Tag: Conservative Opinion

By on

Newt Gingrich believes that Former President Barack Obama is running the Biden Presidency behind the scenes. Just in case you didn’t hear it, and I am sure because she wants to keep the American public informed on all the scuttlebutt in Washington, Megan Kelley passes along this little tidbit in a discussion she was having with another reporter. Neither one provided a bit of evidence that this was indeed what was happening. Never mind, it is vitally important to feed conspiracies to the hungry Right-Wing mob. They have difficulty holding up their pitchforks without a daily does of conspiracy.

Since they are purposefully vague about what Obama is actually doing, I am trying to identify what the actual problem is. If they mean that Biden is appointing the same people Obama worked with in his term. So what? Isn’t that standard operating procedures here? A new Democratic President will obviously use experienced Democratic operatives from a previous Democratic President in their appointments. If they are saying that Obama secretly jumps the White House fence every night so he can run the government while Biden sits drooling in his wheelchair, then I think they need to provide some details backing this speculation.

This innocent passing along of speculation because it it important for the public to know is just bull shit. The media loves it and, of course, will pass the scoop along with nary a second thought. They love controversy and if people provide them with controversies, they will publish it. Why, if people are talking about it, then it is news and it would be an absolute disservice to the American Public to keep such important information from them.

I don’t know about you but I am not sure passing along gossip counts as meaningful dialogue or responsible behavior. Perhaps one of the reasons that the American public holds the press and the government in such low regard is their questionable behavior in supplying the American Public with evidence about what they are saying.

For the record, I have absolutely no facts to back up what I am saying but I think it is really important to get this unsubstantiated information out there because it might be true and it is vitally important that the American Public weigh in on my idle speculation. It could be important or it could light a fuse to a keg of dynamite, who am I to judge, I am just telling you what I’ve heard.

By on

Elon Musk thinks that the collapse of babies being born is a bigger concern than global warming. He is not alone. Many Conservative and Libertarian men share this concern. China, the second heaviest populated country, and until just a short time ago, the heaviest populated country in the world, has begun a population reversal. So what? Well, given all the present data, China will suffer a population collapse do to this reversal. Again, so what? China is also a country that many of these same men ascribe as the author of many of the evils in the present world, isn’t that a good thing. No, you see, the problem plagues much of Southern Europe (Spain, Italy and Bulgaria) and Eastern Asia (Japan and South Korea). The West is beginning to lose population as well.

I am still unmoved. Well, then think about the economy which depends upon consumers buying products, you idiot. If there are less consumers, there are less customers for the products business is selling. So that’s the real problem money. I should have guessed. The worry is that the combined problem of an overburdened social security system and the lack of new customers will undermine Western economies.

This is irritating for a number of reasons. Predictions based on present data is quite often wrong which is, again, something that these Conservative men should understand. They are constantly making this same claim when discussing Global Warming. Sometimes these predictions just don’t pan out. For example, many demographers in the 1940s were predicting a low population growth in the USA for the 1950’s based on the low birth rates of the 1930’s, instead they got a Baby Boom. The explanation is simple. Parents of the 1930’s were reacting to the Depression, while parents of the 1950’s were reacting to the post-World War II economic boom. People make different decisions when their circumstances change.

If women knew it was an essential for the continuation of civilization as we know it, then they might be prone to having children, until then I think a few less people being born might be something to give a little time to get used to and see what happens. Perhaps, the ever ingenious human being will come up with an alternate way to live other than consumer consumption of mostly useless products for an endlessly expanding population.

Instead of thinking about these new possibilities, these free thinkers are slyly going after abortion and birth control. David Strom, pro-life writer, recently gloried that more babies are being born in Texas population since the reversal of Roe v Wade. So then he celebrates the birth of 10,000 babies while ignoring the women who gave birth to these babies. At best this is a morally ambiguous achievement. A woman is being forced into having a baby against her will, a reasonable person might also show some sympathy for the women put in this position. He doesn’t. Furthermore, the Roe decision also has emboldened anti-birth control advocates to step up their efforts to make birth control more difficult to obtain. Yes, and, also they are going after a women’s right to vote. The real goal here is obvious — keeping women barefoot, pregnant and powerless.

