Friday, May 22, 2015

Glenn Beck Supports Legalization of Drugs

Glenn Beck has finally come around, it appears.

I changed over to supporting the legalization of all drugs a few years back. My rationale is this: first, how would American life be different from the pervasive use of illegal drugs currently? It very likely would improve. Second, the drug war is both a lost cause and an incredibly expensive, deadly, and discriminatory abuse of power. Third, if there are to be drug laws they should be focused on crimes committed during drug use, and distribution to minors, and further, the punishment for both should be severe and removal from society should be for long durations. Fourth, the national wealth now squandered on the drug war should be refocused onto addiction research, prevention and, of course, treatment.

I believe that jails and prisons should be emptied of convicted drug abusers. Even drug pushers should be released if they committed no other crimes.

Ending the drug war by legalizing the drugs would also reduce other crimes which are currently associated with drug use and distribution. It would likely create a new industry similar to the alcohol manufacturing and distribution industry, which is regulated and prohibits abuse under the influence (although not severely enough).

Users will always use. That is a fact which, while sad, is incorrigible and intractable no matter how much national wealth is squandered trying to counter it.

I also changed my mind on capital punishment long ago, primarily due to the inadequacy of the justice system to provide actual justice. However, I'm close to thinking that capital punishment would be deserved for corrupting children by providing them with drugs. Even so, due to the flaws in the prosecutorial and judicial systems in the USA, I still would not support capital punishment for any reason, given that severe terms of removal from society would suffice to remove the threat to society.

SJWs Prepare a New War On American Rights

From Ed Morrissey:
"Last month, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman reported that backers of same-sex marriage laws will shift their efforts, now that it appears that courts are ready to impose a constitutional right to state recognition of those relationships. The big activists behind the legislative and court fight will start taking aim at other laws, especially those which allow for dissent and choice on participation in such events. The idea is to “protect people from prejudice” on the basis of sexual identity and orientation:"
The NYT, Maggie Haberman:
Gay Marriage Backers to Finance Anti-Discrimination Efforts

"The new effort, Freedom for All Americans — a $5 million-a-year campaign over the next five years — is predicated on the fights around gay marriage, which played out state by state until reaching the Supreme Court in a fight that, advocates hope, will legalize same-sex marriage nationally.

The idea behind FFAA is to eventually get a major federal nondiscrimination bill that protects people from prejudice based on sexuality and gender identity."
Like all things Leftist, the title is Orwellian and means the opposite from its claim. It is really a thought-crime law intended to push morals out altogether.

From The Federalist, Stella Morabito:
LGBT Activists Arm For Further War On Free Speech

" On the surface, this “Freedom for All” slogan sounds innocuous, almost like motherhood (to borrow a quaint notion). Who would ever support discrimination? But this is not your grandfather’s (another quaint notion) Civil Rights Act. Because that old notion of civil rights was back in the days when the First Amendment remained intact for all to enjoy. …

One of the coordinators of the project, hedge fund manager Dan Loeb, told The New York Times that pushing for these laws is “critical in order to change understanding against gays.” In other words, the laws themselves are supposed to lead to a change in the public attitudes. Can laws really do this?

Notwithstanding the awkward construction, Loeb’s statement is loaded. To claim that more anti-discrimination laws are “critical in order to change understanding against gays” basically reveals that the professed purpose of these laws is coercive thought reform.

Laws intended to change how individuals think—about anything—require enforced silencing. If the “Freedom for All Americans” meme is about freedom (which it’s not), then it’s only about negative freedom. That is, freedom from “discrimination.” Freedom from “hate.” Which basically gives carte blanche to those holding power (ultimately, the state) to define and cherry pick whatever “discrimination” and “hate” may mean before granting whatever due process is left over for the accused.

So laws of this sort, hiding under the fig leaf of “anti-discrimination,” will give the state the power to police speech and behaviors."
Ed Morrisey is reminded of the Sedition Act of 1918:
"What would have happened had we carved out this rather large exception to the First Amendment in, say, 1945? Had we handed the government the power to determine which speech was “hateful” and which was allowable at that point, would the civil rights movement succeeded as it did? Or would government have simply jailed people for upsetting others through their speech, imprisoning them for “hating” America as it was at that time?

For that matter, consider the anti-war movement that followed that era, in opposition to the Vietnam conflict. How would that movement, with its “America – love it or leave it” counter-response, have unfolded if the federal government decided that it was “hate speech” directed against the military? That could be considered a fair description of a significant amount of that rhetoric at the time.

