Pamela Gellar, Radical Islam, and the War On Free Speech

     A few days back, a woman named Pamela Gellar held a cartoon drawing contest in Texas for drawing cartoons of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Any depiction of Mohammed is outlawed in Islam, and drawing cartoons that can range from funny to outright offensive and/or hateful, is grounds for getting a death sentence from Islam. Well two radical Muslims showed up at the event in body armor and AK-47s, intent on killing people there. Luckily the event had the local police department, of which an officer shot and killed both terrorists with his revolver.

     So a fierce debate has sprung up over whether such speech is protected speech or not, "hate" speech, protected speech but unwise to engage in, etc...aside from the solid political Right, I think that most of the media is at best engaging in a complete lack of critical thinking and at worst has lost its mind.

     Fox News, generally reliable for conservatism, has had multiple hosts fall into the, "I support free speech but..." line of thinking:

Bill O'Reilly: "The American Freedom Defense Initiative spurred a violent incident. Insulting the entire Muslim world is stupid…It does not advance the cause of liberty or get us any closer to defeating the savage jihad. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should say it…It is stupid. It accomplishes nothing."

Bill also claimed that the principles of free speech were not in play during this event. Well Bill O'Reilly is wrong, in a multitude of ways. For one, the principles of free speech were very much in play at the event. If any ideology is threatening murder if you do something it finds offensive, that right there is reason enough to perform the offensive act. Secondly, the American Freedom Defense Initiative did not "spur" a violent incident. That's like saying that when African-Americans were out protesting for their civil rights, that they were the ones who "spurred" the violence against them. Like the fire hoses being sprayed at them, the police dogs attacking them, and the police beating them with clubs. That was their fault. Not, you know, the police themselves. Or like saying if a black person did something that "offended" the whites in the old South and got lynched for it, that was their fault, as they should have known not to provoke those whites.

Third, Bill is wrong in claiming that insulting the entire Muslim world does not advance the cause of liberty. Actually, it does, because who is threatening liberty within Islam? Radical Muslims. And what is one way to advance the cause of liberty in the face of such tyrants? People around the world showing that they aren't afraid. Movements like radical Islam get a good chunk of their influence out of raw fear alone. If the populations of the world show that they aren't afraid, that unto itself helps to advance the cause of liberty. So holding a Mohammed cartoon contest most certainly advances the cause of liberty. If every major city in the world hosted a Mohammed cartoon contest (or a religion cartoon contest featuring all religions for those not wanting to single out only Islam), it would make a huge step towards showing radical Islam that the free world is not afraid and is not going to live under its tyranny.

And fourth, such cartoons thus DO accomplish something.

Then there was Laura Ingraham:

Laura Ingraham: "It is not beneficial to us as Americans to criticize an entire faith, and what was done at this convention doesn't accomplish anything. There are a lot of things that we can say, that we have a right to say, that we shouldn't say."

It doesn't accomplish anything and we shouldn't say it? Again, it does accomplish something and the fact that radical jihadists are threatening violence over it is alone reason enough to engage in it.

With regards to Chris Ofili's infamous "The Holy Virgin Mary," a "painting" made out of elephant dung fashioned to resemble the Virgin Mary, Ingraham said she supports the artist's right to do it, but that it is wrong to "unnecessarily" offend people: "We shouldn't unnecessarily insult people, personal attacks."

Jesus Effing Christ (no pun intended to Christians). For one, there's a HUGE difference between doing something highly offensive and provocative with regards to a religion in which you are safely assured that no one is going to engage in violence against you and doing something offensive or provocative, or just some light comedy, with regards to a religion that threatens to kill you over the slightest offense. Two, we should provoke and offend ideologies, political, religious, whatever, in various ways, as that is a part of engaging in critical thinking. Politics in particular is famous for engaging in mockery and jokes of some of the ridiculous aspects of politics and politicians. The Soviets had tons of political jokes. And we make lots of them in the Western world regarding our own democratic systems as well, ranging from cartoons to television skits to jokes by the late night talk show hosts.

So yes, we SHOULD insult people in religions and politics, and in particular if said religion, political ideology, cult, etc...is threatening murder if people do so.