With all these efforts to make women mothers, you would think that the Republicans would try to make motherhood more attractive. They aren’t. A good example of this penchant for stopping government involved in anything even if it would help potential mothers is a recent development in Idaho where the Republican dominated legislature there decided to stop tracking maternal health mortality program. There isn’t enough money and, besides, the government should be involved in learning more about public health problems. Right. Message received.

So, to summarize, the world needs more babies. Women aren’t stepping up and having them. Governments need to make it more difficult to obtain abortions and birth-control in order to make this happen. And, no, the Government isn’t going to help women with their health or any of the many expenses a baby might cause her. Well, then, how fucking urgent can it be?

By on

Right now, Conservatives generally run into two types — the raving lunatics who clearly state that the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals or Diversity Training or both. And then there are the intellectuals who hide their lunacy and try to show a reasonable face but who, when all is said and done, are essentially saying the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals and DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Training. The first group is easy to spot because they make no bones about what they are talking about. The second group is a little more difficult because they couch their lunacy with a lot of multi-syllable words, foreign phrases and references to 19th century philosophical debates that have nothing to do with the subject at hand but diverts readers from the madness of the author’s point. Peter Thiel’s recent speech/article regarding diversity falls into this later type of rant.

Thiel’s erudition is indeed impressive. He went to Stanford where he engaged in great philosophical debates. In the process of his education, he co-authored a book called the Diversity Myth. He says he made some important points there but I am not sure what they are because he fails to review them and assumes that everyone knows what he is talking about. I didn’t. But, if you were to ask me, I think that he is against diversity training of any kind. Most importantly, Thiel made a billion or so making some smart moves in Tech.

Since Thiel is a billionaire, people take him seriously. He tries to be serious in this article and his initial point is worth looking at. He thinks that people are being distracted from the real problems in Academia by focusing on DEI. There is something to be said for that position. Budgets need to be allocated based on highest priorities. The university’s core mission is Education and Research. If DEI is draining limited resources from Education and Research, then, perhaps, the universities should reexamine their priorities. But then Thiel reveals his real worries which is that proponents of DEI are crazy and are destroying university education. He brings up silly classes that have taken root in Academia and the unreasonable rules these administrators are foisting on the schools.

From there, he pivots to how unreasonably expensive the Real Estate market has become in such a short time. Which, yeah, he is right about but how is this relevant to DEI is unclear. How is DEI is affecting the price of real estate? Thiel is not the kind of guy who will let a lack of connection stop him from spreading a good conspiracy theory. He hints that there might be some conspiracy involving bankers and university DEI administrators. At least, I think that it is what he is saying. I’m not sure. It’s all very Washington dark government with enough caution that he could deny any meaning someone has ascribed to him and also be absolutely correct if he likes their interpretation. Are you still with me?

Thiel continues to roll forward with his worries and concerns and even more conspiracy theories. He pivots back to the university. He points to the division of the university — the Humanities and the Sciences. The Humanities, in Thiel’s eyes, is full of crazy people with crazy ideas who have made the Humanities so ridiculous that they are an easy target for conservative critics. But that is not the problem. It is the Sciences that is the better target because the Sciences continue to have some respect within the general public. Conservative critics pretty much leave the Sciences alone because of their strength which is precisely why conservatives should spend some time harping about the Sciences. If conservatives can take down the Sciences, then Humanities and, thus, the university will fall with them. And all will be good with the world.

Where would Thiel attack the Sciences? Thiel believes that scientists within Academia are just scamming for government grants to fund their worthless projects. The science is useless and the scientists are in a massive coverup to hide the uselessness. Again, little evidence is given to back this point. He does point out that a Nobel prize winning scientist believes that in the 50,000 papers on his area of expertise that only about 25 are good. Which sounds about right to me. How many groundbreaking discoveries can there be? I would imagine that most papers would be discussing mundane research topics. Like with most things. There are only so many geniuses around. Someone with an ego like Thiel should already know that. He is just wrong about it. I know this to be a fact because every day I read about new discoveries in science — better cancer treatments, space ships traveling to the far reaches of the solar system and giving the world glimpses of other planets, and a greater understanding of how the body operates and how the earth’s environment works. How could this be if nothing at all is happening in the Sciences?

