Welcome Back!

June 28, 2011

 

TVMAfter an “indefinite hiatus,” The Vigilante Mind is back. For those of you who have never heard of TVM, welcome and enjoy.

You’ll see on this page a handful of older essays, and some old segments will be posted as well. In August, the TVM podcast will be revived in its new home on YouTube.

Over the next few weeks we’ll also be posting introductions to the Vigilante Mind segments, with an explanation of what each segment’s all about. To begin with, TVM will be posted just one segment at a time. If more subscribers hop on and resources permit, we’ll return to full 30-minute episodes sometime down the road.

If you have any questions or comments, offer them below, or email us at VigilanteMind@gmail.com. And once again, welcome!


26%

May 31, 2011

I saw an interesting poll on Facebook… I know, that has to be the single worst place to look to for insight, but there was something very revealing on it… the poll question was to answer the following mathematical equation:

10 + 10 x 0 = ?

Now, the answer is 10, but about a third of people answered 0. It’s a perfectly understandable mistake… tons of people know that anything times zero is zero, but they forget that multiplication is always done before addition, so it’s actually 10+(10×0). What makes it worse is that a calculator will give you the wrong answer. But the correct answer is 10.

What I thought was revealing was the comments by the people who got it wrong, who noticed that 70% of the people polled gave the correct answer, 10. Overwhelmingly (actually, unanimously among people who commented), they pointed to it as proof that 70% of people are stupid, commenting with things like “what’s wrong with the world” and “this is pathetic” and “how sad that people don’t know basic math.” They truly believed that they were the mere 30% who knew correct math, and it never occurred to them that the majority of people may be onto something.

I only mention it because it’s such a pure instance of a lot of “debate” that has been in the news lately, and I think it explains a lot. A solid minority of people (I’ve pegged it at 26%) honestly, truly believe that they have all the right answers, and the fact that a vast majority of people disagree with them only proves that a vast majority of people are wrong. It’s the only solution.

I actually think those people have always been around, but they haven’t had a forum until the internet came around. When we got our information through schools and newspapers, there were people who took a greater world view and determined what was true and what wasn’t. Now a minority of people can access other people who share that minority, and band together. Even on the internet, they’re just 26% of people, but if they spend all their time on websites that cater to their world view (and 26% of people is still hundreds of millions of people in the English-speaking world alone), it looks to them like they are a massive force to be reckoned with.

It may even look like that to the other 70% or so of us, and lead us to conclude ourselves that humanity is in trouble, but if we continue to be aggressive in demanding intellect and reason in everything we see, and ignore the anti-intellectualist resistance force who attack us as elitist or naïve, we still have numbers that they never will. They may have never been as vocal and as powerful as they are today, but they’ve always been just 26%.

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/05/31/funny-facebook-fails-x/


Why I Celebrate Death

May 3, 2011

Back in college, a kid got into a fight with me because I said I was against world peace. It seemed that he wasn’t quite 100% behind peace either if there was someone who disagreed with him.

I seem to be getting into fights again, because I really feel uncomfortable with all the people taking a stand, saying that Bin Laden’s death was absolutely a bad thing, that it is always wrong to want someone to die. The fight would usually start with me being conflicted, which would somehow evolve into me practically dancing on Bin Laden’s grave.

I am happy he’s dead. I’m happy he’s dead much in the way he’s happy he’s dead. Ten years ago, he started a fight that we didn’t want to be in, and the logical conclusion to that fight was us killing him. He continued to plot attacks against the west, but he didn’t really seem to have much direction in his attacks. He evaded capture, but he wasn’t in some underground bunker as we envisioned him, but instead in a million-dollar compound that he had built right in the middle of a tourist town. There’s a picture of his compound online where you can see store signs just outside written in English. I have no doubt that he loved knowing there were Westerners just outside his door, oblivious to his existence.

Because that was the metaphor for this entire battle between Al-Qaeda and the West. Obliviousness. Bush wasn’t far off when he said “they hate us for our freedom.” Where he made his mistake was that they weren’t jealous of our freedom— they hated that we were completely oblivious of what the rest of the world had to pay so that we could be free. Here we were, the world’s lone superpower, rich beyond belief because we strolled in and declared ourselves the winners of World War I after it had bankrupted the rest of Europe. And what was the reward for the side we took? Europe divided out the entire world in their name. You can imagine that some of the European installments sounded familiar to Bin Laden: Iraq. Israel. Syria. Lebanon.