Some will scoff at that hypothetical, but it actually did take place – fifty years earlier. The Sedition Act of 1918 did precisely that at the end of World War I, and the US prosecuted people for their dissent to the war. Railroad tycoon William Edenborn was arrested for scoffing at the idea that Germany could threaten the national security of the US in much the same manner as others do today about radical jihad in the Middle East."
The continuing destruction of Constitutional rights and liberty values is the natural outcome of AtheoLeftism. Atheism focuses on the destruction of social standards which are not its own, situational (personally adjudicated by the elite Atheist), and therefore totalitarian. The suppression of the Other is being forced currently by anti-triggering and anti-privilege warfare being not only encouraged but enforced in major universities, where diversity is only skin deep - literally. For a movement in which dogmatic narrative is supreme, diversity in thought is seditious to the narrative. Diversity of thought, therefore, must be destroyed. And first to go is freedom of speech.

Actually the very first to go has been the teaching of actual history, where free speech played an important role in the pursuit of liberty. But liberty for all is not the objective; liberty for the elite at the expense of the Other is the objective, with the Other now defined as immoral (even in thought) under the new morality which the elites are intent upon codifying into laws of persecution.

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Demonstrations as Organized Theater - And Stiffing the Actors

Demonstrators occupied M.O.R.E. this week, and demanded their pay for demonstrating in Ferguson.

Staging Riots

"I mention the sad state of American journalism because yesterday we got a fleeting glimpse of the tip of what I believe is a very large iceberg; and, if there were any investigative journalists left, they could really go to town.

Yesterday, Katie Pavlich, Debra Heine, and Ed Driscoll drew our attention to a demonstration, unmentioned in the mainstream media, that took place in St. Louis and eventuated in the occupation of the offices of an outfit called MORE – Missourians for Organizing Reform and Empowerment. MORE is an offshoot of ACORN, and it is funded in part by George Soros’ omnipresent Open Society Institute (which has spent something like $5 billion supporting such outfits in recent years).

What makes this particular demonstration newsworthy is the fact that the demonstrators were demanding that they be paid, as promised, for the work they did in organizing demonstrations in Ferguson last summer. Here is part of what Debra Heine reports:
According to the January tax filings of his nonprofit Open Society Foundations, Mr. Soros gave at least $33 million in one year to support already-established groups to organize on-the-ground activists in Ferguson. Two of those organizations, MORE (Missourians Organizing For Reform and Empowerment) and OBS (Organization for Black Struggle) have been financing #BlackLivesMatter protests in Ferguson and elsewhere. That is – those organizations actually pay people to show up at venues to do their clapping, chanting, and sign waving routines.

Think a bit about this. In recent years – since Barack Obama took office – we have witnessed a great deal of thuggish conduct. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? The demonstrations that the community-relations division of the Department of Justice helped organize against George Zimmerman in Florida? The riots in Ferguson, Missouri? The disruptive demonstrations in the Supreme Court building regarding Citizens United as the court began its last session? Those that recently interrupted Senate hearings? The demonstrations in New York and Boston that took place in the wake of Eric Garner’s death? And the recent riots in Baltimore?

The press has treated all of these as a series of spontaneous eruptions occasioned by understandable outrage on the part of the demonstrators. What we learned yesterday shows that much of what happened in Ferguson was theater."
It's now common knowledge that the Left, being without actual morals outside of class war, produces people who are phony liars, and who do not honor debts (such as taxes) if there's any way to get out of it.

And this reminds me of Rage Boy, the professional rage-meister.

Gay Editor of OUT Mag Suggests Less Gay Hysteria and is Met With Gay Hysteria

This NSF Work link is to an article in what apparently is a homosexual soft porn mag:
Pizza, With a Side of Gay Shame

" We act like petty tyrants exploding in anger whenever someone says something that falls foul of approved policy. Increasingly, of course, the targets of that anger are other LGBT people, because that is the way tyranny works — the enemy eventually becomes anyone who is not on exactly the same page, exactly the same word, at exactly the same time. It makes us less compassionate, less generous. Is gay-friendly macaroni and wedding pizza really worth that? "
While it is interesting that he is making a case for less intolerance from homosexuals, what is more interesting is the homosexual response in his comment section, including the suggestion that his magazine be boycotted. As even the author admits, the tyrants will always wind up eating their own (no pun intended). And they readily assert the combination card of Victimhood/Messiahism in the process. Homosexuals know that they are a separate class and they will use class warfare forever, relentlessly and intolerantly bullying dissenters to their values-free moral positioning. And now that there no longer exists any actual designation of sexual malbehavior as being indicative of a disorder, and laws to back that up, no amount of sexual depravity can be criticized any longer. The Kinsey spectrum of normal behaviors is at full tide, and one risks severe legal punishment to go against it. Including homosexuals who unwisely preach tolerance.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Another Quote of the Day

