Checking in on Quantum Leap

Last year, before the series started (or, resumed), I wrote about what we might see and not see in this revival of Quantum Leap. 

Was I right? And what are my other thoughts and observations?

It was smart of them to make this a continuation instead of a remake. This instantly hooks those of us who were fans of the original series and are willing to give a revival a chance.

So far, this series seems less "playful" than the original, although I could just be missing a lot of easter eggs. For example, in one episode, when the lead character organizes a makeshift Rube Goldberg operation, he gives a nod to The A-Team.

Like the original, it makes use of the Universal Studios backlot and various episodes seem inspired by hit movies from other the years. For example, one episode was reminiscent of "The Bodyguard."

A significant difference this time around, which, given what's happened to television and sci-fi isn't a surprise, is that much more of it is set in the present day, at Project Quantum Leap headquarters and mostly nearby, with ongoing storylines involving the characters who work there. As such, episodes typically bounce back and forth between where and when the Leaper (Dr. Ben Song) is, and PQL HQ (and where the members of the team go). In the original series, Sam was pressured to leap because of official government actions. This time, Ben apparently went rogue even against the staff of PQL, including his own fiancee. So while the original consisted of mostly self-contained episodes, this is more of a primetime soap opera. So far, it's working.

So far, 12 episodes in, elements from my previous post I've noticed are:

• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA

I'm not sure they well full-speed on the last one. The character might be a legal immigrant, but he joined the military for citizenship purposes, and was portrayed as having a clean record.

One of the actors is out as nonbinary, and their character is, too. Amazingly, there was great restraint in not mentioning it until several episodes in. Anyone who can see and hear knows from the start "something is up" with the character. I looked up the actor. But don't worry! They made up for their restraint in Episode 12!

Episode 1 touches on healthcare costs.

Episode 3 depicts PTSD from Vietnam.

Episode 5 depicts an old west town in the Nineteenth Century with "diverse" residents, fighting off the greedy railroad. I'll give you one guess at the gender and skin color of the main villain.

Episode 8 depicts am abusive boarding academy for troubled teens in 1996. Of course one of the several who have been abused and are running away is pretty much just there at the academy because she's a lesbian.

Episode 10 kind of does a bit of "The Fugitive" thing with Big Pharma.

Episode 11 features a military cover-up involving nuclear technology in the 1960s.

Episode 12 gets us a double dose! Ben leaps into a high school basketball coach in 2012 who has a son who thinks he's a girl, and wants to play basketball. Of course it has to be that way, because nobody gives a damn if a girl who thinks she's a boy wants to play on a boys basketball team. And in the present, team members visit a transgender poet. The Leftist narrative on transgenderism wasn't pushed in the original series. I guess the people who made that series must have been a bunch of bigots? Or is it that the current push didn't start until about midway through 2015. Hmmm... I WONDER what happened then?!? (A disclaimer: This is the one episode I haven't seen yet as of this writing. I'm relying on an episode description. But yeah, do I really have to watch it to know it unquestioningly accepts the Left's narrative on transgenderism? How about leaping into someone, who in the original timeline, underwent "treatments" and later detransitioned, so that they don't make the mistakes of getting "treatments" in the first place? Or even better, their parent??? Detransitioners do exist, like or not. Denying that they exist and their understanding of themselves is valid means you want to kill them, or so I've been told.)

This may be when I cease watching and simply read recaps. Leap the shark?

Why Did KFI Do This?

 

While we develop habits and become set in our ways, radio, including talk radio, has never stayed "the same" for very long.

My latest example is that at the start of this year, KFI AM 640 Los Angeles decided to go back to having another weekday program, after having reduced the number of them it had years ago.

They moved Mo'Kelly, a weekend and fill-in host, to a weekday slot.

To make room for Kelly, the Bill Handel Show was shortened (probably a good thing) so it would end at 9am again instead of 10am. Gary and Shannon got to keep their four hours, they were just shifted to an hour earlier, meaning they were shifted to 9am-1pm.

Great. So put Mo'Kelly on at 1pm to 4pm, and let John and Ken, and Tim Conway Jr. revert back to their old time slots, losing an hour each, 4pm-7pm and 7pm-10pm respectively, right?

Right?

No.

Kelly was given the 7pm-10pm slot.

This means John and Ken are now 1pm-4pm, and Tim Conway Jr is now 4pm-7pm.

The problem with this is that John and Ken have gotten very good at being government watchdogs and analyzing crime and news in general, which plays heavily to the afternoon drive commuters and parents who want to catch up while/after picking their kids up from school, daycare, or whatever and running errands or driving their kids to activities. Putting their show on 1pm-4pm makes little sense. Likewise, Tim Conway Jr. has been very good at being "last show of the day" sort of thing, with a distinctly nighttime flavor. It's much more light-hearted than John and Ken were in the same/similar (depending on the year) time slot.

I have no idea who really wanted this new schedule. I'd imagine Bill Handel, John and Ken, and Tim Conway Jr. were happy to revert back to a "shorter" show. Three hours is long enough for most talk show hosts. But putting the established weekday afternoon/evening shows that much earlier is baffling to me. I can't imagine the hosts themselves wanted that unless there has been a change in their personal lives that makes it more convenient for them. I can see Kelly preferring the later slot, of course. For all we know, this was just what someone in charge at KFI wanted, and that's that or maybe some consultant recommended this.

I don't know for certain who is under contract for however long, and how John and Ken and Tim Conway Jr. feel about all of this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone bolts for KABC AM 790. I know John and Ken had a bad experience there, but that was a long time ago and the people they clashed with have probably all departed. Yes, the ratings for KABC are terrible. That's the point! KABC needs to do something to improve their ratings, and getting popular L.A. hosts back into their best time slots might be the way to do it.