Next up was Martha MacCallum, on Twitter:

Martha MacCallum: 100%. Wipe out ISIS now w/Egypt & Jordan. Don't stoop to their level #cartoons 

:::steam pressure building:::

Okay, now I am going to start yelling:

HOW IN THE LIVING HELL IS CRITICIZING MOHAMMED THE SAME AS STOOPING TO THE LEVEL OF THE JIHADISTS!?

So back in the 1930s, if someone was criticizing the Nazis for rounding up and slaughtering Jews, they were then stooping to the same level as the Jews!? In an interview with the founder of AFDI, she said: "If you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don't do it in a crass way by insulting someone's religion."

Okay, well first of all, not everyone is Christian. Secondly, "insulting" one's religion is not crass when said religious ideology is out slaughtering people and threatening murder over the most minor insults. By the standards of radical Islam, just drawing a picture of Mohammed period is a crass insult and worthy of killing the drawer. You are not allowed to depict Mohammed in Islam. That is why, unlike Christian architecture in which you see loads of imagery of Christ, Mary, and so forth, in Islamic architecture, you only find geometric and mathematical patterns.

Not all mockery is something highly offensive and provocative. To give a comparison, let's think about criticism of President Obama. There are many genuinely funny criticisms made of him, same with all major politicians. But then there have been some hateful ones as well, for example an image showing Obama shining a man's shoes. This is clearly a racist image. And just as there are light-hearted and hateful criticisms in politics, there are light-hearted and hateful criticisms towards religions. The thing with radical Islam is that it considers as highly offensive ANY type of mockery or criticism. So to claim that it is wrong to criticize Islam via things like cartoons because such cartoons are "crass" or "provocative" or "offensive" or "obscene" doesn't hold water.

Fourth for Fox, there is Greta Van Susteren:

Greta van Susteren:  "My message is simple — protect our police. Do not recklessly lure them into danger and that is what happened in Garland, Texas, at the Mohammed cartoon contest," she said. "Yes, of course, there's a First Amendment right and it's very important, but the exercise of that right includes using good judgment. It's one thing for someone to stand up for the First Amendment and put his own you-know-what on the line, but here, those insisting they were defending the First Amendment were knowingly putting officers' lives on the line — the police...[who] had no choice but to do their job."

This criticism sounds reasonable on the surface, but when you dig into the nuts and bolts it really falls apart. Because the thing is, by that logic, ALL forms of speech and expression can be curtailed simply if someone is threatening violence in response to the speech. For example, when a gay pride parade is held, what if there was a violent anti-gay group that was threatening violence? Would people reason, "Well, we're going to have to suspend all the gay pride parades. We can't risk offending this group and risking the lives of people in the process." Or would the reaction be, "We are NOT going to be dictated to by this hateful group. And we not only are going to have the gay pride parade, but we are going to have multiple gay pride parades in every major city in the country." Personally, I hope it would be the latter. Something tells me that the annual gay pride parades held wouldn't get shut down if ISIS started threatening them. Instead, the parades would continue to be held, but with a massive security presence. So would the parade people then be acting selfish? Would they be unnecessarily risking the lives of spectators and the police protecting the event? Should they only express their homosexuality so long as only they themselves are the ones risking anything? So in the end, Greta's logic doesn't hold up. All speech would be at risk with that kind of thinking.

     Luckily, Sean Hannity and in particular Megyn Kelly have not fallen into any of these traps about speech. Kelly has been extremely fierce in her defense of free speech. People at Fox weren't the only ones though, the people at the much more left-leaning networks have also folded up like lawn chairs, with some, such as Yale Law School graduate Chris Cuomo of CNN, saying that such speech is not protected by the Constitution due to the fighting words doctrine and chastising people in a tweet to "read" the Constitution to how such speech is not protected. Well I've looked at the First Amendment and don't see anything in it about speech being protected so long as it doesn't offend a very violent religious ideology that is given a lot of leeway due to extreme political correctness in our society. And the fighting words doctrine is blatantly un-Constitutional I'd say.

