Equal Opportunity vs Equal Outcome

Now that the races, the sexes, the genders, the aged, and the religious have equal opportunity in America. We are being told that equal opportunity is simply not enough. We must have equal outcome.

Regardless of your DNA, your parental upbringing, your geography, your DISC assessment, your whatever, it is racism if you do not have an equal outcome in life as other people. You should be compensated in some way for the “disparity” in your life versus the life you perceive others have.

Maybe we should call it Outcome Envy. Outcome Envy is the “need” you have to be like all the others not of your kind. You already know your kind, of course, but this is about you being equal to those who are not like you.

( Speaking of “needs”, does it bother you that nobody asks respectfully for anything? Instead of “May I have a light?” It’s “I need a light.” Instead of “Could you please do this for me?”, it is now ” I need you to do this for me.” I hate that.)

Equal outcome. Why in the world should people with more talent than others have more success? Why should people with more ability have more benefits?

We are all the same aren’t we?

Now, really, doesn’t that phrase conflict with “you are unique”? Or “you are special”? Of course it does.

The socialists in the world still wish to dominate who you are inside. The real you, the eternal you, the you with a soul. They try to convince you that you are not unique and do not have special talents. If everyone is the same, then you should have what everyone else has.

Equal opportunity means you are not burdened by laws and access to fulfill your dreams. You can make your life a success with the natural elements around you. Equal Opportunity is the opportunity to compete ; it is not a guarantee of success.

Equal outcome is like a Participation Award. Regardless of your effort, your DNA, or your abilities, you fit some generic idea of a human being who lived and you should be awarded a prize for being alive. Equal outcome is a horse race in which every horse wins regardless of which is first, second, or last. Like an adoring mother and father, the STATE will reward you with kisses and love for participating. It is the way parents treat children and it is demeaning to treat an adult that way. At least, it ought to be.

Some choose the word ‘bigot’

Silence your opposition by calling them indefensible names. It works for gays and others.

Poor Phil Robertson is in the same category as Pat Robertson for different reasons. Phil spoke his mind about sin and gays and Pat Robertson spoke his mind about Israel and the United States.

If you wish to be called a bigot, simply say something against homosexuality or transgendered individuals. You see, we don’t use words to describe people’s behavior anymore. We use words to describe how we feel about them. This is why you hear so many comparisons to Hitler and fascism. It’s not because anyone is like Hitler or is actually being a fascist, it is because we hate the word and we use the word to describe the person we hate whether or not it accurately describes the person.

The word “bigot” is bandied about by gay/homosexual/transgender/asexual persons to mean someone who does not like gay/homosexual/transgender/asexual persons. Merriam Webster defines ‘bigot’ as: “ a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

If you know what Phil Robertson said about gay men, then you know that he does not fit the definition given above. “Intolerant”.”Hatred”. How does that square with Phil Robertson saying : “It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

Do you think there is any hatred or intolerance when Phil was asked about sin?

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there,” he says. “Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

He goes on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

There is no hatred there. No intolerance. But in today’s culture, expressing an opinion that others do not wish to hear can get one branded as a bigot.

If you really wish to start an argument in a group of people, start talking about sin. Nothing gets people going as much as saying that an everyday behavior they practice is sinful. It seems to be okay to say that people should have standards to live up to but it is never okay to say that failing to live up to that standard is a sin. I am not talking about persecution, that is an extreme action just like bigotry is an extreme position.

But I have written before about how words are corrupted today to mean something other than the definition. What did Humpty Dumpty say to Alice?

 “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

And that is how the defenders of the gay lifestyle operate. They imply that the words they choose, the indefensible words, are master over all others to describe people who say things that gays don’t like being said.

Stereotyping a gay person is abominable. But isn’t it also abominable to call a person a name that does not fit? Isn’t it stereotyping to call a person a bigot just because he says things against gay people and their lifestyle? Isn’t there a level of hatred and intolerance that has to be crossed before a person becomes a bigot?

Of course, Phil Robertson said everything crudely and he could be criticized for a poor choice of words but he wasn’t. He was called a bigot and the word did not apply.

Some of us don’t like other people and some other people don’t like us. It does not matter if it is sexuality, race, religion,beauty, height, weight, gender, or age and yet we find a way to celebrate our differences and accept those who are different than us. Perhaps we should do that now without the name calling.