The same thing happened in World War II. Then, as the Middle East started falling apart, the U.S. started shouldering in and taking a bit for themselves. In the world where Bin Laden grew up, Arabs worked their entire lives pulling oil out of the territory that they lived in and handed that oil to an American company, who sold it for profits that the Arabs would only share if they were themselves Westernized. Bin Laden himself worked for America, and you can bet that was where the seed was sown. America didn’t care about him. America didn’t care about his people. America was so powerful that they could just walk in and take whatever they wanted. No war needed; they could buy entire countries.

So of course Americans were against war. Of course they didn’t want any bloodshed. Because war and bloodshed were the only hope that people like Bin Laden had, and America didn’t need it anymore.

Of course, the Bin Laden family didn’t walk away with nothing. They were, and are, filthy rich and incredibly popular. Nonetheless, 99% of Americans neither knew nor cared who they were. Imagine that for an up and coming megalomaniac— from where he stood, Americans owed him everything and gave him nothing.

So he took to terrorism. Most of his projects were good enough to be on the news for a few days, maybe even a month. Then, on 9/11, everything went his way. Suddenly, his name was known by every single person on the planet. Can you imagine what a rush that would be? He knew it was just a matter of time before the Americans got to him, but it didn’t matter anymore. He was a hero and a messiah.

He probably never guessed he would last another 10 years. There seems to be some indication that he was even getting a bit lazy—maybe he was growing impatient himself? He wouldn’t give up, and he would continue to try to cause more terrorist attacks, but he had already completed his masterpiece. (From a completely historical perspective, one of my favorite interviews of all time was Osama Bin Laden talking to Al-Jazeera about the attack, discussing it as you’d expect Matthew McConaughey to discuss the making of his most recent film.)

Then, on Sunday, the time came. The helicopters descended. I’m sure that if Bin Laden could do it over again, he wouldn’t have gone down shooting random bullets into the air while using his wife as a human shield, but otherwise, it was an end fitting for a martyr.

The Muslim world is celebrating Bin Laden’s death, whether they hated him or loved him. In the Middle-Eastern Muslim culture, death is not the horrible tragedy that it is here. It’s the triumphant end to a great story. It’s the climax to the film. For Bin Laden to have died of kidney complications—THAT would have been tragic.

Here, we celebrate his death for a similar reason. It’s the end of the story. The funny thing is, both sides think they won. And both sides are at least partially right. But for us it’s the final narrative to the 9/11 saga. There are a few of us who feel that our own deaths have been avenged, but I’m reluctant to believe that for most of us, we’ve been losing much sleep over him still being alive. Mostly, it’s just been that sense of knowing that the story was unfinished (and, if the story is unfinished, it means by default that we, the protagonists, have lost).

Which brings me back to the people who have taken today as an opportunity to be angry that we celebrate Bin Laden’s death. I don’t doubt that your feelings are sincere, and I know for a fact that many of you feel very, very strongly about it. But the question is: why? What’s wrong with Bin Laden dying? What makes you so angry?

The general line seems to be that it’s only the bad guys who solve their problems by killing the other side. What did you think was going to happen? Were we going to capture Bin Laden and try him in a fair court? Was Bin Laden going to come to our point of view? Were we going to come to his? Were we just never going to have resolution? This idea, that we were somehow the pure, enlightened souls who had finally realized that war is bad and death is wrong, is exactly what Osama Bin Laden hated about this country. We are somehow capable of strolling through our lives, honestly believing that oppression, aggression, and violence are not the backbone of our existence. It was this obliviousness that made us target number one, and why he wanted us to be the evil ones who martyred him.

And that was part of our punishment. What transpired Sunday night was not retribution for 9/11. It was Act III of the story. From the moment the twin towers went down, it was our burden to find Bin Laden and kill him. Believe it or not, very few of us wanted to be the ones who solved things through murder. We would have loved for the end of the story to be that Bin Laden was found guilty by his peers and lived out the rest of his days atoning for his deeds. Of course we would.

And that’s just how naive we are. We think that we get to make that choice. We should have got to come out the good guys in this, because gosh, we’re always the good guys. We’re the peaceful ones, who solve things through justice and democracy.

No, we aren’t, and as long as you reap the benefits of our aggression, you don’t get to live in that reality. Face the facts: we are not better than that. We are not always the good guys, and we don’t get to suddenly say that we are. If we were the good guys, 9/11 never would have happened. It’s terrible, but it’s true. Are we to blame for 9/11? God, no. We may take some blame for the state the Middle East is in, but Osama Bin Laden takes full blame, and full credit, for the destruction 2001. And we, in turn, were left with no choice but to take all the credit, and all the blame, for killing him in return. Because that’s the burden we bear for our prosperity, and price we pay for our freedom.


