Ben Carson

There’s something deeply wrong with Ben Carson.
“Being gay is a choice because some people go into prison straight but come out gay.”
Clearly some people go into medical school able to learn but come out believing that their ability to wield a scalpel makes every ignorant, backward, unread, thoughtless, condescending, asshole idea that flits through their head worthy of being taken seriously.
What an absolute piece of shit.

In a statement to CNN, Carson walked back his assertion.
“I realized that my choice of language does not reflect fully my heart on gay issues,” Carson said. “I do not pretend to know how every individual came to their sexual orientation. I regret that my words to express that concept were hurtful and divisive. For that I apologize unreservedly to all that were offended.”

And so we learn that in addition to be stupid, Ben Carson is a liar.
He was perfectly clear. He said being gay is a choice. He was asked to confirm if he meant that and he replied, “Absolutely.”
ABSOLUTELY. CHOICE.
It is of no value whatsoever to pretend to apologize for offending people by saying what he really thinks, or to walk it back ever so slightly by admitting that he doesn’t KNOW how people come to their sexual orientation (Pro tip: No one KNOWS how anyone comes to their sexual orientation.)
The story here is that Ben Carson, in the complete absence of any valid information upon which to have an opinion (and worse that that, vomiting forth the stunningly ridiculous and intellectually shameful prison hypothetical), arrogantly asserts his completely ignorant opinion as ABSOLUTE fact, and supports policies that treat homosexuality as if it were abnormal, socially undesirable, and undeserving of equality under the law.
I don’t know how this puffed up asshole ever managed to get admitted to medical school but given the demonstrations of his non-medical capacities, all I have to say to the Republican party is, “Keep going. You’re going great!”

Republicans

Homeland Security – clearly an immigration issue.
Labour bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Education and energy bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Economic bill – GOP amendment to defund Obamacare.
Another education bill – GOP amendment to cut funding to any school that so much as mentions abortion to teenage girls.

These venal assholes will sacrifice even the appearance of doing their job, while putting god bothering, science denying morons like Inhofe in charge of the environment, in order to make another petulant, stubborn, childish fucking attempt to roll back any gain that helps anyone not named Koch, or fails to hew to their imbecilic, ignorant Conservative principles – principles that plainly amount to being willfully stupid and throwing tantrums when they don’t get to actually do the brainless goddamn things they promised Cletus and the rest of the Klan in Sisterfuck, Arkansas in order to get his snake handling ass off the porch and into a voting booth.

Reza…Again.

reza

Not Real Islam?

“Civilization will not attain to its perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.” – Émile Zola

Religion commonly produces sects – splinter groups with a slightly different theological interpretation of some bit of nonsense: the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, confession, communion; Reform and Orthodox Jews; various strains of Baptist – no one would ever suggest that these are not all religions. Despite the Protestant conviction that Catholics are doomed (and vice versa), the claim that one or the other of these gangs of theists is somehow not a religion is nothing that should be taken seriously.
Yet some Muslims (and Liberals) point to a group of other Muslims – all of them adamant about their faith and their motives – and say, “We refuse to take these people at their word. We find their actions abhorrent and so, therefore, they are not real Muslims.”
It seems the main qualifying feature of being a “real religion” is that it doesn’t provoke bad acts. This view demands a rather shocking degree of willful blindness with regard to the history of religion, the contemporary practices of those who proudly invoke the name of God, along with complete ignorance of the allegedly inerrant word of the one true God. I invite anyone who doubts this to simply open a newspaper and to spend some time actually reading the Bible or the Quran because it appears certain they have not done either.
ISIS stones people to death – an act specifically demanded for any number of offenses in the Christian Bible – and the choir responds with even greater certainty: “That’s not REAL religion!”
The stunningly hypocritical contradiction passes by them without so much as a nod or a wink: when people do exactly that which God specifically demands for reasons plainly enumerated in their inerrant, divinely revealed book, THAT’S not religion.

The members of ISIS are Muslims – you may take them at their word.
It is a fundamentally Islamic organization and Islam is either the proximate cause of the evil they do or an accelerant. They are not pretending, and have made very clear that anyone who doesn’t agree with their particular understanding of God deserves to die.

Similarly, gentle Jesus, meek and mild, is the proximate cause for people who shout epithets at women attempting to enter medical clinics, just as He was for those who burned innocent women at the stake after falsely accusing them of witchcraft.
Let’s not dodge the facts by refusing to admit that these monsters were Christians and largely motivated by righteous certainty in divine warrant. It is simply dishonest to assert otherwise.
On its face, it seems to me such an egregious evasion that it calls into question the motives of anyone who points to these people and casually asserts they are not REAL Christians, or that their foundational scripture does not fairly support and demand such things on a plain reading.
The Catholic church still takes very seriously the idea of demonic possession and the necessity for exorcism. That they have not burned anyone at the stake recently does not exonerate their dangerous and superstitious theological certainty.