But let’s get back to DEI. I promise I would like to but I am afraid I am at the mercy of Thiel. He tosses lot of dots into the air, keeps them flying about but he never makes much of an effort to connect them. So, DEI, yeah, well, honestly I don’t have a clue what he is driving at and I read the damn thing twice. I was about to try a third time but I thought Jesus I tried this twice. I am not that dim, he is incoherent. He isn’t going to get any more coherent on a third reading.

Let me end with Thiel’s concluding statement where he completely goes off the rails. Well, not completely, he doesn’t want to shed his seemingly rational front he is working on so, instead, he comes off as confusing. He writes:

“So in conclusion—and this is a simplification, perhaps a distortion, but I think you know what I mean—it would be healthier that, whenever someone mentions DEI, you just think CCP.”

He undermines his own point by saying it is a simplification and perhaps a distortion. So how does this additional information help me help understand what he is saying? If it is a simplification and a distortion maybe Thiel should find a better way of saying it so that it isn’t a simplification and a distortion. Next he assuming I know what DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) mean. I didn’t. Then, I discovered what they did mean and I was even more confused. DEI departments are actually Chinese Communists. WTF. Is he saying that CCP has infiltrated DEI departments in universities to such a degree that the DEI, being an arm of the CCP, is plotting to overthrow of the American government? Or is he saying that the DEI act like the CCP? Either reading seems unsubstantiated from the information Thiel provides.

This seems to be nothing more than a rant with some conspiracy theories gently tossed in so as not to scare away reasonable readers. Yet Thiel ruins it all at the last minute. He couldn’t resist talking crazy It is all good and fine to be critical of universities. Go for it but I thought a tenet of conservative thinking is that reform is better than revolution. Thiel isn’t after reform. No matter how he tries to mute his rant, it is rant – devoid of facts or even a coherent argument, and chockablock full of wild conspiracy theories. It is worrisome that a seemingly rational tech billionaire believes this utter bull shit.

By on

When Paul Pelosi was attacked by a home intruder in October there was some speculation in the Conservative gutter press that he was having a homosexual assignation with the intruder. This speculation was just that — speculation. The police never said sex was involved. Paul Pelosi certainly did not nor did Pelosi’s attacker. But some conservatives never let facts get in the way of malicious speculation. If a Pelosi was involved, there had to be something rotten and, brave souls that they are, they weren’t afraid to speculate how rotten it was.

Amazingly these fevered fanatics, with absolutely no tangible evidence to support them, spun a scandal worth spreading in the press. Pelosi was attacked. He must have deserved it. Pelosi lives in San Francisco a known gay mecca. If San Francisco is in the story, something gay must be afoot. Then Pelosi was in his underwear. Why was Pelosi so scantily clad? Their argument boiled down to a San Francisco man dressed in his underwear was attacked by another man. For them, this screams Gay. Gay. Gay. Based on this slim gruel, they created a lover’s quarrel that ended badly. While wallowing in this sexual scandal they created, they also down played the possibility that the attacker had any political motive even though there was far more evidence to support this version. The attacker is nudist. He is a vegetarian. He lives in the Bay Area. He couldn’t possibly be a right-wing nut.

The conservative press worked on this version of the story. Pelosi was complicit in the attack because he was on the prowl for illicit sex. If Pelosi was made to look guilty of some sin then the attack, while unwarranted, happened because he was looking for sex outside of his marriage. There is, of course, no evidence to support this version. These stewards of morality hinted that maybe if you are looking for sex on the dirty streets of San Francisco, you might deserve what happens to you. The story became Paul Pelosi’s sex life instead of a right-wing nut job attacks Paul Pelosi.

A very crafty move and, in this particular case, it was factually wrong. There is no evidence that any of their story was true. The explanation that the police and Pelosi gave at the time looks to be true. The police recently released the tapes of the attack. The video shows the attacker spewing anti-Pelosi rants. And, if this wasn’t convincing enough, then the attacker proudly goes on Fox News to brag about the attack. From this new evidence, it sounds like the attacker did have political motives for his actions and not personal ones. You would think that would end any further speculation about what happened to Pelosi. And you would be wrong.

Charles Glasser, in his analysis in the conservative blog Instapundit, still maintains nothing refutes the possibility of Pelosi being involved in an affair with his attacker. The attackers diatribe against the Pelosis is ignored while, for some reason, Glasser wants to know more about why Pelosi is in his underwear. It that really that shocking? The attack happened in the early morning. If you broke into my house at 2AM in the morning, you would definitely find me in my underwear. Why does Glasser need more explanation? Why isn’t “I just got out of bed to find out what all the noise was about” enough?