No Need For Hyperbole

January 20, 2011
TAO

Image via Wikipedia

What’s that saying by that one guy? Something something “satire is dead?” Well, I’m going to have to ask that the haters out there come up with some new adjectives now, because we need ours back:
Congress is stupid.

We’ve lost meaning with that word, “stupid,” but it’s coming back now. There is no other word to describe what is unfolding before our eyes.

Take a hard, honest evaluation of the name of this bill: “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.”

Let’s understand something here. The bill is two pages long. The first page is a list of the people who signed it. The second page details two sections. One half of this bill—again, let me make it perfectly clear, I am NOT exaggerating—is the following statement:

“This Act may be cited as the ‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’.”

Do you understand what this is? Let me take you back to 1983. I remember this clearly. The kids around the neighborhood got together under the Wilsons’ big oak tree and we pretended that we were politicians. One side made their case, and the other side took careful notes. Then, dramatically, one of the opposition stood up, paced back and forth, and in a sudden fury of activity, ate his notes. He then said, “that’s what I think of your case.”

I’m going to go ahead and put this next part in caps, so if someone stumbles across this page it will be the only thing they read.

MY FRIEND WHO ATE PAPER MADE A MORE REASONED POLITICAL STATEMENT THAN OUR CURRENT CONGRESS WHEN HE WAS FOUR.

Say what you will of his methodology, he got his point across. Now let’s turn back to our brainless droolers in Washington who got elected off of two campaign promises: 1. America needs more jobs. 2. We were the guys who opposed the health care bill.

Then, their idea to solve this crisis was to do the following. Again, not exaggerating. They wrote down “job-killing” and “health care” on a piece of paper and then said NO. That’s it. That’s all it does. One section says, and I quote: “Job-killing Health Care Law– such act is repealed.” The other section says “you can call this the ‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Act.’”

That’s all it fucking says.

It’s not hateful, it’s not corrupt, it’s not laden with pork. It doesn’t hurt minorities, it doesn’t restrict anyone’s rights, it doesn’t demonize liberals. They didn’t waste any time debating it. It can’t even make it to law in its current form, because Obama would have to sign it.

By the way, it’s got an amendment. It had to be added, because someone noticed it’s so vapid it doesn’t even count as an actual bill, so they amended it to say, and I quote, “add the language required.” It doesn’t even add the language required. It just has an attachment at the end which says, essentially, “…and stuff.”

Pay attention, tea partiers and fiscal conservatives: this is the batch you got into office. They can’t even do stupid right. You wanted jobs? This is their idea of getting you jobs. They wrote “not jobs” and then added “not that.” Let me say that again. Their idea of creating jobs is to pass a bill, with no content whatsoever, which says “tell people that we got them not not jobs.” They didn’t even get you not not jobs. They just wrote on a piece of paper to tell you so.

So, there you go. I just… I wish we had a word that still meant stupid, because they earned it today.


“Obama Should Be Impeached.”

October 28, 2010
Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...

Image via Wikipedia

Roughly a third of self-declared Republicans agree with the statement “Obama should be impeached.” But what does that even mean?

First off, not all Republicans are equal. The third being referenced here are the ones composing the Tea Party, certainly the most baffling and misunderstood group in America today. I think the biggest confusion with them, though, is that they don’t speak literally. They speak emotionally. So when they say something like “Obama should be impeached,” they don’t mean that he has committed a criminal offense which is beyond his reach as President and should therefore be subject to inquiry. They don’t know what ‘impeached’ means. This was apparent when everyone was outraged that after Clinton was impeached, he still got to be President.

What they mean is this: “the emotion that we had towards Clinton, the emotion that the other side had towards Bush, we have that emotion towards Obama.” Clinton was impeached; liberals demanded that Bush be impeached; therefore, Obama should be impeached. The English language isn’t built for these folks to be able to express what they want to express, but they get pretty close when they say things like “I want my country back.” It’s not an attack on race, as many accuse it of being. It’s an expression of emotion.

But this idea that Tea Partiers are stupid or uneducated or don’t know the Constitution—it’s not true or false, it’s moot. They don’t work in a world of facts and semantics. They are happy when they’re euphoric and they’re angry when they’re not, and so long as Obama is in office, anything that gives them a bad feeling gets assigned negative words; they don’t care which negative words they use, so long as the degree of emotion is accurate, so they just use whatever words were used in that context before.