     The New York Times brings a whole new level of stupidity and insanity to this issue with an editorial it wrote, titled, "Free Speech vs Hate Speech." First, let's look at the title: "Free Speech vs Hate Speech." In other words, they only believe in free speech when they agree with it. Anything "too" offensive is "hate speech" and thus not protected speech (i.e. free speech). They also ignore that the definition of hate speech is incredibly arbitrary. One could easily accuse the New York Times itself of having engaged in hate speech (more on that in a bit).

     Then come some of the paragraphs from the article: "But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom." Bigotry and hatred are free speech. The political Left have no problem with engaging in bigotry and hatred when it is something they disagree with. It's only bigotry and hatred when it's towards something they like. Nor, as I have pointed out above, does this constitute a blow for freedom. This is a murderous ideology that will murder over the slightest offensive, bigoted or not.

"That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech."

Again this nonsensical distinction between free speech versus hate speech. The article then makes the distinction it sees between Pamela Geller and Charlie Hebdo, saying that Charlie Hebdo is a publication that specializes in graphic satire of politicians and religions of all stripes, whereas Geller has a history of specific hatred towards Muslims:

"Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone."

Well a few things on this:

1) Fighting against the proposed mosque at Ground Zero had nothing to do with anti-Muslim bigotry, it had to do with the fact of how, well, offensive putting a mosque right at the sight of the biggest mass slaughter of Americans on American soil in American history by Islamic radicals, is to a great many people. Oh but that is fine by them it seems. Who cares how many people are offended by that.

2) I do not know much about Pam Geller, so I do not know if she is anti-Muslim or just anti-radical Islam or maybe anti-Islam but not anti-Muslim (quite a few people argue that Islam itself is in fact a violent religion and that the true "radicals" of the religion are the peaceful Muslims, that the radical Muslims are just adhering exactly to what the religion says to do). But regardless of what she is, it shouldn't matter. Speech mocking and/or hateful towards any ideology is protected speech, and in particular if said ideology is a murderous one threatening to kill anyone who engages in the slightest offense. If a group is going to engage in truly hateful, bigoted speech, you don't ban the speech, you counter it with more speech. So when the Nazis march somewhere, anti-Nazi people march to counter them. That sort of thing.

"Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel."

Actually, yes they can. If there's a murderous ideology killing people over any and all offenses, that unto itself fully justifies mocking and derision. But in addition, Pamela Geller was not the one being "provocative" here. The ones doing the provoking are the radical Islamists. They're the ones who said, "You offend us, we kill you." Well that's a great way to provoke a response from people who are going to take them up on that. So it is wrong for the Times to blame Geller for doing any "provoking" here. As for "exacerbating" tensions and "giving the extremists more fuel," that is like trying to appease the crocodile. They ALREADY hate us. Criticizing them is not going to somehow make them hate us more. They already have all the fuel they need. The tensions are already exacerbated. This is the free speech equivalent of claiming that you do not stand up to the aggressor because it may then make the aggressor act more aggressively. Weakness is what inspires aggression, not strength.

"Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash."

"Inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims?" :::BANGS HEAD::: I highly doubt that Muslims are so fragile and sensitive that a cartoon event is going to cause them all to go into severe mental anguish and stress. Secondly, the Times didn't give a crap about the anguish it inflicted on millions of devout Christians when it displayed the images of Piss Christ or "The Holy Virgin Mary," no that was high art and free speech. If some Christians were offended, well they need to toughen up and understand that we live in a free society. But can't do anything that might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. So the Times has shown itself to be very hypocritical in this sense.

Wisconsin's Shame

Wisconsin's Shame - this is atrocious. The United States is supposed to be a country that protects human rights and freedoms. My thoughts on this:

1) This is what happens when people in a position of power are completely sure of their own moral superiority and also completely sure that people on the other side of the political aisle must be no good or evil

2) This is a problem of the increasing militarization of the police in our country

3) It is ironic as usually the Left is very critical of the police state

4) If this had been a Republican prosecutor going after Democratic party people, this would probably be national news being covered by all the major media networks along with an investigation by the Justice Department with an army of federal agents descending into Wisconsin to investigate

5) This is but another example of the violence and intimidation unions oftentimes lead to. Unions are notorious historically for attempting intimidation, and here we see intimidation by people sided with the unions.