Of course I have zero inside knowledge about this. Nor have I been reading the newspaper columns on radio lately (if they still exist), What I do know is that terrestrial broadcast radio doesn't have what it had 25-30 years ago. There are seemingly endless other audio content options, and it can't be easy to attract and keep listeners.

Quantum Leap Is Coming Back

I was a loyal viewer of the original Quantum Leap series.

Yes, I know some of the episodes were pushing liberal themes.

Dennis Prager is right. Liberal and Leftist are not synonymous.

There's a revival of the series that's premiering soon.

I hope it is good.

If it is good, I hope it does well.

I hope it isn't Leftist/partisan Democrat. These days, though I expect it will be.

My pessimistic side predicts we can expect the following elements, provided there are enough episodes made:

• Climate change alarmism
• Critical race theory (USA is racist, on stolen land, built on slavery, etc.)
• Negative digs at Trump (he is portrayed briefly as a child in the original series) and/or his voters and/or his SCOTUS picks
• Digs at prominent Republicans from the last 30 years
• Promotion of Leftist ideology regarding gender (transgender, genderfluid, non-binary, etc.)
• Affirmation of marriage neutering
• Negativity about private firearm ownership
• Police corruption and brutality
• Pro-union messages
• The "gender wage gap"
• Pro government expansion messages (government health care, for example)
• Greedy landlords and business owners/executives
• "Dreamers" and "undocumented immigrants" with hearts of gold and contributions to the USA
• Negative portrayals of someone concerned about degradation of media/arts/entertainment

We'll see. Maybe someone should make bingo cards?

I predict we will NOT see the show:

• Making a point of the positive benefits of a conservative, churchgoing married feminine heterosexual "cisgender" stay-at-home mother and masculine heterosexual "cisgender" breadwinning father 
• Portraying the perils of underage sex, other than showing screaming protestors when the minor goes for an abortion
• Pointing out the harms of a lack of school choice
• Depicting benefits of homeschooling
• Honorable people being compelled to pay money to unions even though they object to the political spending of the unions
• Portraying the hate from the Left against honorable "Black Conservatives"
• Climate alarmists making dire predictions in the past that have since proven false

UPDATE: 12 episodes in, here are my observations.

Political Theater

Tonight, a round of performative, propagandistic, political theater kicks off, scheduled for "prime time" specifically because it is theater. It isn't an attempt to get to the truth and hold criminals accountable. Rather, it's a mere partisan political skit.

The political party that encouraged, enabled, and excused rioting and looting for months on end, that has left our borders wide open and encouraged illegal border traffic, that wants non-citizens voting, that colluded to push hoax after hoax, lie after lie, and a doomed impeachment to undermine a legitimately elected President whose success is an ongoing embarrassment in comparison the disastrous failures of, and restrictions placed on the American people by, the current President.

With all of the problems going on - war in Europe, inflation, crimes, baby formula shortages, supply chain disruptions, bare shelves, record gasoline prices, loss of energy independence, threats to "conservative" Supreme Court Justices, border failures, drug deaths, stock market struggles - they are intentionally wasting time and redirecting attention out of desperation. 

While an extremely tiny percentage of the people at the Capitol on January 6, 2020 engaged in shameful, destructive behavior, it can hardly be called an attempted coup or insurrection. People on the Right own many firearms; they didn't bring them to the Capitol that day. Because it wasn't an organized attempt at insurrection or a coup.

Instead of this symbolic performance, people are better of watching something else.

UPDATE: Michael Medved keeps asking, rhetorically, what President Trump thought was going to happen when he encouraged his supporters to march (peacefully, as Medved usually leaves out) to the Capitol after he spoke to them on January 6, 2021.

Well, Medved, how many marches on the Capitol have there been? What did the people who called for those protests think was going to happen? It's called PROTEST.

There were many thousands (tens of thousands?) of people there while he was speaking, and the crowd he was speaking to was peaceful.

Please, Medved. Stop unquestioningly accepting the narratives of the Left and swamp-dwelling Democrats. You may have been in Seattle a little too long. And how about focusing on the bad things Democrats are doing? There's plenty to talk about. If you want your terrestrial radio show to be the method for shaping the GOP into what you want it to be, why should most people bother listening?

Without DACA Trump Will Eat Your Children!

We seem to be in a perpetual state of bad political theater, panics induced by the media-activist complex, in which each and every thing people think President Trump has done is treated like some outrage. Quite often, the objections are completely bogus or entirely partisan. Yesterday it was the bleating over DACA.

To make a long story short, DACA pertains to illegal aliens who were children when they came here, most brought by illegal alien parents. Many of them (contrary to what the mob says,  it is certainly not all) don't really know any other country as home other than the USA. That's squarely on the people who brought them here. Make no mistake about it. They are in this situation because of the people who sent or brought them here, not because of Trump. If they want to blame a politician, they should blame former President of Obama.

President Obama could have worked with his Democrat-controlled Congress to pass laws dealing with "dreamers", to give them some sort of permanent legal standing, but he didn't. Then in 2011, he correctly said it was something he couldn't do himself; Congress had to do it, because of the Constitutional separation of powers.

But in 2012 he did it himself anyway, prompting a flood of children to head for our border for a few years. It was a crises and Lord only knows how many children didn't make it or were severely abused along the way.

Obama knew damn well his unilateral Executive action was 1) unconstitutional, and 2) reversible by the next POTUS.