Indiscriminate Fire

October 22, 2010

There are somewhere around 20,000 accidental gunshot wounds in the United States every year. There are over a hundred thousand deliberate gunshot wounds in the United States, and you can bet that many (perhaps most) of those people would have never been injured or killed if the assailant didn’t have a gun. Yet millions upon millions of Americans insist that it is their absolute, inarguable right to continue to carry those guns around. There’s no secret where they get that impression. It’s right there in the Second Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Now, that amendment was written in the 1790s and was based off of the English Bill of rights written in the 1680s, and there’s no question that life now is a hell of a lot different from how it was 330 years ago, yet here we are, yapping about how our right to bear arms (who even says the phrase “bear arms” anymore?) is irrevocable.
 
Fact is, we hold up our Constitution as our inalienable rights all the time. Fundamentalists claim that the tenth amendment allows states to stop teaching science. Liberal activists use popular pressure to stop sponsoring conservative opinion, while big businesses use financial pressure to stop sponsoring liberal opinion, and even they’re both blatant attempts at censorship, they defend it as Free Speech. The President refuses to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or mandate funding for government health care because the Constitution cites that it’s Congress’s job. Dennis Kucinich carries the damn thing in his pocket. It seems that the one thing all Americans agree on is that The Constitution is the most essential foundation of the American way of life.
 
So. I’m sitting and listening to a lecture on why religion is dangerous, and they cite that the Bible and the Quran have all these passages in them which promote evil deeds, slavery, murder, and so on. Sure, most Muslims are peaceful, but if they are, it’s only because they don’t really follow the Quran. Most Christians are tolerant, but that’s because they’re “cultural” Christians, not religious fundamentalists. But, they note, all these terrorists, suicide bombers, martyrs of Islam, they cite the Quran, how they’re going to get 46 virgins and be with Gabriel in Heaven. Gay-hating Christians cite Deuteronomy to defend their virulent homophobia. Therefore, it is argued, it is essential that we divorce ourselves from these books which demand such horrific behavior of its readers.
 
And I’m thinking, what the fuck? Since when did the bad apples ruin the bunch? They point out that it’s not just a perversion of the religious texts—it’s written right in there! You must stone the gays! You will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing infidels! Well, big shots, the United States Constitution says that slavery is legal and the more slaves you have, the more influence you get in Washington (to the tune of three votes for every five slaves). Then when we grew up we thought, fuck that, slavery is an abomination. And we scratched it out. Just like how the Catholic Papacy and most independent churches have been pretty agreeable that evolution is a credible thing, and that just coveting another person’s goods isn’t the end-all to moral behavior.
 
The people who still believe the world is 6,000 years old are ignorant, plain and simple, and they lack the self-esteem to suggest that they don’t understand how people got here. There are still a hell of a lot of Christians who have some serious problems with gays. That is bad. There are a few folks out there right now hinting that our country is ripe to become a theocracy, and they’re quick to point out that the Constitution never says the phrase “separation of church and state.” So let’s an install a Christian theocracy! We’ll still make no law prohibiting the free exercise of other religions, just like there’s no law in Afghanistan prohibiting Christians from practicing their faith there. It’s only if people convert from Muslim to Christianity then they’ll kill you. Well, secularists are certainly against this train of thought. But it doesn’t even make mention of the Bible, it makes mention of the Constitution. So where are these humanist scholars, demanding that people stop abiding by the Constitution since it’s sufficiently vague to allow people to come to such conclusions!?
 
Final thought: there are more pedophiles in the teaching profession than just about any other profession. Anyone making the claim that teachers are therefore more evil and misled as a whole are in need of some serious schooling in logic. The reason there are more pedophiles in the profession is because it’s the perfect environment for a child molester to pick up prey. But we sure as hell don’t demand that there should no longer be teachers. Teachers do important, valuable things for our community, things nobody else does. There are countless incidents of police officers beating or killing innocent civilians. That’s not because they’re a cop. It’s because the kind of person who has the desire to be able to beat and kill people and get away with it are going to be naturally drawn to a career on the force. It doesn’t mean that we should get rid of police.
 