SO HILLARY’S SCANDALS ARE ANCIENT HISTORY, BUT SLAVERY IS AS FRESH AS TODAY! DOJ Official: Slavery to Blame for Riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.
Well, slavery, the KKK and Jim Crow were Democrat hallmarks and constructs. So are Baltimore and Ferguson. So the actual analysis would be that Democrats are the problem, since they are involved at every level of the suppression of blacks, from slavery, up until the soft slavery of the Democrat welfare state and the Democrat class/identity war.

NY Atheists Complain About Street Name Which Is "Insulting"

NY atheists demand sign honoring 9-11 firefighters be removed

"Fox News radio reports Tuesday that a group of atheists are demanding the City of New York remove a street sign that pays homage to seven heroic firefighters who were killed in the Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks.

The street - dedicated last weekend outside the Brooklyn firehouse where the firefighters once served - was christened "Seven in Heaven Way." Fox News reports that the "ceremony was attended by dozens of firefighters, city leaders and widows of the fallen men."

It's the word "heaven" that has the atheists in an uproar. According to them, that word violates separation of church and state.

“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists, who objects to the use of the word heaven. “It’s really insulting to us,” he added.

“We’ve concluded as atheists there is no heaven and there’s no hell,” he explained.

That, to him, makes it a “totally religious statement." "It’s a question of separation of church and state,” he said.

Bronstein didn't care that the sign was honoring fallen heroes.

Fox News Radio reported:
David Silverman, president of American Atheists, agreed and called on the city to remove the sign.

“It implies that heaven actually exists,” Silverman told Fox News Radio. “People died in 9-11 but they were all people who died, not just Christians. Heaven is a specifically Christian place. For the city to come up and say all those heroes are in heaven now, it’s not appropriate.”

“All memorials for fallen heroes should celebrate the diversity of our country and should be secular in nature. These heroes might have been Jews, they might have been atheists, I don’t know but either way it’s wrong for the city to say they’re in heaven. It’s preachy.”
But city leaders contend the group had an opportunity to express their opinion during the public approval process.

Craig Hammerman, the district manager for Brooklyn Community Board Six said that "not a single person stood up to speak out against it."

“It’s unfortunate that they didn’t raise this as an issue while it was undergoing its public review either at the community board level or when it came before the city council on their public agenda,” he said, noting that "it’s a little late in the process" for the complaint to be made now.

Perhaps, but the atheists would get more press coverage by whining about the sign after it's already in place."
So. They are perpetually insulted by any government action which is not specifically Atheist... because they have concluded that there is no heaven or hell.

Maybe we need a "separation of Atheism and state" amendment.

American Atheists Are Radicalizing Around Their Cartoon

American Atheist Al Stefanelli creates a Straw Christian to hate, and incite others to hate:
American Atheist leader says fundamentalist Christians 'must be eradicated'

"In a shocking blog post at, Al Stefanelli, Georgia State Director of American Atheists, Inc., calls for the eradication of "individuals who abide by fundamentalist Christian and radical Islamic doctrines."

"They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns and they must, must, must be eradicated," he writes.

He goes on to write:
As long as they are allowed to exist, we will continue to be inundated with accounts of buses, buildings, markets and abortion clinics being blown up, rape victims being murdered for adultery, wives being beaten (sometimes to death), airplanes being flown into buildings, people being tortured and sometimes beheaded for blasphemy, people being burned for witchcraft and sorcery and all the other horrific, inhumane and insane practices that are part of fundamental Christianity and Radical Islam.
While it is true that many terror attacks have been carried out by radical Islamists, the same absolutely cannot be said of those who currently follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in the United States. The last judicial execution for witchcraft in the United States, for example, was in 1692, according to

Naturally, Stefanelli did not cite any examples of Christians actually participating in such acts, but he does single out what he calls "idiotic, ignorant and imbicillic politicians and celebrities like Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Pawlenty and Santorum."

But who, exactly, is Stefanelli targeting?
"Most of the GOP, just about all of the Tea Party movement and even some Democrats and Independents," he writes, adding they "should be ashamed of themselves for going out in public wearing the equivalent of an intellectual diaper."

Because they have the audacity to believe what their religious doctrine teaches.

He smears religious people as lacking "the maturity and intelligence to act in a socially acceptable manner," calling them "sociopaths," "psychopaths," and claims "all of them are clearly delusional."