Most of the elected officials with their bluster in the media over the last couple of days know this, but they figure they'll rile people up anyway, and the usual activist groups are all too happy to put on a show. It's theater of the absurd. So many of these loudmouths are fakers or liars, if they're not completely ignorant of what's really going on.
It's really clear that states are going to get the courts to rule against DACA, striking it down as unconstitutional, so President Trump rightly decides to drop it and calls on Congress to pass legislation. This isn't some wild policy change, or some nefarious action. It is exactly what any President should've done. Any threat to sue President Trump over dropping DACA is an empty threat, unless someone can find a judge so bereft of integrity who is willing to issue a ruling that will be definitely be overturned.

President Trump did NOT announce that "dreamers" are going to be deported. They're all still here, you'll notice. He simply announced that he's not going to engage in the futile exercise of defending an unconstitutional order, which was supposed to be temporary anyway even according to Obama, that gives some illegal aliens privileges over others. That's it. You'd think from all of the whining that Trump had announced "dreamers" are going to be rounded up and tortured to death.

Hey, I get it. People were fleeing hellholes of corruption, crime, failed big government, and poverty and felt like they didn't have time to waste, so rather than dealing with the hassles of our legal immigration system, people came here or sent their kids here, and so you have these people who came here as kids because they didn't have a choice in the matter and are now adults with "illegal alien" status, and most of them have been socialized as Americans, and they want to go to school here, work here, etc. and being illegal aliens makes that problematic, and especially if they have to go back to their country of origin (which is unlikely unless they've been really bad criminals), it'll be a real mess for them. I understand. It sucks.

But this attitude of entitlement-that-must-not-be-questioned needs to be dropped. There are still consequences to doing things outside the law. If your parents stole a bicycle, gave it to you, and you got used to riding it, it is still your parents' fault, not the police officer, if you have trouble claiming that bike as your own.

This idea that Americas are all supposed to bend over backwards because the parents of these kids did things outside of the law is insulting. Yeah, it would be a nice thing to do to pass legislation to allow "dreamers" with clean records to stay permanently (but NOT allowing them any edge over legal immigrants and naturalized citizens). But that shouldn't be tried until the border is secure, or we'll get another flood of children being shoved across the border.

You should listen to the audio linked at the ends of this entry (if it is still there) for a good overview of what has really happened when it comes to DACA.

A few other thoughts:

Anyone who refuses to distinguish between naturalized citizens and legal immigrants on one hand, and illegal aliens on the other, can't be taken seriously when it comes to matters of law.

Saying that "dreamers" or any illegal aliens commit crimes as low rates should be answered with "They wouldn't commit any crimes here if they weren't here!!!"

What's with people using the line "But these young people don't know these countries they'd be sent back to!" First of all, very few of them are going to be sent back to those countries. Secondly, they didn't know this country when their parents dragged them here. Nobody mentions that. The difference is they are adults now and have some control over their own lives.

Then there are the people who say today's American "whites" can be held liable for the evils of the past, but these "dreamers" shouldn't suffer for parental crimes

And notice some people pleading to keep DACA make it sound like Mexico and other countries are awful places. I thought it was racist to do that? At least according to them.

While some of these "dreamers" have jobs right now, that might not always be the case. After all, some of them might think marriage unites a bride and groom, or that men and women are different, or that men can't become women and vice-versa, which according to many people makes someone unfit for employment. So maybe they should all be quizzed before being granted immunity from deportation?

The 14th Amendment is generous enough when it is interpreted to confer citizenship of a baby that drops out of a woman who is a national of another country who illegally crossed the border ten minutes ago. It doesn't apply to children born on foreign soil to citizens of that country who've never been naturalized here.
Finally, it's great to see Leftists pause from saying how oppressive, xenophobic, & racist this country is to say it would be cruel to send poor illegal aliens of "minority" ethnicity back to their country of origin.

Two Weeks Under Trump

Under the headline "Yes, All This Happened. Trump's First 2 Weeks As President" (which allows writer Jessica Taylor to throw in things other people did and associate it Trump), we get a recap from National Public Radio.
She starts off noting the claims about Inauguration crowd sizes, and returns to it a few times (because Trump and his reps kept addressing it). I can believe Obama's crowd was larger. His Inauguration was especially historic, and Washington D.C. and some nearby areas have a high percentage of Democrats and government employees who directly benefit from enlarging government, as Obama promised to do, and African-Americans who felt a connection to Obama because his father was African.

It's not like Trump was promising you can keep your doctor. If he was lying, it's a rather silly lie.

The biggest news happened when Trump met that evening with both Republican and Democratic congressional leaders, reviving his unfounded claims that there were between 3 and 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election that caused him to lose the popular vote to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

It's probably a hyperbolic statement. Trump should have left it at noting that there were probably some illegal votes cast, and, combined with the fact that if the process of electing the President was based on the popular vote he would have taken a different strategy, and he would have won a legitimate popular vote.

The fact is, California, which is where Clinton got her high numbers, 1) has millions of illegal aliens; 2) gives driver's licenses to illegal aliens; 3) has a "motor voter registration" program. Is it far fetched to think that there was significant voter fraud?

An Election Retrospective

Here is the entry I posted on my Townhall user blog* on November 5, 2008,  "Why McCain Lost". I am reprinting it as it was on presented originally, except I'm going to color certain parts red before emphasis.


*****


As with the elder Bush losing in 1992, and Bob Dole losing in 1996, Senator John McCain’s loss yesterday was not a rejection of conservatism.

McCain was the GOP nominee because he was the most unlike Bush, and Bush, rightly or wrongly, has been effectively trashed in the populace.  We knew Bush wasn’t a consistent conservative before he got the nomination in 2000.  He’s proved it in his Presidency, and although there has been much he has done right, there have been things that he’s done wrong, or ineffectively, including public relations.  McCain ran against Bush in 2000.  In a year where Bush was unpopular, choosing McCain was seen as perhaps the only way to get a Republican elected President.