That’s the extreme we need to back away from. Religion deserves the same inquiry and skepticism as anything else, and it does not deserve the immunity to questions that it currently enjoys. But if you say the Catholic Church should be dismantled because it doesn’t properly discipline or punish its pedophiles is revealing of your own bigotry. The correct answer is: The Catholic Church MUST do everything in its power to keep people out of the clergy who will so grossly abuse the trust and power that it comes with, and that is non-negotiable. If you say that by believing in the Bible, you are by necessity perpetuating the fall of civilization because prophecies see the end times as a good thing, you’re breeding intolerance without contributing to a solution. The correct answer is: the part of that book citing that Jesus will return to Earth and take you with him to Heaven is bullshit, and that is non-negotiable. If Muslims believe that they will be cast out of God’s kingdom unless they fight a jihad against the heathen Americans, the correct response is: you have no idea what happens after you die, but a guarantee you that if you take a shot at us, we’re going to make sure you live a long, horrible life here on Earth in prisons so bad we have to house them in Cuba. And we can do it, too. Our Constitution says we can.
 
But as for the rest of his religion, what’s it to you?


Senator Alan Simpson

September 1, 2010

I presume that you’ve followed the controversy with Senator Simpson sending rude letters to the Older Women’s League. I wouldn’t argue with their base claim that Senator Simpson is sexist, but give me a fucking break. They’re saying that Senator Simpson was being sexist for saying that people were sucking on the tits of Social Security. Because we all know that when people talk about suckling, we’re all referring to women’s breasts. No, you daffy bastard, he’s referring to a milk cow. He even said, and I quote, “a milk cow with 310 million tits.” Nobody refers to “sucking off of the tit” as sucking on a human breast.

The director of OWL, Ashley Carson, backs up her claim by saying that he made several references to her being too stupid to understand the data and that she doesn’t know how to read the graphs, which she says “plays on the stereotype that women are too stupid to do math.” I don’t buy it. Alan Simpson is a self-aggrandizing conservative asshole. He would have said the same thing to me if I had complained to him. He’s saying that ALL people who disagree with him are too stupid to do math. And when she was addressed on the actual meat of the Social Security issue (you now, the thing that they originally complained about), her only real constructive input was that Alan Simpson should be fired and replaced with a woman. No woman in particular– any woman will do. Way to fight that stereotype of understanding the issues.

Ordinarily, it wouldn’t bother me that they were complaining about such things. Sen. Simpson is a righteous asshole, and I’m pretty sure that he is a chauvinist just by virtue of his culture and background. And just as when people with race issues need to bite their lip when they’re talking to black people (Michael Richards) or religious bigots need to back off the zealot talk (Mel Gibson), Sen. Simpson should have watched his mouth when he was sending an official letter to a women’s rights group, and just generally try to stay away from gender-charged language.

HOWEVER, I also know that the one stereotype of women that has the most trouble getting dispelled is that they’re overly sensitive and take everything personally. Just listening to Director Ashley Carson feeds into every stereotype I’ve ever heard of the “uppity bitch.” And I think of every time that one of my female friends has tried to be respected or taken seriously by a man only to have that man dismiss her as a ‘chick with an opinion,’ and how men like that point to women like her as backing to their prejudice. I’m ashamed to be of the same gender as Alan Simpson. Women should be ashamed to be the same gender as Ashley Carson.


On Boycotts

July 29, 2010

I’ve been sent two articles in particular this week from several sources– one is a call to boycott Target because a congressman who opposes gay rights has received some of their money; the other is a call to boycott Home Depot because they support community organizations who champion gay rights.

Do we still not get why our economy is so ass backwards? I’m aware of boycott charges against WalMart for using evil business practices, or Starbucks for being too aggressive, or Hallmark for monetizing our culture. I get those boycotts. But to infuse politics into two of the most apolitical organizations out there is ridiculous. It’s selfish, it’s egomaniacal, and it’s just plain mean.

There are certainly times when a company has a definite political bent. Don’t forget that NewsCorp and Universal are both businesses. Whole Foods made that whole weird stink last year about health care. There were a few companies in 2008 who got in trouble for telling their employees how to vote. Those are times when one might be expected to reach out to their local companies and say ‘cut it out, or I’m taking my business somewhere else.’

Target, though? Target has a rating of 100% from the HRC. They have very progressive hiring practices, and even if they didn’t, they have no record of any unfair business practices, which is exceedingly rare for a budget chain. Now they have donated money to a pro-business PAC, which has donated money to a pro-business candidate for Governor of Minnesota (they’re based in Minneapolis), who among other things is a very religious man who opposes gay rights. Target has already come out in an attempt to be perfectly clear—no, they do not agree with the candidate’s view on gay rights. Yes, some of their money did make it to his campaign. But they donated the money to an organization which has a reputation of helping businesses. They’re a business.

