But silence is political »« We have some screwed up priorities here

We almost elected this mad woman to high office?

Sarah Palin is so stupid, it’s terrifying. Here she is preaching to her fellow lunatics about how liberals are soft on terrorists and are out to help our enemies, when we’re supposed to put the “fear of god” in them.

Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists. I think I’m going to be sick. This is why we should never ever vote Republican.

Comments

  1. says

    “This is why we should never ever vote Republican.”

    I’m with you on this one, despite my earlier comments about the Two Party. I just wish it was possible in this country to vote FOR someone, instead of always having to vote AGAINST someone else.

  2. ludicrous says

    No not stupid, clever in a way. My guess is that as a little girl she looked around at the situation and decided ‘I’m gonna have to spot the suckers cosy up to them and bullshit my way in this world.’ She is pretty good at it.

  3. atterdag says

    In addition to, and probably more importantly, than not voting Republican; is to get out and vote. If you look at the numbers, Republicans are elected by people who choose to not vote. If the people who opted out of voting decided to participate, we would not have a Republican problem to complain about.

  4. Gregory Greenwood says

    Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.

    Waterboarding is how you torture people without even bothering with a show trial first. Many of those people will be innocent, their only crime being to be born a slightly darker hue than, say, Sarah Palin. But even if they were active terrorists, torture is both an unacceptable breach of human rights (you know, those fundamental, inalienable rights that the ‘good guys’ are supposed to be fighting for) and ineffective as an interrogation technique. All you can hope for is to make the victim say what they think you want to hear, whether it is accurate or not, and the undue weighting given to the supposed veracity of ‘intelligence’ garnered by torture – sorry ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ – in Republican policy making circles makes it an ideal way to feed false information to gullible, torture-happy idiots like, well, Sarah Palin

    So here we have another dose of smug, self-righteous theistic evil that wears a face of ‘all american patriotism’. Pretty much the standard Republican patter. Palin is scary enough, but what is far worse is the large crowd cheering and applauding her as she advocates the use of torture without even the inadequate fig leaf of due process. That she came within a trice of being Vice President to McCain – a man whose health made it a near certainty that he wouldn’t last in office, thus making Palin President by default in the short term at least – is the stuff of nightmares.

  5. Shplane, Spess Alium says

    @Atterdag

    Not everyone lives in a swing state, or has the time and energy to deal with all the nonsense put between them and voting.

    Also, I’d be interested in actually seeing these numbers. It seems doubtful to me, given statistics on common American beliefs, that if everyone voted there wouldn’t be a shitload of Republicans still getting elected.

  6. raven says

    “Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

    It was really stupid.

    1. Most of the terrorist attacks and plots, two thirds of them since 9/11, have involved xians and/or rightwing nuts.

    2. We see one every few months. A few weeks ago, Glenn Miller the KKK guy killed three random people outside a Jewish community center.

    A week ago, a Mormon thief and Welfare Queen and the militias almost got in a shootout with BLM employees.

    3. Which means according to Sarah Palin that we should waterboard Miller, Cliven Bundy, the Koch brothers, and their goon squads.

    Which won’t accomplish anything. We know who they are and what they did. Some of it is on video.

  7. Albert Bakker says

    As she was thrust on the political stage by someone who was actually “baptized as a terrorist” in I guess the American Way, maybe things have become a a little garbled in the cavity behind her eyes: torture = good for career. And she’s probably right.

  8. says

    This seems to be part of the Christian mindset: torture people until they admit to anything one accuses them of and then proudly proclaim they deserve it because they are guilty anyway: a typical self-fulfilling prophecy. They don’t have to feel bad about it either, since their Ayatollah-in-the-Heavens has already declared them innocent anyway.

  9. dogmeat says

    Also, I’d be interested in actually seeing these numbers. It seems doubtful to me, given statistics on common American beliefs, that if everyone voted there wouldn’t be a shitload of Republicans still getting elected.

    Election results show that, in the US, roughly 60% show up to vote for presidential elections; it drops to 40-45% for mid-term elections. The problem is, those mid-term elections are the ones that determine things like state legislatures who, in turn, often determine the boundaries for congressional districts within the states. In 2012 Democrats actually garnered nearly two million more votes in congressional races, but the Republicans won their third largest majority in the House of Representatives since WWII. The reason? In 2010 the voter turn-out was a paltry 42%, who turned out? Disgruntled Republican voters, who stayed home? Disgruntled everyone else. Not only did the GOP take control of the House, they also took control of the majority of state legislatures and the majority of the gubernatorial offices. That combination (plus the 2010 census) gave them the ability to redraw the districts in erstwhile Democratic states (PA, MI, VA being huge examples).

    There is a strong correlation between larger voter turnout and Democrats winning elections. Despite the Republican control of the House for most of the last twenty years and control of the Senate for half that, most people forget that the Republicans have lost the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections.

  10. norsk says

    I would submit that Palin, along with people like Cheney, Bush et al are simply the more obvious stupidly evil… serving as useful distractions while their counterparts in the other wing of the one party oligarchy commit more crimes than they could ever dream of… It’s the system, and it is rotten to the core…

  11. ButchKitties says

    Ugh. This happened just down the street from where I live. Indianapolis is also experiencing a bit of a homicide wave right now. I thought having a bunch of NRA gun-wavers in town meant that murders would go down, cuz “stand your ground/stand and fight,” is supposed to be the best way to reduced gun crime, right? Right???

    So glad it’s over, and I can have my downtown back.

  12. says

    I laughed at your American Republicans … until Australia voted Tony Abbott into office, whose opinions are no less horrifying than those of Sarah Palin and he’s considerably less articulate.

    You nearly elected Palin because a lot of people made very bad decisions along the way, and in the winner-take-all nature of US politics, once McCain was confirmed as Republican Candidate it was his sole decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running-mate. Bad decision-making by McCain, who was himself the result of a bad decision by other Republicans, and so on. That’s not to say that your other Republican hopefuls were any better; they were all hopeless – on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger curve.

    I see the same thing with the Liberal National Party in Australia; their best and brightest are at best incompetent and destructive in their portfolios. Tony Abbott is the most aggressive politician on their side (best from a field of attack dogs) but is otherwise hopeless. A lot of Australians made the very bad decision to punish Labor’s perceived misbehavior (an assertion relentlessly pushed by Abbott in opposition, unchallenged by most journalists and frequently promoted by the Murdoch media) by voting Labor out of office, and I hope they now regret most particularly the very bad results which Australia is experiencing.

  13. What a Maroon, el papa ateo says

    Also, I’d be interested in actually seeing these numbers. It seems doubtful to me, given statistics on common American beliefs, that if everyone voted there wouldn’t be a shitload of Republicans still getting elected.

    Here are some numbers from the pfft. These are total votes for all House of Representative races in the past three election years (for those of you not familiar with the US system, every seat in the House is up for election every two years).

    2008:
    Dems: 65,237,840
    Gops: 52,249,491
    Total: 117,487,331

    2010:
    Dems: 38,980,192
    Gops: 44,827,441
    Total: 83,807,633

    2012:
    Dems: 59,645,531
    Gops: 58,228,253
    Total: 117,873,784

    It’s really frustrating that people who vote for the Dems are so much less likely to turn out in non-Presidential years. It’s even worse if you dig down to the state level, because it’s in the state legislatures that the districting happens, and the goppers have far too much control over that. (That’s why the House is majority gop even though they got about a million and a half fewer votes.)

  14. D Carter says

    There is a connection, though.

    Waterboarding makes you gag for a few minutes. Baptism makes you make other folks gag for decades.

  15. Alverant says

    @10
    I have the feeling that if a white conservative christian was waterboarded on being a suspected terrorist Palin would change her mind instantly for this one exception. Torture is just for those “other” people.

  16. raven says

    I laughed at your American Republicans … until Australia voted Tony Abbott into office, whose opinions are no less horrifying than those of Sarah Palin and he’s considerably less articulate.

    Not to mention that the Canadians have voted Steven Harper, a Bush clone, into office, more than once.

    The British have a Tory, David Cameron, who is babbling on about how the UK is a xian nation.

    The Russians have Putin.

    Seems to be an outbreak of rightwing bad government everywhere.

  17. fatpie42 says

    “We almost elected this mad woman to high office?”

    What… almost? Some people DID elect her! This woman was elected Governor of Alaska!

    It’s laughable when she says “If I were in charge…” You flipping WERE in charge. And then you quit!!!!

  18. robinjohnson says

    Spot the thinly veiled racism where she implies that terrorist suspects are heathens who need to be baptised.

  19. tuibguy says

    Never mind what the national security agencies are supposed to be protecting, wipe your ass with the Declaration of Independence, spit in the faces of the Founding Fathers you idolize; just take us back to the days of the inquisition, the days when confessions were gained with hot irons, branks, floggers, hanging by thumbs and then once the confession were extracted declare a capital punishment not only to kill but to serve as a warning to all who would step out of line against the theocracy.

    People like Palin don’t give a shit about the putative republican nature of our governments, they are nationalists pitting Fortress America against enemies real or imagined just to keep us in the fear that without eternal vigilance our “way of life” will be taken from us by brownskins in brownshirts.

    And by God, we had better have some guns to fight them off!

  20. Anri says

    So, remember, when you hear anyone railing against all those voting for the lesser evil… this is the Greater Evil they’re actually helping to elect.

  21. says

    @Kevin # 6 – “I wish the spoiler effect didn’t exist in this country.”

    Which is exactly how the Democrats have been able to get away with everything. Personally, I’m sick and tired of Democrats sneering at me and saying with utter condescension: “Who else are you going to vote for? So suck it up, (expletive of choice), we own you.”

    If we are too cowardly to vote for positive change, there never will be positive change.

  22. julial says

    elronxenu @ 17

    I laughed at your American Republicans … until Australia voted Tony Abbott into office, whose opinions are no less horrifying than those of Sarah Palin and he’s considerably less articulate.