Unfortunately, McCain had a hard time winning over the GOP base.  His campaign finance reform, which has obviously been ineffective in removing the influence of money from campaigns, had left conservatives with a bad taste in their mouths.  Many conservatives and others were also upset with his work on the shamnesty bill for illegal aliens.  Instead of having a nominee who offered a clear difference from Obama in that regard, we had McCain.  And did it help him or anyone else in the GOP with Latino voters?  No!  So he lost some of the base and independents, and didn’t gain Latinos.

While McCain touted federalism in some areas that weren’t a major focus in this election, he failed to articulate truly conservative or libertarian positions clearly enough or early enough in the general campaign.  That’s because in many areas, he couldn’t without disavowing his own votes and previous positions.  Instead, he tried to play Santa Claus.  But a Republican can never outpromise the Democrats.  The Democrats will always promise more goodies.  So to a lot of people, McCain appeared to be doing the same thing Obama was doing – only halfway.  And they thought – why go halfway when we can get the genuine (new) deal?  Why go for someone who is always "reaching across the aisle" when we can pick someone who is already across the aisle?

People who want Democrats will vote for Democrats, not Republicans.

McCain also lost because he wanted to run a nice, respectful campaign that would be applauded by the MSM once it was over, instead of running a campaign that would win.  For far too long, he was busy disavowing comments from his own supporters instead of focusing on the weaknesses of Obama.

He lost not because of choosing Palin as his running mate, but by not letting Palin be Palin.

Obama doesn’t have all that much experience, but he had enough –and recent - experience organizing people to get out the vote, and then getting to higher and higher offices. He's good at getting the vote, but we don't have any reason to believe he can actually govern.  The MSM was already on Obama’s side, but he knew how to work them all the more.  He is more photogenic and a smoother speaker.  He can talk for hours and not say anything.  This allowed him to avoid really dealing with the facts that he was low on experience, low on accomplishment, and prone to extremist associations and thinking.

Finally – McCain lost to Obama because of racism.  It wasn’t just African-Americans who voted for Obama in part or in whole because of the color of his skin.  And that’s racism.  There is no way around it.

What we need now is for Republicans to be Republicans.  We need them to fight for limited government, federalism, and sticking to the Constitution.  We need them to fight for fiscal responsibility.  And we need them to start organizing NOW for 2010 and 2012.  Start identifying, grooming, and promoting ethical, effective people for local and state offices, as well as Congress and President.  If you contribute money to any Republican organizations, instead of donating in bulk, donate small amounts.  Donate when they do something right, and refrain from donating when they get it wrong, and let them know why.

We need not surrender to socialism.

*****

Wow! What did we see this year? We saw Trump drive the MSM crazy AND repeatedly take a tough stance on border control and dealing with illegal aliens, and it paid off. He also got a higher percentage of the Latino American voters.



*Townhall abruptly and without warning removed user blogs and our access to our own blog files, so I retrieved this entry from the Wayback Machine.

Cracking the Republican Code

It’s time to come clean. People like Chris Matthews and critics of this blog are on to us, so there’s no point trying to disguise our true intentions. I’m ‘fessing up.

We Republicans have been talking in code.

Here is your guide to our nefarious secret code, which some bloggers have apparently figured out already.

Coded statement: "Well, [insert first name of question-asker here]…"
Real meaning: I completely dismiss you and everyone of your race, you subhumans

"14-year-olds should be able to earn money cleaning their schools for an hour or two"
I want six-year-olds to be forced to work for 16 hours per day, 365 days per year in coal mines without safety equipment or standards, for pennies a day.

"welfare", "food stamps", "felons"
All black people are lazy criminals

"It is better for people to have the opportunity to get jobs rather than be handed food stamps."
I need slaves for my plantation.

"Obama"
All black people

"I'm less than completely satisfied with President Obama."
I hate him because he's black. I also believe he's a commie Muslim Kenyan.

"free enterprise"
A return to race-based slavery

"Tenth Amendment"
A return to race-based slavery

"property rights"
I want to own black people and women.

"Second Amendment"
I want to be able to shoot at my will anyone who isn’t a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group, but especially black people.

"Constitutional"
Only what property-owning, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group want.

"voter fraud"
When anyone votes who isn't a healthy, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age.

"Obamacare"
I want everyone to die who isn't a heathy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age… painfully, after going bankrupt.

"Social Security is unsustainable without some changes."
I really, really want old people to be poor, starving, miserable, sick, and then die early.

"values”
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"morality"
Hating everyone who isn't a virgin-or-married, healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"American exceptionalism"
There is nothing good in the world that hasn't been provided by a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"restoring American greatness"
Stealing from, torturing, and killing everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I love this country!"
I only love healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group, and I want everyone else to die… painfully.

"God Bless America!"
I'm a dominionist Christianist theocrat who wants all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully, so that everyone remaining can be forced to live under a Christian equivalent to Sharia law.

"I want everyone to succeed."
I want everyone who is a healthy, American, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to own slaves.

"We shouldn't raise taxes on anyone."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"Burdensome regulations"
I want total anarchy so I can steal from, torture, and kill everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I'm not convinced that man-made global warming is a serious enough threat that can be effectively alleviated if we simply cripple the progress of human civilization with confiscation and redistribution of private earnings and totalitarian intrusion into private life."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and I want everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group to be poor, starving, homeless, living in a toxic waste dump, without fire protection, health care, or education, only to die… painfully.

"I'm not convinced that all of the biological diversity and symbiosis, beautiful nature, human capabilities, and vast universe we see are the result of nothing more than purposeless, undirected, random physical forces that emerged from nothing, caused by nothing."
I don't believe in proven, settled, scientific fact and will use a Ouija board to make my decisions.