In which I surrender and hope for an escape?

The very fact that Pres Obama, VP Joe Biden, and Sec’y John Kerry say that there is evidence that Sarin gas was used in Syria makes me not want to believe it. Guess who is not saying anything? Chuck Hagel. The Sec Def has been remarkably silent on the issue although what he has said is supportive of the Administration.

So yesterday I heard two things; 1. It will take three weeks to test the UN evidence from Syria before the Sarin results will be known and 2. The US says that it has already tested the evidence and that the results are consistent with Sarin gas.

Who are you going to believe?

John Kerry actually said:

“I can share with you today that blood and hair samples that have come to us through an appropriate chain of custody from East Damascus, from first responders, it has tested positive for signatures of sarin,” Kerry told CNN on Sunday.

“Each day that goes by, this case is even stronger,” he said on the cable network’s State of the Union program.

Please note that it tested positive for “signatures of Sarin”. There is an interesting characteristic of American politics in which when the administration wishes to tell you a lie that it uses words that imply,but do not explicitly state, a fact. I noted that the media is reporting that it tested positive for Sarin gas but that is not what Secy Kerry actually said. I also note that it did not come from the Veep or the Prez or the SecDef Chick Hagel. Why is that?

Do you remember the 16 words “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” This statement places all of the veracity on the British government and no responsibility on American government to determine if it was true. Reminds me of an old canard used by corporate sharks “I’ll lie and you’ll swear to it”.

So now what do I do? Do I accept the US government is telling us the whole truth that residue of Sarin gas was found present in Syria? Or do I say, ya know, maybe our government used weasel words in case the truth is different? And even if the gas is present, does that mean that the Syrian Army used it?

Close only counts in horseshoes, doesn’t it?

I am going to suspend (not withdraw) my critical thinking skills on this and presume that the Obama Administration is telling the truth. Ok, so the Syrian Army used Sarin gas in a raid in neighborhood of Damascus.

Why have we not convinced our allies of this and why do they resist getting involved with Syria? (Except for France, of course, who likes living/hiding underneath America’s skirts during confrontations).

So if it is true that Sarin gas was used, why are we waiting for weeks for Congress to take action? Shouldn’t Exec Branch have been working on that already?

We have a government of lesser men, I fear. And that is why I don’t believe John Kerry and Joe Biden in my heart.


Who is using chem weapons in Syria?

But U.S. and allied officials also said it was unclear how much sarin may have been used and who actually used it. Syria is known to possess large stores of chemical weapons, including sarin, but questions remained over whether its use was officially sanctioned by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

We apparently do not know.

Gregory Koblenz, a nuclear and biological warfare specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the chemical warfare allegations are based on two basic forms of evidence from Syria, neither of which alone provides enough information about what really happened.

“One is video footage of alleged chemical attacks in Syrian hospitals,” he told VOA.  “Some of the symptoms we see are consistent with exposure to a nerve agent like sarin, but the problem is that there are other chemicals that can cause similar reactions, and just the videos alone don’t provide enough information and context to really assess what happened to these people.”

There has also been mention of soil and human tissue samples that have been taken out of Syria and analyzed by labs in the United States and Britain.  But Koblenz says these samples are also unreliable.

More to know:

Dr. Zaher Sahloul of Chicago, president of the Syrian-American Medical Association, has just returned from his sixth mission in Syria, where he spoke with medical personnel in seven hospitals in and around Aleppo.

“In the six or seven attacks that we spoke to physicians about, they all reported similar symptoms. And these attacks happened in Homs in December of last year—that was the first reported one—and then we [had] two in Aleppo.  The largest one was on March 19th in the area of Khan al-Asal, and there were about 40 people who died and more than 300 who were admitted to the hospitals for symptoms.  Some of them ended up on the ventilator in the ICU (intensive care unit),” he said.

Sahloul said all these patients were reported to have symptoms “consistent with cholinergic syndrome,” which is usually caused by drug overdose, eating certain poisonous mushrooms or exposure to nerve gas or certain pesticides.

“So the patients had respiratory and neurologic symptoms—respiratory, including shortness of breath, bronchospasm, a lot of secretion and respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, large concentration oxygen—and also neurologic symptoms, confusion, convulsions, and some of them went into comas—and also eye symptoms,” he said.