Here is an additional article and an excellent blog post on the issue as well:

LINK 1

LINK 2

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Shows the Democratic Party's Extremism On Abortion

     So if you have been following the news over the past few days, you've probably noticed that Rand Paul and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (head of the DNC) have been in a bit of a battle over the issue of late-term abortion. A reporter asked Rand Paul about if he is for exceptions in abortion for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother. Rand Paul responded by telling the reporter to ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz when she believes life begins and that if she believes it is a right to kill a seven pound unborn baby, and then to get back to him when they get that answer.

     By doing this, Paul did something rather extraordinary, which has been to put the Democrats on the defensive about abortion, which is something that usually doesn't happen. Instead it almost always is the GOP that is put on the defense, but Rand Paul flipped it. Schultz responded by saying the following:

“Here’s an answer,” wrote Wasserman Schultz that same day. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story.”

     The problem is that this is just a total cop-out. It ignores completely the issue of whether late-term abortion is essentially a form of infanticide. It isn't just as simple as the decision being left between a woman and her doctor (or her religion) because there is science involved (something the Democratic party claims it is the party of). It is a completely unscientific claim to act as if the baby in the womb isn't a child until the moment of birth, as if it just turns on like a toy upon exiting the womb. Clearly it is a baby before it comes out of the womb. Thus if a woman can just kill it without any limitations in the third trimester, that essentially is a form of infanticide.

     What puzzles me is why Schultz doesn't just acknowledge this and say that she is fine with limitations for the third-trimester abortions, but it is the early-stage abortions that she is most adamant about protecting, which the GOP is also bent on outlawing. It seems that she, and hence much of the Democratic party, want no restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

     What Rand Paul has thus done is to help show how extreme the Democratic party really is on the subject of abortion. Now that said, this isn't to say that the GOP doesn't have extremists as well (the kind who want to outlaw all abortion, and for some including in instances of rape, incest, or life and health of the mother). But the idea that it is only the GOP that has extremists on this and that any criticism of abortion is based on religious dogma is not true.

     The media has for many years left the Democratic party alone on this issue, never questioning Democratic politicians and candidates on the issue of late-term abortions but very much questioning Republican candidates on abortion. I would love to see a debate moderator ask Hillary Clinton for example, "Do you believe that third trimester abortions should have no limitations whatsoever? Do you believe that late-trimester abortions are a form of infanticide?" and see how she responds.

The Maker Movement

     One of the things I really love is the rise of the Maker movement. In short, this is a movement which basically unites all of the diverse arts, crafts, and hobbies out there together under one umbrella. So you'll find everything from electronics to crocheting all combined together. It is a celebration of DIY and things people make on their own (hence the name).

     What I really also like about it though is that it is leading to a revival of a lot of what were thought to be forgotten skillsets. Lots of the old handicrafts and practical skills that used to be common knowledge amongst the population have since become lost, where today knowing how to do basic woodworking, basic plumbing, basic sewing and cooking, etc...are all completely alien to many modern men and women. What no one saw however was the rise of the Internet, which has since democratized a ton of this information. We have Google books making available lots of old books from the 19th and early 20th centuries that are no longer under copyright, and we have new books being published on many of these skills, including by the Maker publishing company. We also have Youtube, which allows people to demonstrate many of these skills that otherwise might be difficult to glean just from books.

     In terms of myself, one DIY area that I had no idea existed is that of home machining and machine tools. I had always assumed that many things made out of metal required ultra-expensive sophisticated machines to manufacture. I had no idea of the level of DIY manufacturing that is available to a person from just manual machine tools, simple old-fashioned metal casting, wood pattern making, etc...and that is with the old technology. Today you can combine it with special design software which is becoming commoditized and affordable, 3D printers, CNC machine tools (you can build your own CNC machine tools even), etc...

     The movement is really a glorious way to promote and encourage production and creativity in our society and in the world overall.

Thoughts On The Candidates So Far

     So thus far, four candidates have announced their campaigns to run for President. They are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio. I personally do not think that Ted Cruz or Rand Paul have a shot in hell at winning. Ted Cruz is perceived as far too extreme right-wing while Rand Paul is perceived as being too extreme libertarian right-wing. Cruz also is a first-term Senator and comes across as thinking that he is the smartest guy in the room.