"I don't believe federal tax dollars should fund art, especially art that is highly offensive to a large number of taxpayers."
I want to ban all art.

"school vouchers"
I want to funnel any money anyone spends on education to flat-Earth religious groups who want to kill anyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
The day I get into office, we're going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed.

"All other things being equal, I believe a married man and woman should get preference in adoptions."
The day I get into office, we’re going to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires, and then we're going to nullify any interracial marriages that have ever existed. And THEN all single parents are going to be hanged.

"I'm not convinced homosexual behavior is healthy."
I'm gay and in the closet.

"I wouldn't want to receive anal sex from ten men in one session."
I'm gay and in the closet AND I want to literally roast all gays and lesbians over open fires.

"I don't think taxpayers should be paying for a woman's fifth late-term partial-birth abortion."
I want all women to be raped by their father, uncle, or brother until they experience a life-threatening pregnancy, and the I want them forced to raise the resulting children themselves, and then I want the women tortured and killed in a back alley.

"I support the death penalty."
I want all people who aren't healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"Foreign terrorists should be punished as enemies of the state, rather than treating them like domestic citizen criminals."
I'm Islamophobic and I want all people who aren't healthy American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group to die… painfully.

"We have to defend our borders and have a good immigration policy and enforce that policy."
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them, first in America and then everywhere else in the world.

"I'm against race-based quotas"
I want to round up everyone who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian men of a certain age group and kill them.

"Activist judges"
Any judge who isn't a healthy, American, rich, white, heterosexual, Republican, Christian man of a certain age group.

Now some of my fellow Republicans will claim to sincerely believe that every human being has inherent worth and certain rights and that limiting government helps to protect those rights, but isn't it better to ignore any argument they might offer by calling them bigots?

At least one of my critics is bound to miss that this is a sarcastic post.

Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won't Read

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is "anti-gay"? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It's not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it "anti-gay", you'd think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won't find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won't find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

"STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion..."

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

"In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest."
"The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

More core language:

"A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding..."

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights - rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this in the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition and can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone "refusing to serve gay people". I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex "wedding" ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was "anti-gay". However, I can demonstrate that it wasn't. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their "wedding".

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called "anti-gay"?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man's anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man's anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled "anti-gay". That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to "leave us alone"? Now that's not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren't right you're facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a "wedding" cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say "Can't do it." Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the "wedding" by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don't see how it isn't. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don't count on it.

As we're seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn't matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don't kid yourself. That's all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama's Department of Justice will.

UPDATE:

A question opponents of Arizona SB1062 don't seem able to answer: What is the objectionable text in the bill?

Time For Education to Evolve

Maybe you've heard of a recent poll about how a significant percentage of the American population "rejects evolution". I'm wary of polls, especially in the matter of origins, because the same words mean different things to different people. Anyway, it reminded of this piece I wrote many years back:

= = = = =

Every once in a while, the elites in the scientific circles give a "reminder" to the elites in the academic circles, and the drive-by media barely touches on the story. The portrayal of the story comes across as simply something along the lines of "Don't teach religion in science classes" and that "Evolution is true, and anything that sounds a little different is bogus."

This is happening again right now.

The problem is that the news media stories are too short to fully describe the situation and to define terms. This latest round referred to a report that seemingly stressed how we need to educate students in a way that will allow them to effectively fight mutating diseases, and that's why we have to present a unified philosophical naturalism in science curriculum in order to do that.

When the term "evolution" is used, it needs to be defined.  Are we talking microevolution?  Are we talking macroevolution?  Are we talking philosophical naturalism, which is a philosophy?  We we taking about homo sapiens emerging from  less advanced hominids?  Are we talking about living organisms arising from nonliving materials?

When using the term "creationism", do they mean young-earth Biblical creationism?  Do they mean the idea that something outside the universe could have been responsible for some things within the universe - Biblical God or not?  Defining "intelligent design" as synonymous with Biblical creationism does a disservice to students. While Biblical creation could be considered a form of intelligent design, not all intelligent design constructs fall within a straightforward interpretation of Biblical descriptions of origins.

The term "intelligent design" should not be banned from serious consideration in public schools.  We engage in intelligent design all of the time these days, such as with genetic engineering. Nor should the reality of "irreducible complexity" be ignored. While presenting macroevolution as true, the schools should at least boldly own the fact that "since" it is true, irreducibly complex organisms and systems must have therefore evolved via punctuated equilibrium, and that this phenomenon happened many, many times. All the interconnected parts must have emerged fully developed (or at least developed enough to provide a beneficial function) in an instant. So what if that would make philosophical naturalism seemed far-fetched? These are science classes, not philosophy classes, and we need to be true to the empirical evidence, right? Finally, both the major disputes between various evolutionary hypotheses and the serious unanswered questions about some or all of these constructs should also be presented.  After all, aren't we trying to inspire the students to move science forward?

I recall biology and life science curriculum up through high school to be mostly about the present-day functions of organisms and organs, life cycles, reproduction, and so forth. I hardly recall any teachings about mutating diseases. That belongs in higher education, it would seem. However, the reality of mutating diseases is in no way contradictory to supernaturalism, creationism, intelligent design, or irreducible complexity. In fact, mutating diseases fall right in line with many of their constructs. So, in theory, it would be entirely possible for a student to graduate from higher studies a creationist and still be effective at fighting mutating diseases.

So really, the latest hubbub seems to be pointless to me. And since I believe in separation of state and school, we really shouldn't need to spend so much time debating what should be taught in the schools.  Send your own children to the schools you think best. Keep your hands off of my children.

Shocker: MSM In the Marriage Neutering Tank

In news that should surprise nobody who is paying attention, the "mainstream" media has been shown to be in the tank for neutering marriage. I have previously pointed out that the MSM is lying about the issue.