    You’re kidding right? That’s some kind of violation of physical law.

  23. busterggi says

    “We almost elected this mad woman to high office?”

    What do you mean “we”? I sure as shit haven’t voted Rethug since ’72.

  24. moarscienceplz says

    Look at that audience of mouth-breathers. Maybe better health care for older Americans isn’t such a good idea, because the faster my generation dies off, the better for America and the world.

  25. microraptor says

    Seems to be an outbreak of rightwing bad government everywhere.

    I wonder if we can inoculate against it.

    The anti-vaccers would probably shut it down.

  26. anuran says

    So it’s not about gathering intelligence, is it? It’s all about torturing people. Since all Moozlums are terry-wrists and except for a few race-traitors Moozlums are Brown it writes itself. It’s a White Christian pogrom with torture and all the trimmings.

    And gods help you if you don’t sing Hosannas as you kill them.

    Blessed are they who take their babies and smash their heads against the rocks

  27. says

    Over and above the obvious inhumanity of the waterboarding line, what’s this about how liberals are soft on terrorists? Which president ordered the death of Osama bin Laden (and actually saw it carried out) and which one publicly stated that he wasn’t all that concerned with him?

    (And, please, no arguments about how Obama is more of a moderate than anything. Point granted but you all know that Palin considers him ultra-liberal.)

  28. lesherb says

    Outside of Palin’s obvious ignorance, how on earth could we have withstood that screech being broadcasted over the air waves for 4 years? I’d like to bet there are some epileptics who have to change the channel if she comes on because her voice is a seizure trigger.

    She doesn’t have to screech, either. Obviously, her parents didn’t teach her any manners or social graces. I am not talking about politically correct behavior. I mean speaking pleasantly and resisting her natural inclination toward whining.

    Roseanne Barr made a lot of money using the same voice. The difference being, Roseanne is a comedian. If you see her interviewed, she has a pleasant voice. Whenever I’ve heard Palin being interviewed, besides the whacky word placement, word salad, she just whines like a dentist’s drill.

    Good riddens to old garbage!

  29. says

    The difference between a compulsive liar and a torturer is that the torturer coerces other people to lie and then uses those coerced lies as “external” validation for the lies he tells himself. Torture only “works” as an interrogation tool if falsehood and self-sabotage are your goals.

    Of course, we’re probably not talking about people who are interested in gathering accurate intelligence, only getting their sadism sanctioned by those in power.

  30. says

    …when we’re supposed to put the “fear of god” in them.

    It’s too bad that Islamic fundamentalists don’t already fear God. Think of how much easier they’d be to deal with if they took their faith seriously.

  31. NitricAcid says

    @35- next time the protesters line up outside the hospital waving their pictures of fetuses and Mother Theresa, I’m going to stand next to them with a sign that says “PSALM 137: 9″. See of any of them get the reference.

  32. says

    So it’s not about gathering intelligence, is it? It’s all about torturing people.

    Yep. If it were just some sober mechanism for gaining intelligence, they wouldn’t be so wildly enthusiastic about it and compare it favorably to baptism and fraternity hazing. In fact, they wouldn’t pay it much attention at all.

    Torture is an end in itself. It inflicts pain and suffering on bad people, which they deserve. And it upsets the liberals, which they also deserve.

  33. grumpyoldfart says

    “Land of the free and home of the brave”.

    Might soon have to cross those words out of your anthem.

  34. anuran says

    changerofbits:

    Yep. Every photo from Abu Ghraib or Bagram, every “extraordinary rendition”, news report from Guantanamo Bay makes a thousand people who hate us for good reasons. But we just can’t stop sowing those dragon’s teeth.

  35. mikeyb says

    So funny. Ha ha. She’s trying give Ann Coulter a run for her money, in saying insanely evil stuff that is supposed to be funny? About the same level as putting targets on Gabby Gifford’s district.

  36. vaiyt says

    I used to laugh at America.

    Then my country’s congressmen elected a fundie, racist, sexist, pro-life scumbag to head our human rights commission.

    I can’t laugh anymore.

  37. gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet says

    Julial @28
    My favourite response to Abbott’s ability to articulate can be found by googling ‘Tony Abbott 28 seconds’.
    It really is all you need to know.

    You may also google ‘Tony Abbott suppository of wisdom’ so you can have a giggle to get over the creepiness of the 28 second thing.

  38. atheistblog says

    All republicans and lots and lots of democrats totally failed in ethics and morality. I don’t think they grow up with learning good ethics. After all American school system is total crap. American schools can teach stupid book called bibe in school but not good ethics.
    Wonder why ?

  39. anteprepro says

    atheistblog

    American schools can teach stupid book called bibe in school but not good ethics.

    And…that’s false. They can’t “teach the Bible”, legally, outside of an appropriate course on literature. Apparently you read the same version of the First Amendment that fundies do.

  40. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    Waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.

    Note the assumption that terrorists need to be baptised, thereby implying they haven’t already been baptised into the Christian faith. She’s conflating “terrorist” with “Muslim” again, and conflating torture with forced conversion. This is the language of religious war, dressed up in the language of state security.

  41. nancymartin says

    A lot of christians are not happy with her over that remark seeing as baptism is considered a sacrament.

  42. Snoof says

    A lot of christians are not happy with her over that remark seeing as baptism is considered a sacrament.

    To a certain type of authoritarian personality, torture is a sacrament.

  43. says

    most people forget that the Republicans have lost the popular vote in four of the last five presidential elections.

    Actually, it’s five out of six. Two wins by Clinton, two by Obama, and one “loss” by Al Gore. Only in 2004 did the Republican win the popular vote, and that was close.
    And this came on the heels of five wins in six tries by Republicans. I’d say something changed about 1990 or so. My guess is they lost their communist boogeyman.
    My new job involves doing (mostly) political surveys of random people in various parts of the country. I maintain my professional, strictly neutral stance at all times, but I did throw up in my nose a little when a woman from the southern U.S. responded with “she speaks for me!” when I asked her if an endorsement from Sarah Palin would make her more likely to vote for some candidate or other.
    But, in a nice “faith” restoration a couple days later, I asked a woman in Alaska if she approved or disapproved of Palin, and she said “we don’t talk about her up here.”

  44. says

    Petition from Faithful America:

    For Christians, torture is not a joke or a political punchline, but a ghastly reminder of the suffering of Jesus upon the cross. By equating it with Holy Baptism — the act by which we are united with Christ in his death and resurrection — Sarah Palin is blasphemously twisting our faith into a weapon of hatred and violence. No media outlet should cover her remarks without reporting on how sincere Christians of all theological and political persuasions are appalled.

  45. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    I thought that was clever. I’d vote for her. Certainly over someone with no public-sector administrative experience or private-sector administrative experience who thinks Austrians speak Austrian and who, uh, can’t string three consecutive words, uh, together without his, uh, teleprompter. Maybe you prefer a dimwit who imagines that islands float and can capsize if too many troops are stationed on them?
    As to torture:… if modern American “liberals” (i.e., socialists) so vehemently oppose torture, why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything? A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.

  46. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    hy do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) a

    Only a fuckwitted liberturd would make such an inane statement. Which means you say nothing cogent being only sloganeering.

  47. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Nerd 58): ” ..fuckwitted liberturd…”.
    4th grade much?

    (Malcolm): “Why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence)…”
    (Nerd): “…inane statement…”
    The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Many socialists cannot be upfront about their methods, and must always claim benign motives, but the invariable choice of violent means indicates, as Orwell suggests, vicarious sadism.

    Guam capsize? Here:http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0410/Georgia_Dem_Guam_crowded_might_capsize.html
    Now THAT’S stupid (D).

  48. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    I am always amazed by racist imbeciles like Mal Kirkpatrick who imply Obama is unintelligent. The guy was editor of the law review in his class at Harvard!

    That’s the thing about white supremacists like Mal–they negate their philosophy by example.

  49. David Marjanović says

    As to torture:… if modern American “liberals” (i.e., socialists) so vehemently oppose torture, why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything?

    …Because it’s not torture?

    Nobody here is going to defend the US prison system. And lay off the heavy metaphors, they’re fogging your brain.

    definition, after Weber

    Does a name make a sound when it drops in the woods…?

  50. says

    why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything?

    answer: they don’t.

    That was easy.

    And I have to say, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone so completely off their fucking nut as to honestly and seriously compare application of law to the abuse and torture of human beings without due process for the purpose of extracting inevitably useless information.

    Congratulations Malcolm Kirkpatrick, you’ve exploded my wtf-processor.

  51. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (ray, 60): “I am always amazed by racist imbeciles like Mal Kirkpatrick who imply Obama is unintelligent.”
    How is this “racist”? The (black) human and canine IQ curves overlap. The (white) human and canine IQ curves overlap. the (East Asian) human and canine IQ curves overlap.

    Mass media promoted and Americans elected a mediocrity as President.

    As to “imbecile”: where do you disagree? What administrative experience did Senator Obama bring to the job? Do you, uh, consider Obama, uh, eloquent?

    (ray, 60): “The guy was editor of the law review in his class at Harvard!”
    Affirmative action, it’s not just for government-run universities anymore. Let’s see his SATs and LSATs. Let’s see his college transcripts. We have seen his Middle East policy and his health care policy. Are you impressed?

    (ray): “That’s the thing about white supremacists like Mal–they negate their philosophy by example.”
    My example? I’m a fan of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. I have lived in Hawaii all my life. That makes me an American citizen, who could, if I really dislike non-whites, move to Iowa to get away from the majority non-white population that surrounds me here. I’m still here.
    Do you really intend to suggest that one must approve ALL black people (or black politicians) to qualify as non-racist? That’s not possible, since blacks, like whites and East Asians, disagree among themselves. You discredit your voice with reckless ad hominem. Nowadays, “racist” means little more than “Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist”.

