannot be allowed the coercive power of government. Government cannot be allowed the moral justification of religion.”

---

The 1st Amendment doesn't deal with subsets. The incredibly ironic bit is the history of churches in American politics, particularly the abolitionist movement.

I didn't say it was a complete list, I said it was an itemized list. It is enough to find "known associates" though.

Tax deductions are evidence that taxes are too high. It's also evidence of diverting capital, taking it away from unapproved activities and moving it towards approved activities. There's more, but it involves a long examination of progressive tax systems and it won't add anything but noise to our conversation.

---

Abraham Keteltas, Samuel West, Jonathan Mayhew, Peter Muhlenberg, and Samuel Cooper were just some of the colonial era ministers. In England for a while, the American Revolution was called the Presbyterian Revolution because so many Presbyterian pastors were involved.

But the abolitionist movement and the American Civil War was when things really got going. Look at names like John Todd, Joshua Leavitt, Benjamin Bradford, Luther Lee, and Samuel Salisbury. Without these men and their churches, the abolitionist movement would never have blossomed. Christians aren't perfect and I am certainly a critic. But it took British and American Christians to end the slave trade, they deserve credit for that.

The 1950s-1960s civil rights movement was heavily rooted in churches, especially in the American south.

As I said, the tax exempt status is a "devil's trade" intended in large part to silence churches.

---

I provided examples which at the very least would have violated the propaganda restrictions of the Johnson amendment if it had been in effect then. Yet those are a valued part of American history and important benchmarks in religious freedom.

A little further examination would have shown that American churches and synagogues have traditionally called politicos out on bad ideas and bad behavior.

---

It's not about "prophesy of the pulpit." It's about moral authority. Ideas like liberty, revolution, and slavery were talked about during worship. In those days more than anything else including the press, worship is where those ideas were set out in detail by men who made their living communicating well and clearly. I admit it's a part of history that is often overlooked, but it exists none the less.

Take a closer look. The Johnson amendment covers both endorsement and anti-endorsement, intervening in political campaigns is prohibited. It also limits lobbying, propaganda, and other political activity.

Pagans of all people know what a bad idea it is when a politico wraps themselves in the flag and waves holy writ as justification.

BTW, I have to give you points for that phrase "prophesy of the pulpit." It's poetic if not exactly accurate in this case.

---

You're right, that part of the law is seldom enforced. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

So here is my next question. If the law as it exists is so potentially prone to abuse even as it is not enforced, why does the Johnson amendment exist?

My theory is that it was one of Johnson's infamous deals. In the early 1950s, the modern civil rights movement was just getting started, but the split was already there. It's a little inaccurate, but I call the two sides the MLK side and the Malcolm X side. Later the Malcolm X side was dominated by the Black Panthers, but that part of the story isn't necessary for our discussion here.

The MLK side wanted to work within the system making sure that existing law was enforced. The Malcolm X side relied on direct confrontation to create radical change and separate from the US if necessary. There was rivalry between the two sides, and at the time no one was sure which side would dominate. Johnson saw the potential need for what today we would call the nuclear option. As long as everything proceeded peacefully, the government would never need to use the stick. Meanwhile, everything was nicely registered and reported to the government, "just in case."

It wasn't the first time the IRS was used to monitor Americans and it wouldn't be the last.

---

You're right. I should have said existing Constitutional law, that was my mistake.

That wasn't the only operational difference, but it certainly was one of the most important. Bryan Burrough points out in Days of Rage that some "blacks" were disappointed as more moved north and they didn't instantly get more of what they felt had been denied them.

Existing state and local law in the south supported segregation, most Federal law did not. It varied in other states, not so much in the West but heavy in union states. When Truman reversed Wilson's segregation of the armed forces, the writing was on the wall.

---

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate free speech?

Under what part of the 1st Amendment is Congress granted the power to regulate religion?

Yet the Johnson amendment does both.

Which tax argument? The fact that deductions mean that taxes are too high? Or that government uses a progressive tax code to encourage some behaviors and discourage others?

Can you show that either argument is BS?

---

Actually it does.

The perception in America is that you are not a "real" church unless you have tax exempt certification. Just like a few years back when conservative groups were having problems getting 503 certification, most people don't want to give money unless they know that the IRS is not going to audit them. The easy path is to do what the government tells you to do. That is not necessarily the right thing. Once a group has the certification, they are bound by the regulations if they wish to keep the majority of their donors. Those regulations are subject to change at any time, and have gotten more restrictive since the Johnson amendment was passed.

Every dollar that the government collects in taxes reduces individual purchasing power. Regardless of what some experts will tell you, the economy is driven by the individual buying goods and services and not by government regulation. More money, more purchases (or savings). Less money, more credit, less purchases and less savings.

Even if you think that only the "rich" pay higher taxes, that means less money for things like jobs, equipment, and expansion. That means less economic growth.

The second order effects of special taxes can be even worse. A few decades ago, Congress put out a luxury tax on high end planes, yachts, high end boats, and cars. All those industries took a major hit. Building and storing yachts and high end boats still haven't recovered.

It gets worse. Thanks to payroll withholding and "standard" deductions, the government effectively gives itself no-interest loans from your money. Multiply that by a hundred million or so and you get into some serious cash.

These are examples from taxes. I haven't discussed currency manipulation (inflation) or spending.

---

"Surely by your argument, there should be no tax exempt organizations at all, because the very existence of them proves taxes are too high."

Yes.

At the very least, no tax exempt organizations would mean fewer bureaucrats to monitor compliance and regulate.

"Government money goes back into the community and absolutely does stimulate economic growth."

It does that by displacing private investment. Private money wants a return on investment, which means maintaining facilities and periodic upgrades. Except for corporatism, companies stay in business by making their products better, cheaper, and more available.

"The rich actually mostly sock money away…"

Um, no they don't. There isn't a money vault or a stuffed mattress, smart people put their money to work. Some buy stocks, some buy bonds, some invest in companies. Unless the money earns a higher yield than the rate of inflation and the tax rate, it's worth less.

"…and pay LOWER taxes than the rest of us…"

According to the National Taxpayer Union Foundation, in 2014 the top ten percent of income earners paid 70.88% of the income tax. The top fifty percent of income earners paid 97.25% of the income tax.

Spending is not the same as taxing. Government at all levels has done a rotten job of maintaining facilities, much less upgrading them. Private ownership does wonders, as things like the Empire State Building show.

Government usually puts money aside for infrastructure and then diverts the money into more "essential" things. It's one of the oldest tricks in government accounting. Then more money is "needed."

What's more, government is a lousy judge of where to spend and what to spend it on. Just as one example, less than a handful of VA hospitals are worth it, but we keep tossing more and more money at the problem.❞❞