Taylor Colwell had the Townhall Tipsheet update on this:

The Pew Research Center has released a study examining media coverage of gay marriage during the period leading up to, during, and after Supreme Court hearings on the issue.

In a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations on the subject, the news media coverage provided a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex marriage, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1. In the coverage studied, the central argument among proponents of same-sex marriage was one of civil rights. Arguments against were more varied, but most often voiced the idea that same-sex marriage would hurt society and the institution of traditional marriage.

Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.

This reminds of something Dennis Prager says. Either studies reinforce common sense, or they are flawed. That's a paraphrase.

Of course, when it comes to reporting bias, the perpetual question is whether the media is a molder or reflector of public attitudes. On this matter, though, it seems pretty clear. Reporting bias in the Pew study was 47% in favor to 9% opposed; that study registers present public support as 51% in favor to 42% opposed. Media favoritism for gay marriage far outstrips that of the public at large.

The most common media argument – that this issue is one of civil rights – merits a comparison of the gay marriage movement with that of black civil rights. As I see it, despite superficial similarities, the comparison breaks down once you get to the fundamental nature of the two movements. The black civil rights movement, at its core, was a cause championed primarily on a grassroots level. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins precipitated change that eventually spread to journalism and government. Gay marriage, on the other hand, has not seen collective action on this scale. In fact, the push for gay marriage originated at the top and trickled down, whereas black civil rights was more bottom-up.

Of course, comparing someone self-identifying as homosexual and engaging in homosexual behavior NOT being able to get a state-issued license with someone of the same sex to someone who is born with an obvious skin color, the people of which had a legacy of being oppressed through enslavement, segregation, Jim Crow, and publicly supported, well-attended festive lynchings is hardly sensible.

Here's Salon's coverage.

Brent Bozell had a column dealing with this:

In many corners of the liberal media, the space for a social conservative to argue against "marriage equality" is vanishing before our eyes. It becomes twice as difficult the more and more anchors and reporters come out and declare themselves gay, and then the gay lobby expects those journalists to perform with perfect obedience to their agenda.

March in lockstep, or else!

In recent years, the promotion of homosexuality has gone beyond the "news" programs and became heavily entrenched in network entertainment shows, with entire programs devoted to gay characters and their struggle to overcome the alleged ignorance and oppression of religious villains. This easily explains why so many young people are dramatically pro-gay marriage in the opinion polls.

Yup. Homosexual characters are overrepresented on television, and almost always in sympathetic roles.

The official gay censorship lobbies -- from the Orwellian-named "GLAAD" to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association -- define "fairness and accuracy" as being stories that try to scrape "fairness" away, treating opposition like used gum on someone's shoe. GLAAD created what they call the "Commentator Accountability Project" designed to discourage reporters and TV bookers from booking "hate" guests. 

Roll over or bend over. Whichever, shut up and obey. That's what has been going on.

There are nonreligious arguments for maintaining the bride+groom requirement in state licensing, ones that are in no way based on dislike of homosexual people or homosexual behavior, and some of these arguments are made by homosexual people. But you've never know it from the pop media.

Is Your News Source Lying To You?

Whether is it supposed to be an objective news article or report, or whether is commentary or analysis, if the person you are reading, listening to, or watching is discussing the public debate and court arguments about neutering marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or California's Proposition 8 says any of the following, they are are most likely lying to you, whether out of appallingly unprofessional ignorance or dishonest advocacy:

"ban on gay marriage"
"ban on gay unions"
"illegal" in reference to homosexual relationships
"equal rights" or "civil rights" in regards to homosexual people
"The only arguments against gay/same-sex marriage are religious."
"The only arguments defending Proposition 8 or DOMA are religious."
"Their argument is that marriage is only about having children/reproduction/procreation."

Again, if you hear/read any of those, or their equivalents, the person is lying to you.

Here's the truth:

The California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Proposition 8, and similar legislation in other states, did not ban any marriages, unions, ceremonies, or relationships. It did not make any of those things illegal.

As it was before Proposition 8 or any of those other laws passed, a homosexual person has equal - the exact same - rights and access as a heterosexual person.

There are nonreligious arguments defending the Constitutionality, practicality, and importance of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing.

The argument is not that marriage is only about having children. Read this very slowly if you have to: The argument is that since man+woman pairing is the only kind of pairing that can naturally (and "accidentally") create new citizens who do not consent to the situation in which they are placed, that kind of voluntary association is distinguishable from man+man pairing or woman+woman pairing and the state has more interest in man+woman pairings.

Whether someone wants to have children or not, plans to have children or not, has all of their reproductive system functioning or not are all private matters. However, because of science (don't be anti-science!) and thousands of years of experience the state knows a man+man or woman+woman union will never naturally or accidentally produce children, so they can be ruled out of this level of interest. One may ask, as Justice Kagan did, about a couple of 55-year-olds, but 1) the law doesn't know when any given couple will become jointly infertile, and 2) they are still the same kind of pairing that is reproductive. Checking a birth certificate or other official government documents to see if the sex-integration requirement (bride+groom) is met is simple and non-intrusive. Asking about plans/desires to have children or personal infertility is unnecessary and a violation of privacy.

We have repeatedly demonstrated the bias of certain news media personnel and organizations in these matters. I give my feedback to them. You should, too.

Previously:

Neutered Marriage Means Marriage Can't Be About Children

Neutering Marriage: Where We Are and What It Means

Manipulation & Misreporting of Polls to Advocate Marriage Neutering

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

It's Not a "Ban on Gay Marriage"

Two comprehensive offerings:
Reviewing the Basics
Handy Dandy Marriage Neutering Plea Repellant

Some Gays and Lesbians Oppose Neutering of Marriage

...especially by judicial fiat.