  52. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Aww, look, some of Mal’s best friends are colored? Keep digging, Mal. You’re looking stupider and stupider.

  53. says

    Do you really intend to suggest that one must approve ALL black people (or black politicians) to qualify as non-racist?

    You really think it’s your disapproval of Obama that makes you come across as racist?

  54. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Ray, 64): “Aww, look, some of Mal’s best friends are colored? Keep digging, Mal. You’re looking stupider and stupider.”
    What qualifies as a disproof, then? Or is “racist” an accusation that needs no support and admits no rebuttal?

  55. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Celtic): “You really think it’s your disapproval of Obama that makes you come across as racist?”
    That, and, as I said, nowadays “racist” means little more than “Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist”.

  56. Desert Son, OM says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick at #63:

    For purposes of improving the quality and clarity of communication within threads, you can cite posters to whom you respond by name and post number. In addition, using the blockquote html tag: [blockquote] and [/blockquote] with the square brackets replaced by angled brackets will help contextualize your responses.

    For example. If I were to type [blockquote]This is a quoted section.[/blockquote], replacing the square brackets with angled brackets, the result would look like this:

    This is a quoted section.

    For further information about posting protocols you can refer to The Rules.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  57. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Mal, your own posts prove your racism–the fact that you immediately assume Obama is unintelligent. The fact that you assume that every success an African American has is due to affirmative action. Your words speak volumes.

  58. Amphiox says

    That, and, as I said, nowadays “racist” means little more than “Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist”.

    False.

    why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything?

    Anyone who could say something as ludicrous as this with a straight face is not someone who deserves to be taken seriously.

  59. says

    Desert Son:

    In addition, using the blockquote html tag

    I’ll happily demonstrate. Use: <blockquote>Place Text Here</blockquote>

  60. Desert Son, OM says

    Inaji at #71:

    Yes, thank you! I need to look up how to type angle brackets without indicating it’s an active tag. :)

    Thanks again!

    Still learning,

    Robert

  61. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Ray, 69): “Mal, your own posts prove your racism–the fact that you immediately assume Obama is unintelligent..”
    Where do you get “immediately”? There’s no evidence of intelligence. I don’t make that assumption about Ugandan Math PhD candidates or Somali Soil Science PhD candidates or black American economists. This particular President lacks the intellect to reconsider the indoctrination he imbibed from his Marxist mentor Frank Marshall Davis. He can’t string three, uh, words together without, uh, a teleprompter. Yah, he’s not very bright. That observation says nothing about the intellectual potential of the average African newborn. Proper nutrition and affectionate parental attention can work wonders.

    Maybe you consider his Middle East policy a success?

    (Ray): “The fact that you assume that every success an African American has is due to affirmative action. Your words speak volumes.”
    The fact that ray hides a slide from particular to general with “an” above in place of the particular “this” speaks volumes. It’s no more “racist” to observe that nothing in Obama’s record indicates intellect than to observe the same of, say, John McCain.

  62. applebeverage says

    I’m disappointed to see PZ on board with the whole “let’s use words like ‘mad’ and ‘lunatic’ when we really mean ‘evil’ or ‘willfully ignorant’” train of thought instead of standing against that sort of thing. It scapegoats mental illness and thus further stigmatizes the mentally ill instead of holding evil people accountable for their words and actions.

  63. says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

    I thought that was clever. I’d vote for her.

    DaFuq? You’d vote for Sarah Palin?
    Wikipedia link to Sarah Palin’s political positions:

    Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy, which she described using the term “death panels”. This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[274] Palin characterizes the act as an “unfunded mandate” and supports defunding it,[275] as well as repealing portions of the act.

    She wants to defund and repeal a health care law that she doesn’t appear to understand. A health care law that has benefited millions of Americans. Clearly she cares about the American people.

    Palin opposes same-sex marriage.

    Sarah Palin opposes equal rights for all Americans. She supports the continued discrimination and bigotry of queer people like myself. But for you, supporting a candidate who opposes equal rights of an oppressed minority isn’t an issue.

    She opposes abortion including in cases of rape and incest, and embryonic stem cell research. She supports parental consent for female minors seeking an abortion

    Sarah Palin’s opposition to abortion is well known. She doesn’t think women should be able to decide what happens with-and *to*-their bodies. She thinks the presence of a fetus in the body of a pregnant woman is sufficient reason to deny women one of their fundamental human rights. Like so many forced birthers, Sarah Palin wants to give fetuses rights that no human being-living or deceased-possesses (the right to use the body of another human for their continued survival-consent be damned). Oh sure, she’ll pay lip service to equality, but when you support measures that deny women their right to reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy, lip service doesn’t count for shit.

    She supports capital punishment.

    Yeah, this one is a real shocker. ::eyeroll::
    She supports state sanctioned killings, yet claims to be pro-life? Yeeeeaah…that’s not an inconsistent position at all.
    Her claim to be “pro-life” is also challenged by her opposition to marriage equality and reproductive freedom for women. When you hold bigoted views about people, and you support legislation that would have a detrimental impact on the very people you’re supposed to serve, that’s not synonymous with being “pro-life”.

    Palin supports sex education in public schools that encourage abstinence along with teaching about contraception.

    abstinence only education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. Sarah Palin supports wasting taxpayer dollars to fund a method of so-called education that fails to properly educate teens about sex.

    She supports discussion of creationism during lessons on evolution in public schools.[283] Palin believes evolution “should be taught as an accepted principle” and said that her belief in God’s role in Earth’s creation “is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught in science class.”

    She’s a deluded goddist blinded by christian privilege. There is no evidence to support the existence of any deity, let alone her particular flavor. There is also no scientific basis for creationism. It should *not* be taught alongside evolution in *any* public school (what happened to “Teach the Controversy”? Christian creationism isn’t the only creation story created by humans. If chrisitanity is to be discussed alongside evolution, then every other creation story has just as much right to be discussed as well. Of course students wouldn’t learn much science if all creation myths were discussed in science class.)

    A Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Palin interprets the Second Amendment as including the right to handgun possession and opposes bans on semi-automatic assault weapons.[285] She supports gun safety education for youth.

    “Look at me! I’m a member of an organization that fetishizes a lethal weapon and values the right to own said weapon over the right to life of all Americans.” Being a member of the NRA should not be considered a badge of honor.
    That said, I recognize that Americans have a right to own guns, and revising the 2nd Amendment isn’t going to happen now or in the immediate future (although I’d like to see that happen). The ongoing epidemic of gun violence in the US continues unabated and needs to be seriously addressed. The US is in need of stricter gun control laws. Her opposition to banning semi-automatic assault weapons is the only thing I disagree on here (I find arguments in favor of gun rights unconvincing in part because they only focus on the right to bear arms. They don’t address the gun violence in our country which is a public health issue. They also don’t offer a compelling reason for Americans to have the right to bear arms in the first place. That right is just a given, bc the Constitution. Citing the Constitution isn’t an argument.)
    That here, however, is Wikipedia, which didn’t provide sufficient exploration of her views on gun rights. For that, I turned elsewhere and I can firmly say I don’t agree with her views on the right of Americans to bear arms:

    All this stuff coming lately from the White House to take away the good guys’ freedom, and, the right to protect ourselves with the most naive notion that the bad guys, who ignore the laws, that all of a sudden they’re going to follow some new laws. It’s not about the bad guys. No , it’s all about the lead, like solely, that chunk of metal didn’t commit the crime. That’s like saying solely, that fork made me fat.

    Ah, that old canard: “I need guns to protect myself and my family” (and really, “good guys” and “bad guys”? This isn’t a Hollywood movie. It’s real life.) I don’t know who your “bad guys” are (I do have a nagging suspicion that their skin color is darker than yours), nor how you identify who is “good” and who is “bad”. It’s scary how easily a gun can be acquired in the US and there are insufficient measures in place to reduce the chances that any given buyer will use their weapon responsibly (background checks should be universal, and some type of psychological screening should be mandatory too).
    Oh, and Ms. Palin parrots the right wing talking point “The gubmint is gonna take away our guns!”…despite no evidence of this (moreover, I’m aware of no elected official who wants to eliminate the right to own guns and has the power to do so).

    And background checks, yeah, I guess to learn more about the person’s thinking and associations and intentions. More background checks? Dandy idea Mr. President–should have started with yours.

    More evidence that Sarah Palin is deluded. Does she really think anyone could make it to the office of the Presidency without having every aspect of their life under scrutiny? President Obama had multiple background checks. His citizenship has been verified numerous times.
    Her statement above seems rather dismissive of background checks which should be one of the most basic steps taken to ensure that a potential buyer is a law abiding, responsible citizen.

    (back to the wikipedia link):

    Palin supports off-shore drilling, and land-based drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[83][287] When commenting on the Gulf Coast oil disaster Palin said, “I repeat the slogan ‘drill here, drill now.’”[288] She said, “I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry.”[289] Palin asked supporters to read an article by Thomas Sowell that criticized Obama for having BP pay to an escrow fund.

    Lovely. Not only does she support continued dependence on oil, she doesn’t appear concerned about the environmental impact of drilling for oil.

    Palin considers herself a conservationist[291] and during the 2008 campaign demonstrated her skepticism about global warming politics,[292] saying “of global warming, climate change, whether it’s entirely, wholly caused by man’s activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet…John McCain and I agree that we have to make sure that we’re doing all we can to cut down on pollution.”[293] She opposed ‘cap and tax’ proposals contained in the yet to be defeated ACES energy bill.[294] Speaking at a 2009 Department of Interior hearing, Palin acknowledged that “many believe” a global effort to reduce greenhouse gases is needed. Palin said “Stopping domestic energy production of preferred fuels does not solve the issues associated with global warming and threatened or endangered species, but it can make them worse.” She added “These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives.”[295] After the election and the Climategate scandal, Palin spoke at a 2010 California logging conference calling studies supporting global climate change as “snake oil science”. She criticized heavy-handed environmental laws and cited her 2008 suit, as Alaska’s governor, against the federal government to overturn the listing of polar bears as a threatened species. She considered environmental regulations as an economic burden to businesses trying to recover from the recession and environmental activists as wanting to “lock up the land.”[291]

    She’s a climate change denialist. She opposes “heavy handed environmental laws”. Once again, she shows a casual disregard for the planet.