Sahloul said the only other chemical agent that could cause similar symptoms would be certain insecticides, which he rules out in this case.

One would think that if the Syrian government was using Sarin gas that perhaps the deaths would be in the thousands, yes?

Which means that maybe, just maybe, the rebels have some small supply that gets away from them sometimes and causes local damage. Who knows?

We are waiting to hear more from the US government. And it better be good. None of this “Israeli intelligence intercepted communications” crap. Sounds like the same “British intelligence has confirmed” crap we heard ten years ago.

And good Lord why would the Syrian government allow UN inspectors in to seek the truth if the freakin’ evidence is “undeniable”?

I remain skeptical. Even Doctors Without Borders who reported the 335 deaths said that they had no idea who used it.

And knowing that some insecticides can cause the same symptoms makes me wonder if the war shelling was responsible for causing an insecticide storage area to blow up and create the damage.

This does not sound like a dictator desperately trying to hold onto his regime who has used sarin gas to destroy his enemies. This event has no logic on the face of it but I am willing to pay attention to any evidence that the US government brings forward.


Why I hated Elysium… the movie

I went to see Elysium expecting a good science fiction movie in which technology has changed the world we know and Matt Damon is going to set it right. That is not what I saw.

Stop now if you plan to see the movie but if you aren’t, then read below the fold why I hated this movie propaganda…

Continue reading “Why I hated Elysium… the movie”

The Federal Nudge Squad…

The federal government is hiring what it calls a “Behavioral Insights Team”  that will look for ways to subtly influence people’s behavior, according to a  document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there  could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team  could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White  House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal  departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services  and the Department of Agriculture.

“Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work  better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals,” reads the government  document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply  for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on  social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that  it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the  team would “experiment” with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking  behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more  in energy costs.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/govt-knows-best-white-house-creates-nudge-squad-to-shape-behavior/#ixzz2aYpwioY3

There is a difference between advocating a behavior and nudging a person’s behavior. I like the first and abhor the second. To me the issue is about respecting the individual. Federal nudging does not do that.

I believe that Reasonable Citizens are rational actors capable of determining what is in their best interest. Attempts to influence their behavior is unacceptable. Efforts to provide valid infornation to establish a basis for decisions is acceptable.

Tell me what I ought to know to make a decision but don’t tell me only what you think I should know to act the way you want.

You can imagine how unsuccessful nudging will be dealt with: More money to nudge, more power to nudge, and more damn nudging over all.

This government is full of lesser men, don’t nudge me.



Where have all the vibrant black communities gone?

So what happened in the 1960s after civil rights was obtained that destroyed/removed/eliminated the black economic communities that once existed?

That question was posed to me today and I said there were three things that decimated the black communities since civil rights: Freedom to live anywhere caused the black movers and shakers to relocate, drugs brought to the black community ruined the workers and businesses moved as a result, and the forced integration in schools and businesses ruined a sense of black community.

My colleague said he thought it was welfare. I did not agree. Welfare was and is for poor people and not middle class church-going black workers. Something altered the black community and it wasn’t money for food and shelter.

I am open to other thoughts. What say ye?

Texas Abortion Bill and Common Sense, if any

You all know the story by now: Texas woman legislator filibusters to prevent vote that would change abortion law in the state of Texas.

Which of the following did you take issue with in the law:

1. Abortions were not legal over the 20th week of pregnancy


2. This bill would have closed down all the abortion clinics in Texas save one.

If you are pro-life you supported number two over number one, if you were pro-choice you could live with number one but not number two.

Using the force of law to control human behavior is a problem. It is one thing to enact laws that punish people for acts they commit or laws that protect people from institutional harm but when one tries to use a law to control a person’s choices there is going to be a problem.

There is a moral universe that says aborting unborn children is immoral. There is also a moral universe that says it is immoral to make one carry a child to full term that one does not wish to have. And there is also the force of Law that says when one thing is acceptable and when the other is not. When the Law favors one universe over another then the law becomes immoral.

For society to exist in peace, ways must be found to live with each others morality and immorality. Legislators must find these ways, it is the responsibility they have in order to faithfully execute their offices.