Glasser chooses to believe the speculation while ignoring the facts. He still wants to pursue the sexual encounter story even though there is little evidence to support this story while completely ignoring the plentiful supply of facts that supports that a nut job fueled by right wing hate rhetoric took a hammer to Pelosi’s head. I am not sure why anyone would want to argue about this anymore. Nancy Pelosi is no longer the speaker. This, at best, is a side show. But conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to follow this route. They need to keep the dubious story in play because the truth would raise questions about the violent nature of some individuals on the Republican right wing. This would force them and the press into a different conversation, one they definitely don’t want to have. Better to make Pelosi a closeted gay adulterer than tell the truth.

By on

Michael Walsh, conservative columnist, believes that a repeal of a number of Constitutional Amendments needs to take place in order to save the republic. The 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote is one of the amendments Walsh would like to repeal. In Walsh’s mind, the republic has fallen apart since women received the franchise. Walsh is, or at least I hope, is trolling his audience but it is difficult to discern if this is true because he goes all in for repeal. He wants to limit voters along the lines of ancient Greece and Rome which boils down to two groups — men who have served in the military and male property owners. This, of course, deprives a lot of people the franchise – all women and men who don’t own property — well over fifty percent of the present voting population.

Why Walsh would propose such a repeal is a bit mystifying. Most importantly, it is hugely unpopular. Since women presently have the vote and make up more than 50% of the population, how would this even be enacted in the present system? His very vague plan is that women will willingly surrender the vote when they all have a strong man to care for them. He also dredges up the old canards that women are too fickle and too emotional to be given such an important privilege. For proof of these weaknesses, he goes, again, back to ancient Rome. The Sabine women who were carried off by the Romans interceded to stop the war between their new husbands and their old families. Why women don’t have the sense to leave their kidnappers and rapist to return to their families. Men would never do that.

There are many problems with Walsh’s argument but I will stick to two. He provides no evidence that women are too emotional and too fickle to vote. Or that men only vote based on cold hard data and never let their emotions guide them. He bases is case on old stereotypes about women rather than, how shall I put this delicately, cold hard data. Given his supposition is based on the rational thinking man deserves the vote, he might have, at the very least, thrown is some data that proves his point. He doesn’t. In fact, his is an emotional response to how women vote instead of an exercise in rational thinking. Women vote Democratic and he doesn’t like it. Not liking something without data is just a tantrum but certainly not a demonstration of a reasonable being.

Then Walsh assumes that men took their role as husband and father seriously in the good old days. They didn’t. Women had husbands who drank their wages away, husbands who disappeared when they couldn’t fulfill their responsibilities, husbands who didn’t work and expected their wives to fulfill both roles as the provider and the family caretaker, and husbands who stiffed their wives on alimony and child support. Since some men failed in their obligations, women were left at the mercy of the men who ran the country. Given the male’s unemotional and rational approach to government, this meant very little help for any woman unfortunate enough to marry a loser. They should have made a wiser decision before walking up the aisle. At this point, many women reasonably, I dare say, decided to seek political power as a way of offsetting the feckless behavior of their husbands.

What Walsh really wants is to limit the franchise to people who vote Republican and eliminate potential Democratic voters. This can be clearly seen in the comments section of Instapundit where I initially found Walsh’s article. Again, probably more trolling done here, but the commenters want to limit the vote even further than Walsh. One person wants to eliminate all unmarried voters since they have no children and thus have no stake in the future. Another person shows in color coordinated blue and red maps that if voters were limited to white males that the Republicans would win every election.

What is missing here is how conservatives and Republicans might make their case to the wider franchise. Walsh and his commenters are admitting that they only appeal to white male voters and given up on persuading women to vote Republican. Instead Walsh proposes limiting the franchise to voters who already vote Republican. Given that women are so emotional and fickle, I find it difficult to understand why these superior male minds can’t come up with a scare tactic that will push these thoughtless creatures into voting Republican. What is more baffling is that they aren’t even trying very hard to persuade women to vote differently. Really, if you can’t outsmart people who you believe to have a weak and irrational mind, what good is your superior intelligence in the first place?