I can only imagine the vitriol that must be spewed towards Doug Mainwaring, a self-identified gay man and co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots. Despite what some Leftists say, there is not even the slightest conflict between being a TEA or Tea Party member and being a homosexual person, as the Tea Party movement is focused on fiscal policy. He probably still gets attacks from ignorant people for that, but I'm sure he's getting attacked for his opinion pieces, like one that was printed in the Washington Post, "Why I Oppose Gay Marriage".

Marriage Neutering and Newspeak

Marriage neutering advocates, especially those embedded in the MSM, have been very clever at their manipulation of the news and debate when it comes to their well-organized, well-funded, calculated effort to neuter marriage licensing nationwide and replace marriage with a counterfeit, further tearing down the strength of the family and devaluing both masculinity and femininity. Hedonists want this because they don't like anything that implies sexual morality. For the Leftists, this is a good thing because they think it will bring about more equality in outcomes and make people generally more dependent on the government. To Leftists, that some people have better families than others is unfairness that must be corrected by public policy. People relying on family first, ahead of government, might mean having to deal with people who know your moral shortcomings and your counterproductive habits, and that can be a real buzzkill.

They know they can't win using logic and sound reasoning, so they appeal to emotion and employ cultural subversion. They know the fact that men and women are different is inescapable, despite the long attempts by Leftist gender confusion advocates to assert otherwise. Even infants know men and women are different. Even the marriage neutering advocates at "Dancing With the Stars" always pair men with women, even going so far as to pair Chaz Bono with a woman because Chaz claims to be man now (though the emperor has no Y chromosome). Any person who has struggled with their sexual orientation and has identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" is demonstrating that there are important differences between men and women. Anyone who claims to have undergone a gender reassignment is making a claim that there is such a difference between men and women, that counseling, hormone treatments and surgeries are needed for them to change from one to the other.

Since men and women are different, the uniting of a bride and groom is objectively, demonstrably, and documentably different than the pairing two men or two women. This is why it is Constitutional (and important) to treat marriage differently from other kinds of voluntary associations, including what a minority of states and a few countries have falsely called "marriage" in their licensing.

In an effort to circumvent what should be self-evident truths to most people, marriage neutering advocates have misused language.

Let's clear up some terms.

Prejudice:

The MSM Has Neglected Benghazi

Bill Ossiginac of Anaheim, California had this letter printed in the Orange County Register:

Why isn’t the aftermath of Benghazi on the front page, above the fold, every day, until we pressure our government enough to tell us the truth, or at least get some answers? If this were any other president it would be a huge story. I think we will find out later this is worse than Watergate.

The U.S. media are not doing their jobs and do a disservice to the people of this once-great country. Not letting the people know the truth from the media is the first step in taking away freedoms from the very people that you are suppose to inform.

Please give the people some front-page coverage of the things that really matter. If the aftermath and cover-up of Benghazi doesn’t matter, then God help our country.

Nobody died in Watergate. This is far, far worse than Watergate. Have we become a country resigned to the kind of corruption and cover-ups typical in other countries? I pray not.

Much Ado About Nothing

Tim Martin of Corona, California noticed how the Leftist-MSM Complex fabricated an anti-Romney story, and he wrote to the Orange County Register about it.

Mitt Romney is getting crucified over his supposed comments that England wasn’t ready for the Olympics. A little fact checking is in order. In a 17-minute “allow-me-to-twist-this-honey-laden-dagger-in-your-back” interview, the opening question from Brian Williams was, “In the short time you’ve been here, do they look ready to your experienced eye”?

Romney then gave a direct answer to this direct question, noted there were three areas of concern, and concluded, “We’ll know once the games begin.” How in the wide world of political sports is that an attack on England?

Then magically, Mark Phillips from CBS interviewed Michelle Obama at the Olympics, who properly said “They know what they’re doing.”

More magically, the interview, on the CBS site, edits out Phillips’ final comments on “the reputation of the city and country are on the line, they want to look good” (and is nervous about how it will turn out). Sorry, I didn’t take notes quickly enough, and didn’t realize that CBS would cut the part where Phillips basically echoes the answer that Romney gave to Williams.

Just like with the Sandra Fluke fracas, Romney gets assailed for saying nothing, gets attacked for an honest answer and gets pilloried for something somebody else said... It doesn’t matter what the facts are. The media will paint Romney as the out of touch “other” that can’t be trusted.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Who Cares Who Sally Rode?

A Leftist is someone who believes that a marriage is the ONLY organization in which men have the right to exclude women. Read the latest on chicks, chicken, scouts, and what the homofascists are doing, over at The Opine Editorials.

Newspaper Editors Don't Trust Science

(Note: LATimes.com only allows visitors to access a certain number of articles per month for free.) The Leftist goal of portraying conservatives and Christians as ignorant, uneducated, and illogical (despite Leftism being based on emotion rather than logic) is evident in today's Los Angeles Times, in an article by John Hoeffel headlined "Conservatives' Trust in Science Has Declined Sharply".

I'm a conservative and I trust science. Most conservatives do. We must define what we mean by "science", however. People like me believe the scientific method is helpful in discerning things about the physical universe. What people like me do not trust without verification, and for good reason, is how findings by scientists are reported, especially in the Left-leaning media. Also, when a scientist makes statements that relate to metaphysics, the supernatural, or philosophy (such as expressing a worldview of philosophical naturalism), we rightly question the statement rather than trust it.

Here's how the article opens:

As the Republican presidential race has shown, the conservatives who dominate the primaries are deeply skeptical of science — making Newt Gingrich, for one, regret he ever settled onto a couch with Nancy Pelosi to chat about global warming.