     Rand Paul meanwhile comes across to many as sexist after how he handled the interviews with two female news anchors. Some point out that he has also been snarky with male news anchors too, but there are two problems with this. For one, perception is what counts for the votes, not reality, so if too many people perceive him as sexist, then that's just as bad as actually openly being sexist. Two, even if he is not perceived as sexist, he can be perceived as not being able to control himself, which is not a good sign for a leader, in particular for President of the United States.

     Rand Paul strikes me as having the arrogance that, in my own experience, too many libertarians have, whereby the perceive themselves very smugly as the smartest people in the room, sneering at the utter stupidity of those conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, neither of whom can see the ridiculousness of their ways. Yet, if one of these conservatives or liberals confronts the libertarian on why they see the libertarian views as ridiculous, said libertarian then gets bent-out-of-shape or resorts to name calling. Paul demonstrated this in his interview with Fox News's Megyn Kelly, when he was referring to the "neocons," which is a derogatory name for neoconservatives, usually thrown out by people who don't really know what the term actually means. Paul used it multiple times in reference to other Republicnas, and when Megyn Kelly asked him, "What is a 'neocon,'" he replied with (paraphrasing), "They know who they are." He exhibits that same type of libertarian arrogance that assumes that it and only it is the "true" form of conservatism or right-wing thinking and that variants such as neoconservatism are perversions of right-wing principles and not "true" conservatism. He also is a first-term Senator like Cruz, which is a disadvantage. Being a Senator period in running for President on the Republican side is a disadvantage, because you haven't actually run anything and the media will point this out, while they will cover much more for Democrats.

     Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton launched her campaign with a social media video. It was very professionally/slickly produced, and basically shows everyday Americans and then Hillary saying that Americans need someone who will stand up for them, and thus she is running for President. Hillary has a lot of baggage, and many people either like her a lot while others hate her. I am more ambivalent about her as I don't know what is truth and what isn't about her. The recent e-mail scandal with her though does feed the impression that she is one for whom the normal rules don't apply. I do not think she will have any special advantage or disadvantage in running. I agree with Charles Krauthammer that whether she wins or loses will depend on the Republican.

     Marco Rubio announced his campaign with a big speech in which he took a shot at Hillary, saying, "Yesterday, a candidate from yesterday promised to take us back to yesterday." Rubio is young and dynamic, but he is a first-term Senator and, combined with how young-looking he is, I think will make it very much a toss-up in terms of whether he could beat Hillary as many might look at him as being too much of a kid. He could be a good Vice Presidential nominee though.

     It is interesting in that Hillary strikes me as being a very beatable candidate (not that I am any political expert, but this is just my opinion), yet, the GOP thus far is fielding lousy candidates. If either Ted Cruz or Rand Paul is the Republican nominee, it will be a President Hillary Clinton I have no doubt. If Marco Rubio is the nominee, it is probably a 50/50 toss-up. Hillary is old, both politically and literally, and establishment, and perceived as power-hungry. But she also can be perceived as experienced, or at least much more so than Rubio. Her having been Secretary of State will mean she can tout having actual foreign policy experience (whether she was a good SoS is a separate issue, but the media will try to cover for any flaws in her time as SoS). Rubio is young and dynamic (both politically and literally), but that also is the problem. He could be looked at as an inexperienced kid, and people also will factor in how Obama lacked experience and the country hasn't faired well under him (which IMO, is more due to his ideology than lack of experience, but many will consider it his lack of experience and that may well also be a contributor).

     I very much want the GOP to win, so this all concerns me. Many in the Establishment GOP have been pinning their hopes on Jeb Bush. That you'll have these various other candidates run, such as Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, maybe Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and maybe Donald Trump, but in the end, these will all be jokes, and it will be Jeb Bush, the establishment guy who will end up getting it, as he was a successful governor of Florida.

     The problem as I see it thus far with Jeb Bush, and that apparently also is beginning to concern the establishment GOP, is that he is such a blah candidate. He seems to have no personality and just comes across as an OGRE, i.e. Old Guard Republican Establishment. He is like the epitome of the old-guard, boring, old, blah, establishment white male Republican. And if pitted against Hillary, well then it will be a total toss-up most likely, because we will have two totally establishment candidates, a Clinton and a Bush.