Home Depot’s connection to this ridiculous charade is that they have but up promotional booths at gay pride parades, and put on workshops for children. In other words, they’re advertising at a place where there are going to be a lot of people who see their name. I give you a guarantee that Home Depot also has tents in many more festivals which have a more chauvinist, homophobic slant, but not because it has anything to do with politics—a majority of do-it-yourself, lumber and power tools type customers have a more conservative slant. Now Home Depot—who, incidentally, have a less than impressive score of 85% with the HRC—are being boycotted as gay-lovers.

You know who’s getting business out of all this, who’s benefiting from this culture war? Competitors who have done nothing for anybody. That’s the message we’re sending to these companies. Keep your advertising to billboards and obnoxious television commercials. Don’t support any causes. Take all that extra money and just funnel it into your stockholder’s pockets.

Your decades-long track record means nothing to us. If you do one thing we disagree with (and both companies are patronized by both ‘sides of the aisle’), we’ll drop any support for your store. So just don’t bother. Let’s go back to an age of huge companies with no social responsibilities at all.

The only solace I have from all this is that the same knee-jerk reactionaries who call for these boycotts also lack conviction. They’ll be shopping there again soon enough.


Atheistic Morality

July 16, 2010

Religion is a moral necessity for an inherently bad people. Even the most fundamentalist Christians defend their view by saying that if you do good in your life and devote yourself unwaveringly to God, or Jesus, or whoever, you will be rewarded with heaven in the afterlife. It is the single most powerful (and ultimately only) drawing feature to Christianity—if you are a Christian, you will be rewarded either here or in the afterlife, and usually (to some degree) both. The only disagreements lie in how Christian you have to be to qualify.

A fundamentalist atheist is far more dogmatic, and far more extremist. If you do evil, there will be no punishment. If you help no one, there will be no hell. And yet, it is expected that you do good in this world. Many of the most devoted environmentalists are atheists. The founders of modern democracy professed a nonbelief in God. Many of the most universally charitable organizations are secular or humanist: Red Cross, United Way, Peace Corps, etc. while religiously motivated groups like Boy Scouts of America, The Catholic Church, and Rescue Missions at the very least require a show of fealty of their benefactors, and at worst will flatly refuse to help people in need who are outside of their religious circle.

And in exchange for their good deeds, the atheist gets nothing. No heaven, no afterlife, no golden camels. There isn’t even a mythology among atheists where anyone has been rewarded for their good deeds. On the contrary—if someone is rewarded, the ‘goodness’ of their deeds is thrown in doubt (such as happened to the Presidents of secular charity United Way on several occasions). So what you have is a group of people who are expected to sacrifice themselves to the benefit of others, to the benefit of the Earth, and even to the benefit of generations that don’t even exist yet, and they are expected to do so without any congratulations, any rewards, and any fringe benefits of any kind. But they have to do it anyway. Now that’s a true test of faith.


I Hate Bill Frist

June 15, 2010

Over the years, I’ve expressed a good deal of respect for a variety of conservatives… people like Bill Kristol, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc. I may not agree with them, and one might say that anyone can make their case sound good if they aren’t tethered by reality or facts, but all of them have said things at one time or another where I think, you know, I support your right to say that. I disagree, but I do so in a way that I would love to discuss the issue with you. They present things eloquently, respectfully, and show that they put real thought in it, and have been willing to have a debate on the issues, stand by their principles even when it isn’t to their advantage, and even give the opposition a chance to speak. Not always, but there are times.

Now, I just had a chance to hear Bill Frist talk on Bill Maher’s show. And I can say with confidence that the man is an ignorant, intolerant, no-good hack whose sole intent is to benefit himself at the expense of others. He is so detached from humanity that he preaches his beliefs in a way that reveals their very absurdity, because he’s simply too inhuman to realize what he’s saying. He can’t formulate an intelligent response to honest questions, and the fact that anyone knows his name is proof that there are too many people out there who feel that it is their right to rule the world, and wish we could go back to a time when black people were slaves, women were servants, and progressives were in jail. He condones a world that, if made real, would lead to the complete degradation of society as we know it, and THAT is not an opinion that I feel should or can be defended by the right of free speech. The only time he says something respectable, it’s because he’s regurgitating a prepared and polished conservative talking point.

This is one of those very few times where I honestly believe that anyone who takes Bill Frist’s side on anything except medicine (he’s a multimillionaire surgeon) is a danger to society.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.