In Texas, Governor Perry committed an immoral act by using the force of law to call for a special session of the Texas legislature to pass a law intended to control the behavior of others. He is a lesser person for doing this.

In Texas, state Senator Wendy Davis committed a moral act by defending her universe from the force of law that would control the behaviors of her universe. She is a greater person for doing this.

Today in America, it is two sides fighting to control your behaviors and/or the behaviors of your children. You must begin to take the side of agreement; not the side of compromise, agreement. And that agreement must be how to permit the morality and immorality of all to coexist at some level for the sake of a good society.

We talk about a national debate but there is no such thing. There is news. My million dollar idea is to support public debates on national topics. Are you in? “A National Debate of Reasonable Citizens on the Topic of…”

And Governor Perry is working on making himself a smaller man still by calling for a second special issue to take up the Texas abortion bill again.

DOMA: Passed by hundreds, rejected by five

The Defense of Marriage Act was another in a series of religious political moves to control human behavior through the force of law. Hard to believe that President Clinton signed it but these things are never done in a vacuum. I wonder what he got in return for his vote in 1996.

It took five people to choose federal policy towards fairness. Imagine that.

The amazing thing is that 4 *cough* judges *cough* voted to retain a law that essentially discriminates between those marriages that have two similar sex organs and those that have one of each. How in the freaking world can one ever think that federal law should be so biased? Just goes to show you that all that education and thinking about the law makes one as blind as Lady Justice. Or at least shortsighted. (What will they do with transvestites? I don’t want to think about it.)

But here’s the thing: I am opposed to gay marriage also if it gives any power to force churches to marry gay persons. I think that some rights end where the church door begins.A church is a group of people who (more or less) agree with a set of tenets on what is right to be a member of their church. If that belief is that marriage is the union of two opposite sex people then that church is not obligated to marry gay people. I know that some say that isn’t what today’s fight is about, but it will be a fight one day to force a church to marry any two people with a valid marriage license. This should not be the case.

So if the DOMA was Defense of Church Act, I would support the law that says churches don’t have to marry any two persons with a license. They have the right to choose who they will marry without worrying about lawsuits or such.

I find it completely acceptable that federal law supports the union of two people as the states define that union.(i.e. Federal law supports gay marriage in states that recognize gay marriage but does not recognize it in states that do not have gay marriage.) I also find it acceptable if the federal government defines a union that will be recognized under federal law. One cannot marry one’s pet, car, or national monument in my opinion and I hope that everyone agrees. But my fear is that someone will not agree and want their pet elephant of the past 50 years to be entitled to their insurance benefits because they have lived as a couple for so long and both have shared equally in the relationship.That is pap. But it might happen soon if Congress does not pay attention.

But here is what is really stupid:

DOMA’s “demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law,” the majority ruled. “This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.” DOMA, the majority said, “humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples” and “makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”

Ahhh, it is all about feelings of others rather than the morality or illogical nature of the darn law in the first place. I don’t particularly care that somebody feels bad. I care that the law is fair and just and it wasn’t in this case.

Thank God for five but do they really have to say that it is all about the children and how others ‘feel’? Sheesh. (Time for a whiskey now. I’ve got to wash the taste of milquetoast out of my mind.)

In summary, I am glad that DOMA was struck down. The federal government does not have to give permission for one state to reject what another state recognizes. I am pleased to see this specific definition of marriage rejected because it sets up a two-level marriage benefit system across America. I sigh that the federal government cannot think itself out of any room with open windows and locked doors.

Thanks for the points on the scoreboard, Supremes, but you play an ugly game.

TWA Flight 800 : Another government lie

Another Lie.

Makes you wonder if you can trust any federal agency anymore.

The NTSB took four years to craft a lie and push it out into the public. Now investigators have come forward to blow the whistle on another government cover-up.

“You can’t handle the truth”. Exactly who said the American public could not handle the truth that a possible Stinger missile shot down TWA Flight 800 in 1996?

Was this disclosure of a government cover-up equal to Snowden’s disclosure of domestic surveillance?

The difference here is the title and responsibilities of the people leaking TWA 800 information compared to Snowden.

So now who are you going to believe when a train derails or a refinery blows up or a chemical plant explosion occurs “by accident” ? Hmmm?