     But who else in the GOP could possibly defeat Hillary? Rand Paul can't. Ted Cruz can't. Marco Rubio is most likely a toss-up. Ben Carson can't (he has no executive experience, has come across as rather ignorant on certain issues, and as very anti-gay which will hurt him with moderates). Carly Fiorina most likely can't (she has the aura of having driven Hewlett-Packard into the ground---I don't know how factual that is, but that is the impression that many have about her). Donald Trump can't (he would likely make a mockery of the whole process if he really ran, although I do like a lot of his positions). And Jeb Bush thus far it looks like would at best be a total toss-up. I think the only candidate who might have a shot is Scott Walker, who has been a successful governor of Wisconsin, a purple state and been re-elected in said purple state after running on and following through on conservative policies.

     If Only Marco Rubio had Jeb Bush's experience as a governor. Also, I almost forgot to mention, the grassroots of the Republican party DO NOT like Jeb Bush. Some say that Hillary will also most likely lose because generally the public only elects someone from the same party twice, going back to Eisenhower. That George H. W. Bush only got elected after Reagan because Reagan's presidency was so successful, whereas Obama's presidency has not been. But I think in modern times, some of the old "rules" of politics have changed and that this particular rule doesn't hold nearly as much anymore. I would not be surprised at all if people elect Hillary over the GOP candidate, unless the GOP candidate is able to really articulate a good vision for American and counter Hillary. And while Hillary is perceived by many in the GOP as just being a continuation of Obama's policies, many in the general public I do not think see it that way. She is seen as being more centrist then Obama, and thus could be seen as being sufficiently different from him that she wouldn't be a pure continuation of him, thus prompting many who do not think Obama has been a good president to vote for her. Hopefully I am wrong on all this though. It is a shame that the GOP has to choose it seems either between extremist candidates or establishment candidates who are unable to defend conservatism and just come across as light versions of the Democrats.

     I also think that the issue of abortion and same-sex marriage could doom the GOP again as well. I wonder if the GOP will ever be able to win the Presidency again due to the perception of it as being anti-Hispanic because of its stand on the border, and it losing too many independent, youth, and women's votes due to its hard-line stances on abortion (completely outlaw except for rape, incest, and life and health of the mother) and same-sex marriage. Romney soared in the polls after that first debate with Obama. Women went into the debate actively disliking him due to months of Obama campaign propaganda and then came out really liking him. But then the Obama campaign concentrated on his social conservatism, and that helped do him in with women, independents, and youth voters. And then the Hispanic vote was terrified of him and thus big-time went for Obama (to the apparent shock of the GOP, who for some reason thought that they Hispanic vote would vote in larger numbers of them even with all the anti illegal-immigration rhetoric and not going and actually talking with Hispanics).

    

Muslim Bakery

     Recently, a man went undercover to a Muslim bakery to ask them to bake him a cake for a same-sex wedding. They refused. There has been no uproar at all among the media. This makes me wonder if all the hoopla about Christian bakeries and businesses that would refuse to service a same sex wedding is more about going after Christians than about the issue of discrimination period:

LINK

Thoughts On Celebrity Scientists

     As of late, I've noticed the political Right has really gone after Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Part of this is because he was caught using some fabricated quotes and having questionable facts about some stories he has told about his past. Here are some links to the original article that started the whole debate:

LINK1
LINK2

     A standard story among many on the Left is that the Right goes after Tyson due to racism and being anti-science. I do not at all buy the racism charge. Tyson could be white as a marshmallow and would still receive the criticisms he has been getting. The real reason, in my own opinion, regarding the Right's criticisms of Tyson are because Tyson has inserted himself repeatedly into issues of politics. He is not just a popularize of science, but a political commentator overall who also does science popularization. The thing is, if you move yourself from doing just science popularizing into general political commentary, where you comment about general issues of the day, then you open yourself up to criticism.

     In addition this, when you look at Tyson's jokes and criticisms regarding President George W. Bush, you are in particular going to attract attention from the political Right. If the facts the jokes are based on turn out not to be real facts, then this especially will open you up to criticism.
    