As for ISIS not conforming to “Islamic orthodoxy” (the definition of which apparently cannot be left to Shi’ite and Sunnis to sort out), the actions of ISIS conform perfectly with the demands specifically made in the Quran regarding infidels, blasphemers, apostates, adulterers and homosexuals.
That the vast majority of people are rightly horrified by those actions renders neither the motives nor the terrorists themselves, “Not really Muslim,” no matter how sincere the desire to avoid offending all those reasonable Muslims who decry the murderous attacks in Paris, the burning alive of a caged man, or to comfort some misplaced Liberal need to elevate tolerance beyond reason.
The depth and breath of cognitive dissonance required to play this level of No True Scotsman is, in my view, a very serious obstacle. We cannot begin to address any serious problem with multiple causes, of which religion is plainly a very significant one, by defining that factor out of the equation because it suits some relexive desire not to offend someone’s make believe friend.

Hitchens was right. Religion poisons everything. Pretending it doesn’t – that in some small measure it’s a good thing – is whistling past the graveyard.

Joe Scarborough – Racist Ignoramus

Joe Scarborough:

“The cops have every reason to be pissed off this morning,” Scarborough said. He argued that the five players on the St. Louis Rams who raised their arms in solidarity with Ferguson on Sunday based their gesture on “lies” that contradicted findings of a grand jury investigation.

“And by the way, if I’ve offended anybody by saying what I’ve said, trust me, 95 percent of America think just like me,” he said. “Just because there are cowards who won’t say that on TV… that’s their problem, not mine,” said Scarborough.

Joe Scarborough has never been a smart man. His “Center right” cardigans button up over a pathetically weak mind operating from within a set of Dunning-Kruger level partisan presumptions. He’s a giant bag of dicks who somehow managed to get elected to congress and is now paid ridiculous amounts of money to daily ooze his condescension all over large blocks of time on our public airwaves.

Joe seems to know how offensive is the shit oozing from the inverted anus he calls a mouth. He attempts to inflate his credibility by admitting that his words are certain to offend and asserting that 95% of the population agrees with him. This is nothing more than self-stroking speculation. Even if it were true that the vast majority of Americans agree with his ignorant fantasies, it would only amount to argumentum ad populum. The truth would be that 95% of Americans are uneducated, racist know-nothings who are completely fucking wrong.
He then arrogantly labels anyone who doesn’t publicly admit that they agree with him a coward. This is cheap and shabby ad hominem. Think about what Scarborough is saying here: only cowards stand up for the weak against the power structure that has oppressed them for 300 years. Only cowards question the result of a blatantly rigged legal process that was inverted 180 degrees from its historical AND contemporary purpose.
Joe Scarborough – brave, smart and speaking for the silent massive majority who are just too…something…to say what only Joe has the sack to say – the singular voice willing to speak the POPULAR truth. The greasy little moron and his unwarranted pride in his own imagined genius fucking nauseates me.

The problem with all of this is that, in addition to being racist on its face, Joe doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

Firstly, a grand jury – to flog a soundly beaten and long dead horse – is supposed to examine the evidence for a singular purpose: to determine whether or not there ought to be a trial; whether there is ANY evidence that would require taking the matter before a trial judge.
They are impaneled by a prosecutor who is presumed to WANT an indictment and who will argue that the evidence supports that outcome. He will usually direct the jury’s attention to the evidence supporting an indictment and request that they return a charge appropriate to the facts.
This is NOT what happened in Ferguson. The grand jury in Ferguson did not investigate a goddamn thing. Grand juries have, in theory, the ability to perform investigatory functions but this one, in fact, did not.
It heard the evidence presented to it by the prosecutor – evidence which was collected during an investigation conducted by various entities. It examined that evidence ONLY in the light in which the prosecution presented it – no alternative arguments, no cross-examination, no alternative theories.

Secondly, as noted in my previous post, the conduct of the prosecutor in Ferguson, Missouri didn’t even distantly orbit anything remotely resembling a proper grand jury, much less meet the duty of his office or the laws of the United States. The only way it could have been more corrupt, the outcome more rigged, would be if the verdict had been rendered at gunpoint.
Incriminating evidence was cross-examined as though the prosecutors were employed by Darren Wilson – the target of the grand jury.
Exculpatory evidence – which grand juries are not entitled to hear and prosecutors are not obligated to present – was casually submitted with absolutely no critical analysis.
An assistant prosecutor misdirected the jury with regard to the applicable law.
The lead prosecutor didn’t even request that the jury return an indictment – he let those untrained citizens think their job was to decide if the shooting was justified!
This is nonfeasance, misfeasance AND malfeasance all wrapped up in, “Just doin’ my job.”