He claims:
The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along. They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.
While one could easily make the argument regarding radical Muslims who have, in fact, flown airplanes into buiildings (Google "9/11") and beheaded people for being "infidels," the same cannot be said for modern-day Christians. Again, Stefanelli provides no proof of his assertions.

Billy Hallowell of The Blaze observes:
He encourages “mainstream believers” within both faiths to be “intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam.” Based on his writings it seems Stefanelli also takes issue with atheists and non-believers who are content accepting the beliefs of those he finds so unintellectual and radical.
Ironically, while calling for the eradication of those who follow their religious beliefs, Stefanelli writes in response to a comment calling him out for his violent rhetoric:
"It is most certainly NOT a call for violence. Not once did I ever suggest that we use weapons, violence or physical contact. Not once. Nor did I say we be “mean” to them," he wrote.
No, he just doesn't think these people have a right to exist, and they "must, must, must be eradicated." No violence or 'meanness' implied there.

"These are not the droids you are looking for.""

Mikey Weinstein Wants USAF General Court Marshalled for Christian Testimony

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation wants Air Force General court-martialed for his claim of being a Christian at a National Prayer Day event.

Air Force general who spoke of God should be court-martialed, group says

"An Air Force general who recently spoke about how God has guided his career should be court-martialed, a civil liberties group is saying.

In a speech at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7, Maj. Gen. Craig Olson credits God for his accomplishments in the military, and refers to himself as a “redeemed believer in Christ.”

The Air Force Times reports that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has taken issue with Olson’s remarks, is calling for the two-star general to be court-martialed and "aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions."

The group authored a letter to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Walsh, arguing that Olson’s speech violates rules within the Air Force, which prohibits airmen from endorsing a particular faith or belief.

The letter, posted on the group’s website, begins, “This demand letter is sent to you on behalf of countless members of the United States Air Force who are utterly disgusted and shocked by the brazenly illicit and wholly unconstitutional, fundamentalist Christian proselytizing recently perpetrated, on international television (“GOD TV”), and streaming all over the Internet and in full military uniform, by USAF Major General Craig S. Olson on Thursday, May 7, 2015 during a VERY public speech for a private Christian organization (The “National Day of Prayer Task Force”: NDPTF) headed up by Focus on the Family founder, Dr. James Dobson’s, wife Shirley Dobson.“
While speaking as a Christian to Christians hardly constitutes proselytizing, the Air Force has been very flaky about religious freedom for Airmen. So this will be interesting to watch.

Quote of the Day

HOPEY-CHANGEY: White House steps up warnings about terrorism on U.S. soil. It used to be “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Now, I guess, it’s “since we’re retreating over there, we’d better get ready to fight them here.”
Also, we opened the borders to them and bused them all over the nation. Well, not "we": Obama did that. By now they all have driver's licenses, Social Security and Obamacare, and have voted for Democrats as many times as they could.

Monday, May 18, 2015

Fine Examples of Engineering

Embrace the defects, and use them creatively:
The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades

Here's a Living Concrete That Repairs Itself
I love this stuff.

The Credulous Evolutionist, an Ongoing View

The question is this: Why are there any men, anyway?
Scientists examine why men even exist
It's actually a good question because it throws the "fittest" element into a tailspin when considering that roughly half of human and sexual creatures do not produce offspring. Why not stick with the prior scheme of having each and every creature try to preserve its own heritable line by producing offspring directly, rather than cutting the likelihood in half?

But this experiment fails in its hypothesis stage. It proposes, and implements experiments to see if NOT having sexual selection would be... bad. And that is what they find: populations (of beetles) with no selection go extinct, while those with selection do not.

But here's the hitch: how would populations get to the point of selection if they are rapidly going extinct? How would they know to split into sexes to protect their futures? And how would they just up and do it, and then get selected for it?

In other words, there is intelligent forward-looking (teleology) involved if the excuse for the existence of sexual reproduction is that the species wanted to protect against build-up of deleterious mutations and consequential extinction, by using the tactic of halving the number of reproducers to induce genetic diversity. So that cannot be the reason for the development of sexual reproduction, at least under the deterministic, materialistic dictates of Darwinian evolution. The incredible simultaneous increase in complexity which necessarily accompanies sexual reproduction and the associated developmental issues with offspring which are not immediately adults, as are the offspring of the dividing species. There might be exceptions, but I can't think of a sexual species which produces an adult immediately upon fertilization.