     With regards to the political Left who make up the bulk of Tyson's fan base however, these people also have some issues. It isn't just the Right-wing that have an issue with Tyson. In the case of his fan-base, in the aftermath of it being revealed that Tyson has either at best been careless with the facts and at worst flat-out lied about some things, they have done everything they can to ignore and even cover up the whole issue, claiming that the Right is only going after My. Tyson based on racism. What this shows is that much of the Tyson fan base is itself not interested in truth or reality as they claim, but rather that Tyson has become a form of demigod to them and they will do anything they can to protect that status of his.

     An ample example of this is Tyson's Wikipedia page. Multiple attempts have been made to write on it about what is mentioned in the articles written on [I]The Federalist[/I] website, but thus far all have been deleted.

     I think a problem with too many celebrity scientists overall is that they think that because they become popular for reasons of science, that this means people want to hear their views on political and policy issues, and that they are in any way qualified to comment on such issues. If you are popular for being a Food Network chef, no one wants to hear what you think of President Obama's healthcare law. If you are popular for home repair skills, like wood working and carpentry, no one wants to hear what your thoughts are on the Iran deal. And so forth. Similarly, if you are popular for science, IMO, stick with that, and don't share your opinions on other things.

     I think one issue with the scientists is that they think that because they are scientists, and hence experts in a field that requires intelligence, that this means they have intelligent opinions to share on other issues as well. But that isn't always the case. Being a smart scientists doesn't mean you will be smart regarding things like economic or healthcare policy, or foreign policy, and so forth. You really may be a complete moron or just completely average outside of your particular area of expertise.

    This has been an issue though going back to Carl Sagan, who commented on political issues, and continues with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye (the "Science Guy"), and even Stephen Hawking who has made some negative comments about Israel.

I hate our political parties

     So I love political philosophy. But I have to say that I hate the American political parties. As I study policy issues more and more, I find myself truly somewhere in the middle. If I was at a forum filled with Democrats, I could come across easily as the most hardcore, right-wing conservative Republican to them. On the other hand, if at a forum filled with Republicans, I could come across as the most hardcore left-wing liberal Democrat to them.

     I do not like that the Republican party has such a preponderance of hardcore social conservatives who hate homosexuals (and other LGBTQ people) and want to force religion onto the public. On the other hand, I also don't like that the Democratic party has such a preponderance of people who want government to micromanage every little aspect of people's lives, create such a massive social welfare state, an anti-military component, and a complete disrespect for the right to keep and bear arms. One might wonder what I think of the Libertarian party. Well I don't like them either. To me, they are way too far-right-wing on economics and government, and way too far dovish (or maybe delusional is the proper word) on foreign policy.

     In terms of my own beliefs, I would describe them as center-right. I am most definitely not center-left, not on issues of economics and foreign policy anyway. But I am most definitely not solidly right-wing overall either. I feel sad that the choices have to be between say a Ted Cruz or an Elizabeth Warren, a Hillary Clinton versus a Jeb Bush, and so forth. Among the Republican party, it seems we either have the OGREs (Old Guard Republican Establishment) who can't defend conservative principles worth a damn, or we have the really far-right Republicans who are excellent on issues like defending gun rights, but way too conservative on issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, religion, etc...I wish we could have a more moderate conservative who can defend things like gun rights, limited government, etc...but in a way where they do not come across as being far-right-wing at all or being Democratic party-lite. I have made this point in previous posts about how the GOP too often in trying to be moderate just comes off as a more light-hearted variant of a Democrat, which is a recipe for failure in the elections. Many in the GOP see this as meaning that we need a solid conservative to run, but I think that will be a losing proposition as well. What we need is someone who will run as a conservative and defend conservative principles, but who is more moderate. Someone who CLEARLY is a CONSERVATIVE, but perceived as a center-right conservative, as opposed to just being some wishy-washy Republican who can't defend or explain conservatism and instead comes across as a light Democrat.

     I do wonder whether the GOP will ever win another Presidential election because of its social conservatism. Mitt Romney shot up in the polls after that first debate, so his form of center-right conservatism appealed to many people. The social conservatism of his stances dealt him a hard blow however and helped him lose the election.

Still here

Well I got kind of bored and ended up taking a one year hiatus from this blog. However I am still here.