    I’ve waded through enough of Sarah Palin’s political positions for one lifetime at this point. Given all the above, why would *anyone* cast a vote in her favor? Oh, wait, MK places a tremendous amount of weight on:

    Certainly over someone with no public-sector administrative experience or private-sector administrative experience who thinks Austrians speak Austrian and who, uh, can’t string three consecutive words, uh, together without his, uh, teleprompter.

    I’m disgusted at the thought of anyone voting for Sarah Palin.

    As for this:

    As to torture:… if modern American “liberals” (i.e., socialists) so vehemently oppose torture, why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything? A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.

    O.o The Socialist insult. Except it’s not an insult.
    I oppose torture because it violates the basic human rights everyone is entitled to.
    As for your libertarian views, you don’t understand what laws are or the role of the government. You’re also battling a strawman version of liberal beliefs. I’ll leave others to shred your godsdamned stupidity as I’m all out of patience for fuckwits like you.

  64. Amphiox says

    A man who can make the odious kind of statement that is MK’s #73 and claim not to be a bigot?

    Now, that is irony, folks.

  65. a_ray_in_dilbert_space says

    Malcolm, sweetie, you don’t get to be president of the Law Review at Hahvahd unless you are smart. He graduated with honors. You don’t do that unless you are smart.

    And I would point out that his strategy in the 2012 election resulted in his kicking the living shit out of Mitt Romney, who is not a dummy, despite a lackluster first term.

    You automatically assume a black man wouldn’t have the intellect to do so, so you blame affirmative action. Oh, and Punkin, Obama is about as centrist as they come. Maybe take a trip to Sweden and see what a real socialist looks like.

  66. David Marjanović says

    I need to look up how to type angle brackets without indicating it’s an active tag.

    &lt; and &gt; do the trick.

    (And to spell that, I had to use &amp;… :-) )

    She supports state sanctioned killings, yet claims to be pro-life? Yeeeeaah…that’s not an inconsistent position at all.

    It’s so inconsistent the Catholic Church has officially abandoned it. Let that sink in.

    Once again, she shows a casual disregard for the planet.

    Casual disregard for the whole rest of the world.

  67. Desert Son, OM says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick at #67:

    nowadays “racist” means little more than “Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist”.

    Actually, the term “racist” has a pretty solidly understood meaning. Some readings you might consider (citations are in APA style as that is what I am accustomed to; apologies to those accustomed to a different style), in alphabetical order:

    Baumgartner, L. M., & Johnson-Bailey, J. (2010). Racism and white privilege in adult education graduate programs: Admissions, retention, and curricula. New Directions For Adult & Continuing Education, (125), 27-40.

    Baumgartner and Johnson-Bailey (2010) write: “White privilege is a large part of the hidden infrastructure of American society, directing, driving, and often invisibly and subtly determining outcomes such as employment, housing, education, and even interpersonal relationships. In order for white privilege, a system that allows whites to prevail, to exist, there must be a counterbalance, a system that disadvantages others, namely, racism” (p. 27). Baumgartner and Johnson-Bailey’s article is particularly good for a sharp, concise reading list of important scholarship from people of color (p. 34).

    - –

    Flynn, J. (2012). Critical pedagogy with the oppressed and the oppressors: Middle school students discuss racism and white privilege. Middle Grades Research Journal, 7(2), 95-110.

    There is much in Flynn’s (2012) article pertinent not only to educational settings, but also other intersections of society. Flynn writes, “many White students and teachers struggle to see how Whiteness is normalized, how race is relevant to their own lives” (p. 96). The theoretical framework section of the article is a good place to start reading, as well as containing further references that can help illuminate the complexities of the issues of racism and privilege. Flynn is noted for acknowledging her own presence and identity components relative to issues of power in educational settings (see the section “Researcher Identity and Power,” p. 98).

    - –

    Ruparelia, R. (2014). Legal feminism and the post-racism fantasy. Canadian Journal Of Women & The Law, 26(1), 81-115. doi:10.3138/cjwl.26.1.81

    Ruparelia (2014) discusses the intersection of racism, feminism, and legal scholarship, specifically focusing on advances feminism has made, while highlighting difficulties white feminists have sometimes had in dealing with issues of racism. Ruparelia notes, “my objective has been to provide a sense of feminist legal scholarship’s strengths and weaknesses in theorizing racism and colonialism so that we can productively forge ahead with an anti-subordination agenda” (p. 88). Particular attention to the paragraphs starting on p. 96 in Ruparelia’s article will show the author’s focus to the crucial aspect of racism and racial inequality as social constructs with broad-reaching impact and intersectionality.

    - –

    Selden, S. (1999). Inheriting shame: The story of eugenics and racism in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Selden (1999) provides an excellent, succinct historical survey of racism and eugenics, particularly (but not exclusively) in scholastic settings within the United States. Selden’s work includes discussion not only of the immorality of eugenics and racism, but also the way in which the supposed “science” behind eugenices was actually a profound perversion of the scientific method in an effort to shore up an oppressive socio-political agenda. The text is simultaneously a solid historical overview, important clarification of what it means to do good science, and also a continuing admonition to remain vigilant against reinforcement of institutionalized and systematic racism.

    These are just a few places to start, and each has numerous other references to additional research and critical thinking about racism.

    Thanks.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  68. Desert Son, OM says

    David Marjanović at #78:

    do the trick.

    Many thanks!

    Still learning,

    Robert

  69. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Tony!:
    you rock. Nice dismantling.

    Incredible patience.

    @Malcom:
    You believe that the USA government is entitled to forcibly inflict HIV on anyone arrested? You believe that the USA government is entitled to forcibly subdue *anyone* in the course of an arrest, no matter the circumstances? You believe that the USA government is entitled to arrest anyone for any violation of the law?

    Do you live in the USA? Because it would seem that there might be something needing your attention just a bit more than commenting at Pharyngula.

    Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

  70. anteprepro says

    Malcolm:

    As to torture:… if modern American “liberals” (i.e., socialists) so vehemently oppose torture, why do they defend and promote government (i.e., organized violence) as the solution to , well, everything? A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.

    First, if modern American conservatives (i.e. neo fascists) so vehemently oppose big gubmint (a.k.a. “infrastructure”), why is it that so willing to support the military (i.e. organized violence) up to and including, ya know, torture?

    Second, am I to conclude, based on your characterization, that you are opposed to having a legal system at all? Because that’s the only way your inane rant makes sense.

    Also, pro-tip: Supporting the existence of a government is hardly support of everything that government does.

  71. says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

    (Nerd 58): ” ..fuckwitted liberturd…”.
    4th grade much?

    FFS, it’s bad enough that you hold far right/libertarian beliefs. Could you at least learn how to fucking blockquote?!
    As for Nerd’s incredibly tame insult, that’s really all you deserve. Your opinions are not revolutionary around here and they’ve been torn apart by many commenters over the years. I don’t know how you’ve arrived at your political beliefs, or why you think Sarah Palin is qualified for the presidency, but based on everything you’ve said thus far (not just this thread) you are most definitely a fuckwitted liberturdian asshole.

    The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber). Many socialists cannot be upfront about their methods, and must always claim benign motives, but the invariable choice of violent means indicates, as Orwell suggests, vicarious sadism

    How much high school did you skip? Your understanding of our system of government is deeply flawed.

     

    Mass media promoted and Americans elected a mediocrity as President.

    As to “imbecile”: where do you disagree? What administrative experience did Senator Obama bring to the job? Do you, uh, consider Obama, uh, eloquent?

    Romney would have been worse than Obama. The choice was clear: Obama was the lesser of two evils (you’re not likely to find many Obama supporters here either. Many of us are not at all happy with his performance. We’d be a lot more unhappy if we were rating President Romney.)

    How is this “racist”? The (black) human and canine IQ curves overlap. The (white) human and canine IQ curves overlap. the (East Asian) human and canine IQ curves overlap

    Uh, your point?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/

    Could IQ scores be a false indicator of intelligence?

    Researchers have determined in the largest online study on the intelligence quotient (IQ) that results from the test may not exactly show how smart someone is.

    “When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ — or of you having a higher IQ than me — is a myth,” Dr. Adrian Owen, the study’s senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university’s Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. “There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence.”

    With all that in mind, what is your reason for introducing IQ into this discussion?

     

    Affirmative action, it’s not just for government-run universities anymore. Let’s see his SATs and LSATs. Let’s see his college transcripts. We have seen his Middle East policy and his health care policy. Are you impressed?

    I *think* you’re still questioning discussing President Obama’s intelligence. How are his SAT and LSAT scores relevant to that discussion? Do you think those scores are a measure of anything other than how well students do on standardized tests?

    My example? I’m a fan of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. I have lived in Hawaii all my life. That makes me an American citizen, who could, if I really dislike non-whites, move to Iowa to get away from the majority non-white population that surrounds me here. I’m still here.

    Well then, it’s clear you couldn’t possibly hold any racist beliefs.
    (the preceding sentence was snark)

    Sure, lynchings are-by and large-a thing of the past.
    Sure, using the N-word is considered unacceptable in public discourse.
    Sure American public schools are technically desegregated.