As for men, the male will be obsolete when the artificial sperm is perfected, and a buffet of perfect DNA is available to seed it. Female orgasms can be produced by other females, of course, as well as machines. But the final necessary hitch will be in the suppression of heterosexual proclivities in women. When that is accomplished, males will be unnecessary and will be bred out of the DNA altogether. And because I have said all this and declared that it is plausible and feasible, that makes it science fact. Thus not believing it is heresy, and mental illness (denial).

The real questions are these: When there are no men, will some women still wear make-up and 9 inch heels? Will some still whine about inequality of pay? Will they fight the wars against the hordes of primitives which still have males? What would an all-female war look like? I'd like to know. (I envision Sigourney Weaver in Alien...)

Dueling Pejoratives: The Climate Ad Hominem War

The Left has long called dissenters "climate deniers" and "science deniers", in an attempt to connect with the earlier charges of "holocaust denier" which is an obvious moral failure.
There's no denying this label packs a political punch

""The word "denial" -- meaning refusal or withholding -- entered the English language from Old French hundreds of years ago, but it gained linguistic muscle with A.A. Brill's translation of the Austrian father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, in the early 20th century.

Denial, or Verneinung in Freud's German, came to mean refusing to acknowledge a painful or uncomfortable truth, despite overwhelming evidence.

In politics, there was "Holocaust denial," "moon-landing denial" and "evolution denial" -- all flowing from Freud, with its implications not only of untruth but of mental illness.

And now the word's in the center ring of the global warming fight: "climate denial."

"Climate change has always been a kind of a framing war," said George Marshall, founder of the Climate Outreach Information Network in Great Britain and the author of the book "Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change." "If you can get out there and you can get your language inserted into the discourse, it's your ideas that dominate."

Marshall and co-author Mark Lynas published the first reference to "climate denier" in the English-language press in a 2003 op-ed they wrote for the left-leaning magazine The New Statesman.

They wanted those words to sting.
But now the skeptics can fight back in a similar fashion, using "climate jihadi" as a reference to the eliminationist, religious cultist fervor of the warmists.
At the mercy of the climate jihadists

"To satisfy the gentry’s urgent need to feel noble and better than others, we are embarked on an ever-more extreme jihad to battle global warming, with the state, pursuant to an executive order from Gov. Jerry Brown, committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 – versus the previous mandate of reaching 1990 levels by 2020. It seems clear that we are about to wage a war of increasing intensity on climate change, surely not at the expense of depriving Google executives and other oligarchs their private jets, but certainly down to the last affordable single-family house or decent factory job."

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Schools to Teach "Gender Fluidity"

They WILL NOT stop until the children are maleducted properly:
Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity

"One of the nation’s largest public school systems is preparing to include gender identity to its classroom curriculum, including lessons on sexual fluidity and spectrum – the idea that there’s no such thing as 100 percent boys or 100 percent girls.

Fairfax County Public Schools released a report recommending changes to their family life curriculum for grades 7 through 12. The changes, which critics call radical gender ideology, will be formally introduced next week.

“The larger picture is this is really an attack on nature itself – the created order,” said Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council.

“Human beings are created male and female. But the current transgender ideology goes way beyond that. They’re telling us you can be both genders, you can be no gender, you can be a gender that you make up for yourself. And we’re supposed to affirm all of it.”

The plan calls for teaching seventh graders about transgenderism and tenth graders about the concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum --- but it sure smells like unadulterated sex indoctrination.

Get a load of what the kids are going to be learning in middle school:

“Students will be provided definitions for sexual orientation terms heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality; and the gender identity term transgender,” the district’s recommendations state. “Emphasis will be placed on recognizing that everyone is experiencing changes and the role of respectful, inclusive language in promoting an environment free of bias and discrimination.”

Eighth graders will be taught that individual identity “occurs over a lifetime and includes the component of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

“Individual identity will also be described as having four parts – biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role, and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual).”

The district will also introduce young teenagers to the “concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum.” By tenth grade, they will be taught that one’s sexuality “develops throughout a lifetime.”

“Emphasis will be placed on an understanding that there is a broader, boundless, and fluid spectrum of sexuality that is developed throughout a lifetime,” the document states. “Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

As you might imagine – parents are freaking out."
This is directly pursuant to the Alfred Kinsey dictation that all sexuality is "normal" and exists on a continuous spectrum of acceptable behaviors. Kinsey, of course, engaged in those behaviors when he and his staff swapped wives, engaged in homosexuality, and who knows what... all in the name of "science" of course. Since Kinsey and his staff enjoyed such bacchanalia, that behavior became approved for everyone: it's science.

"Progressives" and Truth