And yet, here’s the blathering white bread asshole Scarborough, backed up by his brainless sidekick (a pure talent hire who is only coincidentally the daughter of a former Secretary of State), and supposedly countered on the left by an even bigger yammering douche nozzle who is only too eager to jam his tongue up Scarborough’s ass to signal his complete agreement with a series of deep-cleaning reptilian licks.

“Michael Brown was a thug.”
That’s NOTHING but character assassination – an attempt to divert attention from the cheap three card monte scam he’s running on his “It’s OK to be racist if you just keep insisting you’re not” teevee program.

Joe Scarborough is an ignorant, lying, racist piece of shit. It may be the case that 95% of America agrees with him. That would explain much.

Corrupt Ferguson Grand Jury

What people need to wrap their heads around has nothing to do with whether or not the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson was justified.
The flagrant and intentional misuse of the grand jury system to no-bill the cop and ensure the matter would never be tried in open court; the manner in which it was done is a critically serious issue.

The PROSECUTOR cross-examined witnesses whose testimony weighed on the side of indictment. No such attention was given to exculpatory evidence…which a grand jury is not entitled to hear in the first place.
Exculpatory evidence was casually presented with no critical analysis whatsoever: Thank you for your honest and helpful testimony, Officer Wilson.  But perhaps the most qualified medical examiner on the planet got, “Are you a toxicologist?”
No.
“Are you a pharmacologist?”
No.
“Have you been certified as an expert in toxicology?”
No.
“Have you been certified as an expert in pharmacology?”
No.
And this was done in order to support the implication that Brown was out of his mind on WAX (a concentrated form marijuana) FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.
Defence lawyers in the employ of Darren Wilson could not have presented that evidence to the grand jury in any more favourable light.

Whether or not Darren Wilson committed a crime when he killed Michael Brown will never be determined. The reason for that is because a gang of intentionally malfeasant prosecutors decided to rig the system so that question would never be asked or answered.
Robert McCulloch might as well have walked into that room like this:

Robert McCulloch

Stop Giving Cops Who Kill the Benefit of the Doubt

A 12-year-old child was shot to death by police officers in Cleveland. The child was alone in an empty park playing with a toy gun. The police claimed that the child was with a group of friends; that he ignored repeated commands to put up his hands; that he reached for what appeared to be a weapon. Only then, say the police, were they forced to use lethal force.
The officers did not know that there was a security camera across the street recording the entire incident. I leave to the viewer to assess the credibility of the officers.

Cleveland dot com copied the video and posted it in an article demanding answers from the police. My open rely to the editors of that publication follows:

“…the police have a lot of explaining to do.”

Given that the police have already lied about their actions, saying the child refused repeated orders to put up his hands – a claim made manifestly false by the video – how does one manage to express the expectation there could be any possible explanation, justification or excuse?
The stern way you appear to demand answers in the face of evidence that leaves no goddamn questions only underscores the degree to which police are given license to use force in any way they see fit against anyone that comes along. Even after LYING about the murder – and there is nothing else to call it – of a small child sitting alone in an empty park playing with a TOY, you still want them to tell you HOW IT IS that such a thing might have happened; what confluence of circumstance led to this awful (but, of course, unavoidable) outcome. They need to EXPLAIN.
Perhaps when they finish scuffing their feet, looking at their hands and stuttering about how no one understands the dangers they face every day while keeping us safe from children in empty parks, you’ll explain why it is that your paper’s tongue is jammed so deeply up the backdoor of a thin blue pair of child murderers.
One wonders at what point your newspaper would stop asking for explanations; stop giving murdering cops the opportunity to cobble together a “valid excuse” for why they shot a 12-year-old child who posed NO DANGER to ANYONE without so much as a single word.
‘He was big for his age. He looked like a demon. He had rage in his eyes. I thought he would charge me. He went for my gun. It’s difficult to be a cop, you know…you never know when you will be confronted by a 12-year-old sitting alone in a park and be forced to make a split-second life-or-death decision. YOU WEREN’T THERE!’

You ask a series of WHY questions as if there are possible answers; as if there’s some string of words that a cop might utter that would justify what appears on that tape: TWO SECONDS after those brave men arrived to serve and protect, a pubescent child was shot and killed. And they have ALREADY LIED ABOUT IT.
But even THAT – the knowledge that you are demanding answers from people who lie with the first goddamn words out of their mouth; who lie as a matter of standard operating procedure; who attempt to justify what cannot possibly be justified with complete fiction; LIES THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTED WERE IT NOT FOR THE CONTRADICTING VIDEO – does not stop you from demanding an explanation. “WHY? Tell us what reasoning you employed!”
I have a better question: Which member of that police force has the videotape of your editor-in-chief fucking a pig?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 417 other followers