    Those are overt examples of racism and while public support for them has diminished considerably, racism manifests in other, more subtle ways:

    In the aftermath of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–68), many in America found old-fashioned (or “Jim Crow”) racism dissolving along with segregation. New forms of racism began to replace old-fashioned racism. Symbolic racism is a term that was coined by David Sears and John McConahay (1973) to explain why most White Americans supported principles of equality for Black Americans but less than half were willing to support programs designed to implement these principles. The original theory described three definitive aspects of symbolic racism:

    A new form of racism had replaced old-fashioned Jim Crow racism, as it was no longer popular and could no longer be influential in politics as only a small minority still accepted it.
    Opposition to Black politicians and racially-targeted policies is more influenced by symbolic racism than by any perceived or true threat to Whites’ own personal lives.
    The origins of this form of racism lay in early-socialized negative feelings about Blacks associated with traditional conservative values.

     

    The concept of symbolic racism has evolved over time but most writings currently define symbolic racism as containing four themes:

    Racial discrimination is no longer a serious obstacle to blacks’ prospects for a good life.
    Blacks’ continuing disadvantages are largely due to their unwillingness to work hard enough.
    Blacks’ continuing demands are unwarranted.
    Blacks’ increased advantages are also unwarranted

    {…}

    Whitley and Kite cite six underlying factors that contribute to symbolic racism.
    Implicitly anti-Black affect and negative stereotypes.
    Racialized belief in traditional values.
    Belief in equality of opportunity.
    Low belief in equality of outcome.
    Group self-interest.
    Low knowledge of Black people.
    According to Whitley and Kite, those who hold symbolic racist beliefs tend to hold implicitly negative attitudes, most likely gained in childhood, towards Blacks that may or may not be conscious. These attitudes may not be outright hatred but rather fear, disgust, anger, contempt, etc. In addition, those who hold symbolic racist beliefs may also believe in traditional American values such as hard work, individuality, and self-restraint. However, these beliefs have become racialized. Many perceive that Black individuals do not hold or act in accordance with these values. Instead, Black individuals rely on public assistance, seek government favors, and act impulsively. As Whitley and Kite note, “The fact that White people also accept public assistance, seek government favors, and act impulsively is not relevant to people with symbolic prejudice; it is their perception (usually in stereotypic terms) of Black people’s behavior that they focus on.” Furthermore, those with symbolic prejudice tend to believe in the equality of opportunity, which includes access to resources such as education, housing, and employment. However, they tend not to believe in the equality of outcome. This explains how people can support the principle of racial equality but not support initiatives to achieve it, such as affirmative action. Government intervention when individuals do not have the same talent, effort or historical background would violate traditional values of equality of opportunity. Thus, “people can simultaneously endorse equality of opportunity and reject government intervention to bring about equality of outcome.” Group self-interest reflects the idea that people try to do what is best for their group. This idea manifests itself in the opinion that Whites are deprived as a group of opportunities due to policies intended to benefit Blacks. Finally, Whitley and Kite state most Whites do not have extensive personal experience with Blacks so the negative stereotypes they hold about Blacks do not have the opportunity to be dispelled.

    Other manifestations of racism:

    Institutions can respond to Blacks and Whites differently. Institutional behavior can injure Blacks, and when it does, it is racist in outcome, if not in intent.

     

    Racism is both overt and covert, and it takes three closely related forms: individual, institutional, and systemic. Individual racism consists of overt acts by individuals that cause death, injury, destruction of property, or denial of services or opportunity. Institutional racism is more subtle but no less destructive. Institutional racism involves polices, practices, and procedures of institutions that have a disproportionately negative effect on racial minorities’ access to and quality of goods, services, and opportunities. Systemic racism is the basis of individual and institutional racism; it is the value system that is embedded in a society that supports and allows discrimination.

     

    Institutional and systemic racism establishes separate and independent barriers to access and quality of health care. Institutional racism does not have to result from human agency or intention. Thus, racial discrimination can occur in institutions even when the institution does not intend to make distinctions on the basis of race. In fact, institutional discrimination can occur without any awareness that it is happening..16 Although data on institutional racism iis scarce, it does exist.

     

    To understand institutional racism, it is important to understand the interaction between prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is an attitude that is based on limited information or stereotypes. While prejudice is usually negative, it can also be positive. Both positive and negative prejudices are damaging because they deny the individuality of the person. No one is completely free of prejudices, although they may not have any significant prejudice against a particular group. Oppression is the systematic subjugation of a social group by another social group with access to social power. Power is the ability to control access to resources, the ability to influence others, and access to decision makers. Discrimination is behavior, intentional or not, which negatively treats a person or a group of people based on their racial origins. In the context of racism, power is a necessary precondition for discrimination.

     

    Racism depends on the ability to give or withhold social benefits, facilities, services, opportunities etc., from someone who is entitled to them, and is denied on the basis of race, color or national origin. The source of power can be formal or informal, legal or illegal, and is not limited to traditional concepts of power. Intent is irrelevant; the focus is on the result of the behavior.

    There’s a cure for your ignorance-education.

  72. CJO says

    He’s not ignorant, really, or at least that’s not his main problem. He’s an asshole, and, unfortunately for those forced to be near him in any capacity, there probably is no cure.

    See, assholes of his type don’t like the coercive penal code because it inhibits their assholery from rising to the sociopathic levels that they would prefer. He would be an overlord due to his inherent superiority, but he’s just a pissant trolling liberal blogs, because of the threat of government violence.

    Note, Malcom, that most of us would prefer to live under less coercive systems too. But we can’t, because of assholes like you.

  73. says

    CJO:

    He’s not ignorant, really, or at least that’s not his main problem. He’s an asshole, and, unfortunately for those forced to be near him in any capacity, there probably is no cure.

    How about ignorant asshole?

  74. Al Dente says

    It would be nice if ignorant libertarians like Malcolm Kirkpatrick would learn what socialism is. Here’s a hint: It isn’t liberalism.

    I realize that ignorant libertarians’ definition of socialism works thusly: “My political masters have told me that socialism is bad and government is bad so government is socialism.”

  75. Amphiox says

    It is not as if “Obama uses a teleprompter = Obama is stupid” is not a well-known, and oft-repeated, meme among American racists….

  76. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Ray, 77): “You automatically assume a black man wouldn’t have the intellect to do so, so you blame affirmative action. Oh, and Punkin, Obama is about as centrist as they come. Maybe take a trip to Sweden and see what a real socialist looks like.
    No. I deduce (not “assume”) that this particular (black, incidentally) man lacks intellect, based on his extemporaneous articulation, the policies he pushes, and the people with whom he associates. How to explain Ivy acceptance and Law Review editorship? That’s where Affirmative Action enters.

    (Tony, 83): “With all that in mind, what is your reason for introducing IQ into this discussion?
    What was Myers’ point in calling Palin “stupid”?

    There’s an interesting discussion to be had over the issues of the meaning of “IQ” and of “racism”, which Tony referenced.
    a) Do critics of the concept of IQ really intend to assert that no two organisms differ in nervous system function?
    b) What systematic differences between regional varieties of humans can one assert and NOT incur the accusation “racist”? Can I observe that blacks have darker skins than whites (duh)? How ’bout that adult Dinka are taller than adult !Kung or predicting that the people who deliver your refrigerator in Hawaii are more likely to be Samoan than Filipino? Could I conjecture that people whose chromosomes spent evolutionary time at altitude (Andes, Himalayas) are better-adapted to life at altitude than are people whose chromosomes spent evolutionary time at sea level without incurring the accusation “racist”?
    c) Don’t you find it interesting that academics consider the suggestion that regional varieties of human might differ systematically in nervous system function “racist” (Jensen) and that males and females might differ systematically in nervous system function “sexist” (Summers)? Credentialed intellect is their (academics) claim to status. It costs them nothing to say “___ is as smart as anybody” so long as they don’t have to act on it. They get to appear (in their own eyes) generous, by granting something that they value and may suspect is undeserved. But when they want to dismiss someone, well, “Palin’s stupid”. Musicians don’t do this. They don’t expect everyone to be musical or pretend generosity by claiming that anyone can sing.

  77. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Ray, 77): “He graduated with honors. You don’t do that unless you are smart.
    (Wikipedia, on grade inflation):”Harvard University … In 1950, its average GPA was 2.55. By 2004, its GPA, as a result of dramatic rises in the 1960s and gradual rises since, had risen to 3.48.”
    3.48 is average.

  78. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Antepepro 82): “First, if modern American conservatives (i.e. neo fascists) …
    No. Fascism as a socialism variant. See Mussolini’s essay “What is Fascism?”.
    (Antepepro 82): “… so vehemently oppose big gubmint (a.k.a. “infrastructure”)…“,
    Mortgage insurance and crop subsidies are not infrastructure. Social Security is not infrastructure. Much Federal expenditure is income transfer of one sort or another.
    (Antepepro 82): “… why is it that so willing to support the military (i.e. organized violence) up to and including, ya know, torture?
    National defense is its primary job. If you don’t like it, support the Second Amendment and Gary Hart’s suggestion that the US return to a (Swiss style) militia.
    (Antepepro 82): “Second, am I to conclude, based on your characterization, that you are opposed to having a legal system at all?
    No. Governments may enhance social well-being when they suppress competitors in the extortion business. I don’t even endorse the minimal violence position, since there are other evils than interpersonal violence. I see a role for an EPA, for example, and controls on immigration and natural increase.
    (Antepepro 82): “Also, pro-tip: Supporting the existence of a government is hardly support of everything that government does.
    Certainly. Likewise, opposition to one government policy hardly indicates opposition to all government.

  79. Al Dente says

    Fascism as a socialism variant.

    Okay, we can add fascism to socialism as another thing Malcolm Kirkpatrick is ignorant about.

    What is it about libertarians that they need to flaunt their ignorance about political ideologies, history, economics and everything else except “gummint are bad!!1!one!!”?

  80. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Since liberturds are
    Arrogant
    Ignorant of economics
    Arrogant
    Ignorant of politics
    Arrogant
    Ignorant of history
    Arrogant
    Ignorant of perspective
    And Arrogant
    MK—->hushfile for terminal ignorance and arrogance.