Really? If we don't believe there is man-made global warming that we are able to (and better off if we do) fight through drastic restrictions on human freedom and centralization of power in government… we're "skeptical of science"? It shouldn't be news that conservatives are skeptical of political Leftism.

A study released Thursday in the American Sociological Review concludes that trust in science among conservatives and frequent churchgoers has declined precipitously since 1974, when a national survey first asked people how much confidence they had in the scientific community. At that time, conservatives had the highest level of trust in scientists.

The "scientific community" even if it were to be unified, does not equal science. This smacks of identity politics, like when the MSM reports that someone who doesn't think a brideless pairing forms a marriage is "anti-gay".

Confidence in scientists has declined the most among the most educated conservatives, the peer-reviewed research paper found, concluding: "These results are quite profound because they imply that conservative discontent with science was not attributable to the uneducated but to rising distrust among educated conservatives."

So why wasn’t the headline "The More Educated the Conservative, the Less Trust of Scientists"? That would have been more accurate. But notice how terms scientists, the "scientific community" and science are all being used interchangeably in this article. It's like saying that someone does not approve of President Obama’s job performance, or believe what he says doesn't trust the Constitution.

To highlight the dramatic impact conservative views of science have had on public opinion, [report author Gordon] Gauchat pointed to results from Gallup, which found in 2012 that just 30% of conservatives believed the Earth was warming as a result of greenhouse gases versus 50% two years earlier. In contrast, the poll showed almost no change in the opinion of liberals, with 74% believing in global warming in 2010 versus 72% in 2008.

You see, "belief" in "global warming" = science.

Chris Mooney, who wrote "The Republican War on Science," which Gauchat cites, agreed. "If you think of the reasons behind this as nature versus nurture, all this would be nurture, that it was the product of the conservative movement," he said. "I think being educated is a proxy for people paying attention to politics, and when they do, they tune in to Fox News and blogs."

In other words, conservatives don't just believe whatever the New York Times, TIME, and MSNBC say.

The study also found that Americans with moderate political views have long been the most distrustful of scientists, but that conservatives now are likely to outstrip them.

Moderates are typically less educated than either liberals or conservatives, Gauchat said. "These folks are just generally alienated from science," he said, describing them as the "least engaged and least knowledgeable about basic scientific facts."

And yet, we didn't have a headline that said "Moderates Less Educated".

Gauchat, who has been studying public attitudes toward science for about eight years, has applied for a National Science Foundation grant to investigate why trust in science has waned.

Maybe it is because of the influence of grants?

He plans to ask a battery of questions, including some focused on scientific controversies, such as those over vaccines and genetically modified foods, to try to understand what makes conservatives and moderates so distrustful.

Yes, you see, it isn't Leftists who are making any of that noise about vaccines and genetically modified foods. Oh no… it is those churchgoin’ conservatives and those uneducated moderates. Yessiree.

"cognoscenti" at 5:55 AM March 29, 2012 commented:

It's funny (ironic?) in Google News today, this LAT story is highlighted and directly beneath it is a Reuters story of how a lead cancer researcher found 47 of 53 popular scientific research 'findings' couldn't be replicated. No wonder people have lower faith in science with stories like this, Climategate, hockey stick graphs, etc etc. When scientists make up results to either gain grants, patents or notoriety for their cause the truth eventually comes out.

The same peson later added:

The one thing that bothers me about the IPCC reports over the last 10 years regarding AGW is the slow redaction of pieces of it, bit by bit. Like the claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 which turns out to be completely false. Or wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. These loose 'facts' were all a result of the lack of peer-reviews and an eagerness to push an agenda.

"moristheflorist" at 6:53 AM March 29, 2012:

A lot of this distrust might be due to the sorry state of science journalism

(see graphic: http://larvatusprodeo.net/files/2011/05/phdcomics-science-news-cycle.gif)

"basswork" at 9:02 AM March 29, 2012 gets it right:

Such comedy. The headline would suggest that conservatives mistrust science in general. But no, it's anthropenic global warming that is at issue. And by people who have studied the issue more carefully than most, including presumably those who write about it in the media.

In fact, believers in AGW behave much like religionists, smiting all heretics who dare question the popular doomsaying dogma.

Why not write about liberals who believe in feng shui, not inoculating their children and that government provided services are free?

For a reasoned argument against AGW read here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html

"nikkkko" at 10:10 AM March 29, 2012 wrote:

It’s not just science, that conservatives have a problem with. They have a problem with any fact or rational idea that conflicts with their views.

Pot, meet kettle. (A bunch of Leftists just remembered they were meaning to light up.)

The majority in this party do not believe in evolution, and many of those believe the earth is 4000 years old.

Conservatives are not the GOP, but I think it is safe to say that the majority of Republicans and conservatives do believe in "change over time" if that is what is meant by "evolution". But if you mean by "evolution" that everything that exists - including all of the woundrous biological diversity and irreducibly complex natural systems, sunsets and surfing, our sense of right and wrong, the mind of Einstein, the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and great sex – are the result of nothing more than the mindless interactions of molecules that emerged from nothing without the aid of God, then no, most people don't believe that.

And Young Earthers think it is at least 6,000 years, often 10,000 years or more.

HBO We Can't Believe In

The Leftist Democrats have the machinery of almost all of the major news outlets and most of the television media in general to get their messages out, true or not. HBO is part of that.

Poll Dancing to Claim Fauxmentum for Neutering Marriage

It is quite laughable (or perhaps sad) just how desperate marriage neutering advocates, including the ones presenting themselves as objective journalists, have gotten in trying to convince everyone else that there is some massive shift to support for replacing marriage in state law with a counterfeit.

Read all about it over at The Opine Editorials.