Defense of Truth

Quick post today.  A friend with good intentions posted a list of 10 things we can do to combat hate published by the Southern Poverty Law Center , or SPLC  here .  It's got some good suggestions for empowering people when something truly racist or bigoted happens in their communities.  However, while failing miserably to maintain a veneer of objective neutrality, it let slip the following belly-laugh-inspiring list of criteria exposing its massive leftist leaning, apparently with complete blindness to its own hypocrisy: Though their views may be couched in code words, members of hate groups typically share these extremist views: • They want to limit the rights of certain groups. • They want to divide society along racial, ethnic or religious lines. • They believe in conspiracies. • They try to silence any opposition. • They are antigovernment and fundamentalist. By their own definition, even with the most charitable reading of the criteria, the SPL...

Living in a swing state has its ups and downs--no pun intended.  But swings work best when the ropes aren't twisted.  Here's how to untwist the latest national ads targeted to Ohio and the like. The children!  Hillary cares about the children!  Children are our future.  They're innocent.  They need protection, and if you're on the fence about who to vote for, this is Clinton's play to make you think she's the person to do it.  She's been working at it her whole life, apparently.  We have footage of her talking about making sure the future's bright for all children, all the while implying that her political opponent is not.  Well, if he's not anti-children, then at least he's a racist xenophobe who doesn't want success in life for "all" children like Hillary does. Does this stuff actually convince anybody?  There's no content in this ad, only branding.  There's no concrete ideas on  how to protect children and give the...

A couple of articles I've read recently, as well as a number of "conservative" friends vowing to go third party on the grounds that Trump is an immoral candidate unworthy of support, or on the grounds that "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil" have pushed me more toward full support of Trump's candidacy than ever. I can't, of course, endorse the man.  Final judgment doesn't belong to me, but I also can't turn off what I observe.  If what he claims about himself is true, his moral compass is nowhere near aligned with mine, and his dubious sense of right makes me fear what he would do when it got coupled with the unmitigated might of the executive branch. I can't, of course, endorse the political ideals.  His positions on all the conservative ideals I hold dear and essential to the maintenance of liberty in this great land and upon the whole earth are nowhere near solid enough in substance, grounded enough in pri...

Short post today. Visits from supposedly anti-war Secretary John Kerry, and President Barack Obama to the Hiroshima memorial brought up a question I've entertained in my mind on different occasions over the years--one that others had posed for me: it's easy to understand that an overwhelming show of extreme superiority was necessary to prevent Emperor Hirohito from forcing his citizens to fight to the last even in a losing war, but why Nagasaki?  Why the second bomb?  Why did the US have to kill dozens of thousands of civilians AGAIN? Beyond the explanation that cultural ideals of honor under which the society was operating at the time dictated that a warrior not submit even after the first devastatingly superior blow, I'm at a loss to understand why the Emperor didn't capitulate immediately.  Maybe it's even simpler than that: he was a tyrant dictator and was quite comfortable asking his citizens to commit suicide for him.  After all that is where we get the ...

O sociologists of fractal iterations of unmeasurable categories and of clever designs of dubious methodologies, you have inspired post #2 today.  Apparently it takes a "scientist" to turn the obvious on its ear and use a "study" to show that up is down.  This is easily accomplished when a gaggle of atheist PhDs put their heads together to design a way to disprove God.  Wait, that's not actually a scientific question, and they'd be flouting the fundamental boundaries of their own discipline to do so, making their credentials fairly worthless, so I guess they'll have to disprove the benefits of religiosity then--that's quantifiable, right?  Yes, religiosity!  It's something people have or they don't.  It's something that motivates some people, and not others.  It's something we can test--doesn't matter that some religious beliefs are more founded than others, that some religious beliefs produce behaviors that others don't, th...

My Facebook has been a tour de force of twisted logic, leaping to conclusions, extreme aversion to context and rigor in comparison, and ignorance over the last few days.  Sin is still sin, the definition of nothing changed, but in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage in the US, the LDS Church was now in the position of having to clarify a policy on how to deal with "families" and individuals from those families in a new edit to their leadership handbook.  The edits drew skewed headlines ranging from insinuations of homophobia (NYT: " Mormons Sharpen Stand Against Same-Sex Marriage " - no, they didn't--the stand is the same: it's sinful, and the LGBT is still welcome and invited to join and participate fully as long as they repent, just like with every other sin) to open accusations of homophobia, with a dash of xenophobia and even a little pedophobia thrown in just for good measure (WaPo: " Mormon Church to exclude children of same-sex ...

Bill Nye's a science guy, right?  Well, I mean, an electrical engineer entertainer familiar enough with science to produce a popular kid's show and get all kinds of speaking appointments to discuss scientific principles and knowledge counts, right?  Sure!  Why not? Well, it turns out that while he may be accurate on his science, what he does next with the facts runs counter to the pursuit of truth science is aimed for in the first place.  It's a tactic he's used to.  He's used it in global warming and against young earth creationism .  But it's still sophistry to carefully move the goalposts to make your debate opponent seem like he's missing the target when he's spot on. Here's what I mean: 1. This video begins with the truth that the union of sperm and ova is a necessary but insufficient condition for the development of a fetus.  Fair point, right?  That's a question of science, and science has answered it, so he's in-bounds at thi...