  81. anteprepro says

    Malcolm:

    No. Fascism as a socialism variant.

    Fucking Jonah Goldberg.

    Mortgage insurance and crop subsidies are not infrastructure. Social Security is not infrastructure.

    Crop subsidies provides support to the farming industry. Mortgage insurance provides helps cover risks in order to encourage the banking industry. And social security is more or less an incentive for people to use their younger years with the promise that they will be taken care of in their older years. This isn’t infrastructure…how?

    National defense is its primary job.

    1. Citation needed.
    2. Torture and invading other countries =/= “National defense”

    No. Governments may enhance social well-being when they suppress competitors in the extortion business. I don’t even endorse the minimal violence position, since there are other evils than interpersonal violence. I see a role for an EPA, for example, and controls on immigration and natural increase.

    That’s great. Then your arguments have just been sloppy and/or disingenuous! What a relief.

    Certainly. Likewise, opposition to one government policy hardly indicates opposition to all government.

    Opposition to one government policy? Ummm…

    What was your first comment again?

    A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.

    That’s not an argument against one government policy: That’s an argument against laws .

  82. says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick
    Gotta love that libertarian consistency. In your very first post on this thread, you whine about us supporting state violence not even a paragraph after proclaiming that you’d vote for Palin based on her explicit desire for the state to commit more and greater acts of violence.

    “Caucasian who disagrees with a socialist”.

    Your ignorance would be stunning, but I’ve see this exact flavor of ignorance often enough to merely be depressed, rather than surprised. Hint: “Socialist” has a meaning.

    This particular President lacks the intellect to reconsider the indoctrination he imbibed from his Marxist mentor Frank Marshall Davis.

    ‘Marxist’ also has a meaning. It is not the same meaning as ‘Socialist’. Davis was not, in fact, a Marxist, or a socialist, AFAICT. You would be well advised to seek information from sources that are not Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or their assorted propagandist cronies. I can’t be arsed demolishing your particulars in anymore detail, but I’m sure someone else will take up the slack. I will say that you’re actually even more ill-informed than the usual run of liberturds we get here.

  83. anteprepro says

    Malcolm sez:

    (Wikipedia, on grade inflation):”Harvard University … In 1950, its average GPA was 2.55. By 2004, its GPA, as a result of dramatic rises in the 1960s and gradual rises since, had risen to 3.48.”
    3.48 is average.

    Note that the article is “grade inflation” . As in, about how average grades have been increasing over time? Also note that the 3.48 average is the average as of 2004 . Not 1991. Also note: That is talking about Harvard’s undergrad program. Not Harvard Law. And regarding undergrad, in order to get into Harvard Law School today at least, the bottom 25th percentile of the accepted class have a 3.77 GPA.

    And graduating with honors is done by class rank, not GPA. He was in the top 10% of his class regardless.

    So, no, not average.

    But great going trying to prove how dumb Obama is by turning your own feet into mincemeat! Great work!

  84. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Antepepro 82): “First, if modern American conservatives (i.e. neo fascists) …”
    (Malcolm,90): “No. Fascism as a socialism variant. See Mussolini’s essay ‘What is Fascism?’.
    (Al, 91): “:Okay, we can add fascism to socialism as another thing Malcolm Kirkpatrick is ignorant about.
    Read any biography of Mussolini. Again, read his essay “What is Fascism?”. Mussolini excoriated “liberals”, meaning (at the time) free marketeers.

    (Malcolm): “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.
    (Anteprepro,93): “ That’s not an argument against one government policy: That’s an argument against laws .
    No. It’s not an argument for or against anything; it’s a definition of “law”.

  85. anteprepro says

    Malcolm first says:

    “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.”

    No. It’s not an argument for or against anything; it’s a definition of “law”.

    Oh yes, I’m sure. There were absolutely no implications involved in that! Just simply defining what “law” means, for some reason! Very edifying! Very educational! Superb attempt at having no position at all while simply giving the illusion that you had an opinion of your own and a position you were attempting to put forward! Jolly good show, good sir!

    As for Mussolini:

    “Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. ….

    …Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production

    After Socialism, Fascism attacks the whole complex of democratic ideologies and rejects them both in their theoretical premises and in their applications or practical manifestations. Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies; it denies that this majority can govern by means of a periodical consultation; it affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who cannot be levelled by such a mechanical and extrinsic fact as universal suffrage…..

    You can go fuck yourself now.

  86. says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

    (Tony, 83): “With all that in mind, what is your reason for introducing IQ into this discussion?”
    What was Myers’ point in calling Palin “stupid”

    Out of my entire comment @83, you chose to respond solely to *one* question. And your response doesn’t answer my question.
    ::headdesk::

    I also note that you haven’t responded to my criticisms of Sarah Palin’s political views @75. Given her views on human rights alone (you know, those rights that women and queers continue to be denied), why the ever loving FUCK would you vote for her for *any* political office, let alone the Presidency? You continue to paint yourself as a Grade-A Pissant.

    No. I deduce (not “assume”) that this particular (black, incidentally) man lacks intellect, based on his extemporaneous articulation, the policies he pushes, and the people with whom he associates.

    You need to define what you mean by “lacking intellect”, then you need to explain how you measure it, and then you need to provide justification for why anyone else should accept your definition as valid. As a_ray_ said:

    Malcolm, sweetie, you don’t get to be president of the Law Review at Hahvahd unless you are smart. He graduated with honors. You don’t do that unless you are smart

    BTW, using your “guidelines” for determining the intellect of someone, George W. Bush was at least as unintelligent as you claim President Obama is.
    Also, if you’re not going to do us the courtesy of blockquoting, at least put some fucking spaces between your comments to make them more readable!

    (Malcolm): “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.”
    (Anteprepro,93): “ That’s not an argument against one government policy: That’s an argument against laws .”
    No. It’s not an argument for or against anything; it’s a definition of “law”.

    Is that so?

    the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

    That definition sure doesn’t mention HIV. Nor do you even attempt to explain how HIV and imprisonment are at all synonymous.

    Have you given critical thought to *any* of your beliefs?

  87. Amphiox says

    “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.”

    The first clause is insipid. The second ludicrous. The third, in that deliberate position, is disgustingly intellectually dishonest.

    Standard libertarian behavior, naturally.

  88. Nick Gotts says

    Read any biography of Mussolini. Again, read his essay “What is Fascism?”. Mussolini excoriated “liberals”, meaning (at the time) free marketeers.

    The usual dishonest, fuckwitted garbage produced by libertarians. Mussolini was at one time a socialist; but people do actually change their political opinions. Aside from the quotation from anteprepro above, we have the following, from his The Doctrine of Fascism, 1932:

    Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. . . .

    We also have*:

    State ownership! It leads only to absurd and monstrous conclusions; state ownership means state monopoly, concentrated in the hands of one party and its adherents, and that state brings only ruin and bankruptcy to all.

    Now if I was a liar or a fool like you, I’d claim that this obviously means Mussolini was a libertarian. But I’m not, so I recognise that fascism is ideologically distinct from socialism, liberalism, anarchism, conservatism and libertarianism. It is, however, undoubtedly a right-wing ideology. Left and right are distinguished not by views of the role of the state (that absurd view would classify anarchists such as Kropotkin and Chomsky as right-wing), but by their attitude to economic inequality: the left opposes it, the right endorses it. The financial support for Mussolini and Hitler came mostly from big business and the rich, the conservative right helped both into power, outside their own countries it was overwhelmingly the right that gave them approval, and both persecuted socialists, communists, anarchists and trades unionists.

    Now, Malcolm Kirkpatrick, will you stop telling the lie that Mussolini was a socialist? It’s not as if this would leave you short of libertarian lies to tell.

    *I can’t find a precise source for this, but it is quoted in a number of places online, the earliest of which is a 1932 speech by a right-wing admirer.

  89. Anri says

    Ok, everyone, play nice – stop trying to confuse poor Malcolm Kirkpatrick with all of these tricksy ‘fact’ things – he knows what he knows, and none of this silly ‘real world evidence’ stuff will change that!

    (Note, the above post may contain trace amounts of sarcasm – take seriously at your own risk.)

  90. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Malcolm): “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.
    (Anteprepro,93):”( That’s not an argument against one government policy: That’s an argument against laws .
    (Malcolm): “No. It’s not an argument for or against anything; it’s a definition of ‘law’.
    (Anteprepro, 97): “Oh yes, I’m sure. There were absolutely no implications involved in that!
    But there are. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Robert Conquest, the British poet and historian of that State, wrote that the West had, as yet, incompletely learned two important lessons: the limits on the amount of good that can be accomplished through organized violence (the State) and the stultifying effect of bureaucracy, public or private. The threat of violence may usefully deter violence and other ills, but it may deter productive activity as well. In general, a tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth (definition, again). Taxes do not have to take the form of money; corvee labor is a tax. Taxes do not have to pass through the State treasury; according to John Roberts, the Obamacare insurance mandate is a tax. EPA regulations qualify as taxes. See Epstein on takings. With that background, read any economics dictionary on the deadweight loss due to taxation.

  91. anteprepro says

    Wow. Way to miss the point of the quote you are supposedly responding to! Also: might I suggest that YOU read up on economics? Because someone who straight up is stating that EPA regulations count as a tax as a matter of definition probably needs to acquaint themselves with a dictionary to a far greater degree than anyone else here. Just sayin’.

  92. chigau (違う) says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick
    Do you have a reason for not using <blockquote>?

  93. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Malcolm): “A law is a threat by a government to kidnap (arrest) assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV (imprison) someone, under some specified circumstance.
    (Anteprepro,93): “That’s not an argument against one government policy: That’s an argument against laws .
    (Malcolm): “No. It’s not an argument for or against anything; it’s a definition of “law”.
    (Tony, 98): “Is that so?

    the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

    That definition sure doesn’t mention HIV. Nor do you even attempt to explain how HIV and imprisonment are at all synonymous.
    You did notice the word “enforced“, right?
    (Tony, 98): “Have you given critical thought to *any* of your beliefs?
    Have you?

  94. anteprepro says

    Malcolm, you are an idiot. Giving a “definition” of a law that involves you re-defining every element of law enforcement in starkly negative, hyperbolic terms is not “just” a definition of law. Are you trying to be dishonest or you are really just this inept?

  95. Amphiox says

    Malcolm, you are an idiot. Giving a “definition” of a law that involves you re-defining every element of law enforcement in starkly negative, hyperbolic terms is not “just” a definition of law. Are you trying to be dishonest or you are really just this inept?

    Probably both. I have not seen a single libertarian apologist yet who when pressed did not rapidly sink into disgustingly unethical levels of intellectual dishonesty, redefining words to suit their own twisted worldview….

  96. anteprepro says

    Also, FYI Malcolm, the HIV rate in prison is stated by your source to be four times the rate of the non-prison population. 1.1 million in the U.S. are living with HIV. If the rate is only four times higher in prison, that’s still only 1% of the prison population affected. Imprisonment isn’t synonymous with getting HIV, you disingenuous fuck. Prison rape should be the real concern, regardless of whether it involves infection with an STD.

    Also, the higher rate might be explained by race anyway. According to the CDC, black people, making up 12% of the U.S. population, account for 44% of HIV infections. Latinos also make up a slightly disproportionate amount of HIV cases.

    The higher rate of HIV is most likely because of a racist legal system. But that’s hardly a reason to abolish all law and establish Neo Anarcho Libertopia.

  97. blf says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick,
    Do you have a reason for not using <blockquote>?

    Other than stooopidity, that is…

    Is this person for real? Government is nothing more than organized violence; Obama got into Harvard due to affirmative action (Hint: no, he didn’t); The (only?) purpose of the “organized violence” is national defense; Blatant racism and apparent xenophobia; Wildly redefining terms; And on and on and on…
    Gross generalizations and outright lies, and from the very start.

  98. says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick:

    You did notice the word “enforced“, right?
    (Tony, 98): “Have you given critical thought to *any* of your beliefs?”
    Have you?

    Yes, fuckwit. I have. I’m also willing to reexamine my beliefs in the face of any evidence that they’re wrong. Your link does not provide evidence that the government forcibly kidnaps its citizens, assaults its citizens, and then infect them with HIV. The words ‘kidnap’ and ‘assault’ mean specific things. ‘Kidnap’ does not mean ‘arrest’. ‘Assault’ does not mean ‘subdue’. ‘Infecting someone with HIV’ does not mean ‘imprisonment’. Words mean things and your imprecision muddies the waters. You’re a dishonest asshole.

    Or a fuckwitted gibbertarian.

  99. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Anteprepro, 107): “Malcolm, you are an idiot. Giving a “definition” of a law that involves you re-defining every element of law enforcement in starkly negative, hyperbolic terms is not “just” a definition of law. Are you trying to be dishonest or you are really just this inept?
    It’s called “legal realism“.

    When we study law we are not studying a mystery but a well-known profession. We are studying what we shall want in order to appear before judges, or to advise people in such a way as to keep them out of court. The reason why it is a profession, why people will pay lawyers to argue for them or to advise them, is that in societies like ours the command of the public force is intrusted to the judges in certain cases, and the whole power of the state will be put forth, if necessary, to carry out their judgments and decrees. People want to know under what circumstances and how far they will run the risk of coming against what is so much stronger than themselves, and hence it becomes a business to find out when this danger is to be feared. The object of our study, then, is prediction, the prediction of the incidence of the public force through the instrumentality of the courts.

    The means of the study are a body of reports, of treatises, and of statutes, in this country and in England, extending back for six hundred years, and now increasing annually by hundreds. In these sibylline leaves are gathered the scattered prophecies of the past upon the cases in which the axe will fall. These are what properly have been called the oracles of the law. Far the most important and pretty nearly the whole meaning of every new effort of legal thought is to make these prophecies more precise, and to generalize them into a thoroughly connected system. The process is one, from a lawyer’s statement of a case, eliminating as it does all the dramatic elements with which his client’s story has clothed it, and retaining only the facts of legal import, up to the final analyses and abstract universals of theoretic jurisprudence. The reason why a lawyer does not mention that his client wore a white hat when he made a contract, while Mrs. Quickly would be sure to dwell upon it along with the parcel gilt goblet and the sea-coal fire, is that he foresees that the public force will act in the same way whatever his client had upon his head. It is to make the prophecies easier to be remembered and to be understood that the teachings of the decisions of the past are put into general propositions and gathered into textbooks, or that statutes are passed in a general form. The primary rights and duties with which jurisprudence busies itself again are nothing but prophecies. One of the many evil effects of the confusion between legal and moral ideas, about which I shall have something to say in a moment, is that theory is apt to get the cart before the horse, and consider the right or the duty as something existing apart from and independent of the consequences of its breach, to which certain sanctions are added afterward. But, as I shall try to show, a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court; and so of a legal right.

  100. says

    blf:

    Is this person for real? Government is nothing more than organized violence; Obama got into Harvard due to affirmative action (Hint: no, he didn’t); The (only?) purpose of the “organized violence” is national defense; Blatant racism and apparent xenophobia; Wildly redefining terms; And on and on and on…

    I’m reminded of a commenter in the Thunderdome a few weeks ago who didn’t understand why so many regulars at Pharyngula were strongly opposed to libertarianism. People like Malcolm Kirkpatrick in this thread (and caesar in another) illustrate exactly why.

  101. says

    Look!
    He blockquoted!
    Yippee.
    He also learned how to bold random words. Now he needs to explain why those randomly bolded words are important to his point (it might also be helpful if he clearly explained *what* his point is).

  102. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Tony, 111): “‘Kidnap’ does not mean ‘arrest’.
    What’s the visible difference? Aside from the clothes that the perpetrators usually wear?
    (Tony, 111): “‘Assault’ does not mean ‘subdue’.
    What’s the visible difference?
    (Tony, 111): “‘Infecting someone with HIV’ does not mean ‘imprisonment’.
    If you push someone overboard into shark-infested waters, and they don’t make it to shore, that’s murder, even if you don’t control the sharks.

  103. says

    MK:
    From your link:

    The Honolulu medical examiner says the cause of death is pending further investigation for a 35-year-old man who died after he was detained by police Monday in Waimanalo in an auto theft case. However, the medical examiner did say there were no “assaultive-type injuries.”

    Stephen Dinnan may have been the victim of police brutality. If so, I condemn that.

    That some police officers are brutal assholes who flaunt the law (and far too often get away with it) does not therefore mean than ‘assault’ and ‘subdue’ mean the same thing.

  104. says

    MK:

    If you push someone overboard into shark-infested waters, and they don’t make it to shore, that’s murder, even if you don’t control the sharks.

    Clearly you missed anteprepro’s #109:

    Also, FYI Malcolm, the HIV rate in prison is stated by your source to be four times the rate of the non-prison population. 1.1 million in the U.S. are living with HIV. If the rate is only four times higher in prison, that’s still only 1% of the prison population affected. Imprisonment isn’t synonymous with getting HIV, you disingenuous fuck. Prison rape should be the real concern, regardless of whether it involves infection with an STD.

    Also, the higher rate might be explained by race anyway. According to the CDC, black people, making up 12% of the U.S. population, account for 44% of HIV infections. Latinos also make up a slightly disproportionate amount of HIV cases.

    The higher rate of HIV is most likely because of a racist legal system. But that’s hardly a reason to abolish all law and establish Neo Anarcho Libertopia.

    Being imprisoned is not the same thing as being forcibly infected with HIV.
    There is no reason to think that imprisonment means one will automatically be infected with HIV.

    Logic, how does it work?

  105. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Malcom Kirkpatrick:

    You have no understanding of legal realism.

    Legal realism is a perspective on the law that asserts that, for practical purposes, the law is what a judge says the law is. Thus, when you consult a lawyer on the law, what you’re really asking is, “What will a judge be willing to order, based on these laws applied to these facts?”

    Legal realism is not a **definition** of law. Not in any way shape or form. It is a theory of law.

    This is all within your own quote:

    as I shall try to show, a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court; and so of a legal right.

    Allow me to highlight:

    he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court

    Show me an order from any judge, anywhere, that authorizes the forcible injection of HIV into anyone.

    C’mon. Any judge. Any legal system. Anywhere in the world.

    ONE FUCKING ORDER.

    If you don’t, then even by your own theory of law, you’re a liar.

    In the meantime, if you can’t tell the difference between a theoretical perspective on law and a definition of law, don’t go off on the law.

    Moreover, look at your own quote just one more time:

    a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that…

    It’s not even a perspective on law, generally. It’s a perspective on “legal duty”.

    Do you know the difference between a law and a legal duty?

    Ah, the colossally ignorant represent themselves as uniquely knowledgeable once again. Malcom Kirkpatrick, you are Yogi Berra all over again.

  106. anteprepro says

    Malcolm appears to be trying to get as many things wrong as possible.

  107. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Nick, 100): “… fascism is ideologically distinct from socialism, liberalism, anarchism, conservatism and libertarianism. It is, however, undoubtedly a right-wing ideology. Left and right are distinguished not by views of the role of the state (that absurd view would classify anarchists such as Kropotkin and Chomsky as right-wing), but by their attitude to economic inequality: the left opposes it, the right endorses it.

    I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.“— Oswald Mosley, founder, British Union of Fascists, Letter to The Times (26 April, 1968), p. 11.

    If someone’s opposition to income inequality finds no expression in political policy preferences (i.e., government action), then there’s little to dispute. One person likes Renoir, another likes Manet. De gustibus non est, and all that.

    I hold these truths to be well-established: that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor, that no two men (aside from monozygotic twins) are created equal, and that even these will diverge as chance events push them onto different paths. Material equality is impossible. Government actors (and voters) may aspire to “equality before the law”. That’s difficult enough to define or to realize in practice.
    “Income inequality” is an open-ended invitation for State intrusion into economic activity.

    The doctrinal differences between Fascists and other socialists matter about as much as the doctrinal differences between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

  108. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Tony): “Being imprisoned is not the same thing as being forcibly infected with HIV.
    Being pushed overboard a mile off shore at midnight into shark-infested waters is not the same as being devoured by sharks. A jury would still find you guilty of murder.

  109. anteprepro says

    Malcolm quotes:

    “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the left and is now in the centre of politics.“— Oswald Mosley, founder, British Union of Fascists, Letter to The Times (26 April, 1968), p. 11.

    First off: Your goal-post moving and cherry picking are noted.
    Second: Funny then that both the British Union of Fascists and its successor, the Union Movement, are still labeled far-right groups. Strange that they were anti-immigrant, anti-communist, nationalistic, corporatist, and, like Mussolini, against democracy.

    Also, your remark at 121 continues to conveniently ignore that HIV rates aren’t large enough to make a prison sentence synonymous with HIV contraction . You are just fear-mongering and stigmatizing in order to make whatever cheap political point you are trying to make. Your indifference to facts makes it clear that you don’t actually care about the victims here. You don’t actually care about people suffering with HIV/AIDS and don’t actually care about the well-being of prisoners. You just want to make your stupid point about government being evil, without accidentally undermining its authority to bomb foreigners, which is the only arena in which you would like to permit the government to be evil. Go fuck yourself.

  110. Nick Gotts says

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick@120,

    I asked you whether you would stop telling the lie that Mussolini was a socialist, given the quotations and the record of actions once in power that prove the contrary, but you failed to answer. I see you continue to tell the lie that fascists are socialists, without making the slightest attempt to refute the evidence I presented to the contrary.

    Mosley’s assertion that he was a “man of the centre” is worthless without (a) knowing what he meant by that and (b) having some reason to believe he was neither lying nor deluding himself. We have none. To the contrary, since he was happy to associate himself with the undoubtedly far right Mussolini, since his support came from the right (the Daily Mail was the only significant supporter in the press, for example), it is clear he was either lying or deluding himself.

    Support for income equality does not in the least depend on a claim that everyone is equally talented or lucky. Nor is it an absolute: lessening income inequality is an achieveable aim: we know this because societies have in facxt achieved it, and there is abundant evidence that this is beneficial, even for those near the top of the income scale.

    “Income inequality” is an open-ended invitation for State intrusion into economic activity.

    You say that as if state “intrusion” into economic activity was automatically bad. It isn’t.

    The doctrinal differences between Fascists and other socialists matter about as much as the doctrinal differences between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists.

    Fascists are not socialists, as is clearly shown by examination of the basis of their support, the sources of opposition to them, and their actions when in power. The claim that anarchists such as Kropotkin and Chomsky, or democratic socialists such as Bernie Sanders or Naomi Klein, hold doctrines similar to fascism, is so absurd that it proves you are either a shameless liar, or completely deluded.

  111. Al Dente says

    Socialists call for the collective (either public or government) control of the means of production and distribution of goods. Fascists call for private control of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    Hitler proclaimed bodenständigen Kapitalismus (productive capitalism) based upon profit earned from labor or capital investment but condemned loan capitalism which derived profit from speculation.

  112. nich says

    Being pushed overboard a mile off shore at midnight into shark-infested waters is not the same as being devoured by sharks. A jury would still find you guilty of murder.

    You’ve got to be kidding me…

  113. CJO says

    “Income inequality” is an open-ended invitation for State intrusion into economic activity.

    This is pernicious bullshit. Income inequality is a function of a certain type of state “intrusion” into economic activity; its reduction would just be a function of a different type of, more accurately, state involvement in economic activity.

    Markets are instruments of states. They do not operate independently of state power and they could not function in the absence of it. Historically, markets were fostered for the creation of sufficient concentration of goods and liquidity of capital to feed armies; their function in those terms has not substantially evolved, though societies have also discovered and exploited their capacity to also efficiently put capital in private hands to create products and services that raise standards of living, as well as to provide stable employment for large numbers of workers.

  114. atheist says

    @Malcolm Kirkpatrick – 2 May 2014 at 10:45 am (UTC -5)

    “Income inequality” is an open-ended invitation for State intrusion into economic activity.

    In real life, the State always intrudes into economic activity. Libertarians and other Conservatives want the State to ensure economic inequality, while Liberals and Socialists want the State to push for economic equality.

  115. Amphiox says

    (Tony): “Being imprisoned is not the same thing as being forcibly infected with HIV.”
    Being pushed overboard a mile off shore at midnight into shark-infested waters is not the same as being devoured by sharks. A jury would still find you guilty of murder.

    MK, you have ALREADY BEEN GIVEN the links and evidence showing that the incidence of HIV in prisons in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM EVEN REMOTELY APPROXIMATES “shark infested waters”.

    It’s closer to a 20 mile cube of water with a 5% chance of having a single shark somewhere inside it.

    And yet you still double down on this odiously disgustingly intellectually dishonest line of argument.

    Truly you are a piece of shit.

  116. Amphiox says

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/other/correctional.html

    The incidence of HIV in the prison population is 1.4%.

    One. Point. Four. Percent.

    The risk of contracting it while in prison is even lower than that, since HIV is not transmitted psychicly.

    Now, Malcolm Fitzpatrick, it is time for you to apologize for your disgustingly dishonest HIV argument and withdraw it from this discussion.

    IMMEDIATELY.

    Or at least it would be if you were a decent ethical human being.

    But of course you are not.

  117. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Al, 124): “Socialists call for the collective (either public or government) control of the means of production and distribution of goods….

    Correct. Dictionaries commonly use “ownership” instead of “control”, but that’s a distinction without a difference. “Control” is a matter of degree.

    (Al, 124): “Fascists call for private control of the means of production and distribution of goods“.

    No. Classical liberals, in the sense that Mussolini excoriated liberals (i.e., free marketeers), recommend market processes (mutual exchange within the system of title and contract law) to determine the pattern of resource allocation and the distribution of goods and services. Socialists advocate, as Al writes, “collective (either public or government) control of the means of production and distribution of goods…” The public versus private distinction relates to the “control” issue, and is therefore also a matter of degree. The difference between Fascists and other socialists turns on the mechanisms through which the State exercises that control.

  118. Al Dente says

    I see, instead of admitting he was talking out of his ass, Malcolm Kirkpatrick is trying to handwave his ignorance (real or feigned) of fascism away. Typical libertarian, ignorant about political ideologies and economics and proud to display this ignorance for all to see. And then libertarians wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

  119. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Typical libertarian, ignorant about political ideologies and economics and proud to display this ignorance for all to see. And then libertarians wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

    QFT.

  120. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    (Amphiox, 129): “The incidence of HIV in the prison population is 1.4%. One. Point. Four. Percent.
    The risk of contracting it while in prison is even lower than that, since HIV is not transmitted psychicly.
    Now, Malcolm Fitzpatrick, it is time for you to apologize for your disgustingly dishonest HIV argument and withdraw it from this discussion.

    Did you read the article to which you linked?

    Inmates in jails1 and prisons2 across the United States (US) are disproportionately affected by multiple health problems, including HIV, other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), tuberculosis (TB), and viral hepatitis.. …In 2007 (the most recent year for which this information is available), the rate of confirmed AIDS cases among state and federal prisoners was about 2.4 times the rate in the general US population. …Providing condoms and clean syringes to sexually active persons is an integral part of HIV prevention interventions outside prisons, but most US prisons and jails specifically prohibit the distribution and possession of these items. Although sex and substance use are forbidden in jails and prisons, the reality is that some incarcerated men and women have consensual or forced sex and that some use illicit drugs.

    Here’s Wikipedia on prison rape:

    A United States Department of Justice report, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, states that “In 2011-12, an estimated 4.0% of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.” [2] However, advocates dispute the accuracy of the numbers, saying they seem to under report the real numbers of sexual assaults in prison, especially among juveniles.[3]

    A 1992 estimate from the Federal Bureau of Prisons conjectured that between 9 and 20 percent of inmates had been sexually assaulted.[1] Studies in 1982 and 1996 both concluded that the rate was somewhere between 12 and 14 percent. A 1986 study by Daniel Lockwood put the number at around 23 percent[1] for maximum security prisons in New York. In contrast, Christine Saum’s 1994 survey of 101 inmates showed 5 had been sexually assaulted.[1]

    In 2007 (the most recent year for which this information is available), the rate of confirmed AIDS cases among state and federal prisoners was about 2.4 times the rate in the general US population.

  121. microraptor says

    And Malcolm surprises absolutely no one by, when confronted with facts, immediately moving the goalpost and arguing about something that wasn’t his original point.

  122. anteprepro says

    Malcolm, the things you quoted in 133 we are already aware of. You are still ridiculously wrong. Congratulations. Have you gone and fucked yourself yet?

  123. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says

    I could repeat the definition or I could support it. That’s not moving the goal posts.

    The government of a locality is the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in that locality (definition, after Weber).
    A law is a threat by a government.to kidnap (arrest), assault (subdue) and forcibly infect with HIV someone, under some specified circumstances.

    I supported that with the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. The risk of rape and HIV infection rises with incarceration. I supported that with a quote from the link that Amphiox offered in opposition, and a quote from Wikipedia. This was the original point: people who look to government to address what they see as social problems reach for tools of violence to get their way. Socialists (fascists, etc.) are thugs, as the style of interpersonal interaction on display in this forum indicates.