All About Abortion (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 168)

More Pro-Life Nothing (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 164)

Peak Pence (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 159)

More pro-life mockery (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep 153)

I Don't Have A Title For This Episode (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 137)

Atheist Talks About Matt Walsh Vs. Ken Ham (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 128)

Shut Up, Matt Walsh (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 127)

The Greatest Pro-Choice Ad Ever Made

Every time I go to write a column I always make sure to go to some of my "favorite" twitter accounts. People like Matt Walsh, Lila Rose, Live Action, and many more just to see what makes them angry (or you could say triggered) just to see how silly it is. Today I stumbled across a pro-choice ad that may just be the greatest case for abortion ever made. 

Matt Walsh called it the most disgusting pro-choice ad he'd ever seen, and other people said other things but I found that to be the funniest. I mean Live Action only called it "tone deaf." I mean come on Live Action! You guys compared abortion to slavery and the holocaust, and the best you got is "tone deaf." The ad has over 4,000 dislikes and less than 100 thumbs-ups. 

Watch it here.

The ad is simple: It shows clips of a baby moving around while lullaby music plays in the background. While this is going on words flash up on the screen. Those words are "she deserves to be loved," "she deserves to be wanted," and "she deserves to be a choice."

I love this ad for one reason: It cuts to the chase. None of this "we care about women and not kids" straw-man pro-lifers love using. Instead we get to see someone finally say "we care about kids more than you do, we just also understand reality better than you."

Unwanted children aren't always loved. This seems like common sense to anyone who isn't in the pro-life movement. Therefore, if you want children to always grow up in a household where they're loved, you must be pro-choice by definition. 

This also answers the one pro-life loaded question they love to phrase in a million different ways. I remember I once heard Dennis Prager ask if someone who is pro-choice would be okay with a homophobic woman aborting a child she knows will be gay. I answer yes. Why? Because homophobic parents of gay kids usually end of causing kids to have mental issues and -- a sad amount of the time -- they end up in the same place they would have if they were aborted with a large amount of suffering in the middle. 

So why are pro-lifers so angry at this ad? Because it hits them where it hurts. The only argument they've ever had is that they have the moral position and the people are seeing through it. 

Sessions out, Democrats In (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 119)

The Catholic Church, Pope Francis, and Matt Walsh

Well, another sex abuse scandal took place in the Catholic Church. Is anyone really surprised at this point? Seriously, are Catholics even surprised at this point? I'm not. Only a few years ago they were caught shuffling pedophile priests around like a game of 3 card Monty.   

Of course the church has always had a history of pure evil. Rather it be censorship, repression, or murder and war. However, the excuse I always here from self-described catholic apologist is that "was in the past". Which is true. However, the only evolution they've made are the most basic things someone could imagine. They no longer kill for leaving the religion? They should have never started doing that in the first place. 

Others tell me that the crimes of Islam are much worse than the crimes of the church. This isn't entirely wrong. But if your best excuse is that your belief system isn't as bad as the one that kills gays, makes you get gender reassignment surgery if your homosexual, doesn't treat women like human beings, and is partly guilty for the biggest terrorist attack and mass shooting in US history then your faith is pretty bad. 

Higher ups in Islam kill. Higher ups in Catholicism rape children. These are both objective facts. 

Let's not forget how much of an open secret this has been throughout all of history. It was first publicized in 1985, over 30 years ago. The church has done very little since then to stop this problem because they don't care. 

Pope Francis was forced to deal with the fact that yet another sexual abusive scandal happened. With such ground-breaking and controversial previous takes as "Climate change is real" and "If god made everything, I guess that includes being gay" said basically what you'd expect.

You see, Pope Francis is against child abuse. Not against it to the point where he wants to do anything about it. But he doesn't like it enough to the point where he's willing to complain about it just before flying his private jet to complain about climate change. And let's not forget when someone asked him about his links he refused to answer. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Just like how reports are now coming out that he knew about this and said nothing.

That is when the media bothers to report on it. The mainstream media has been spending so much time defending Francis and the church that it's honestly sad. You would think they were trying to censor them. Which does actually make sense considering they are the Catholic Church. Even the people who are pretending to be critical are failing right into the traps of the church.

Enter Matt Walsh, Daily Wire columnist and someone who I have spent much time taking about before. In his recent column The Worst Bullies In America Matt is angry that LGBT activists got an orphanage shut down for, as he puts it, "the crime of being Catholic". 

I have two quotes from this column I would like to share with you. However, before I do I figure I should remind you he wrote this in defensive of a Catholic owned organization that has the sole purpose of caring for kids during a sex abuse scandal involving raping kids:

It is almost irrelevant to not that the organization's original adoption policy [of not allowing homosexuals to adopt] was . . . keeping with reason and science. Studies consistently show that . . . children win same-sex parented households have higher rates of . . . abuse.

The one and only "inequality" [homosexuals have] left [to protest] was the rule prohibiting active homosexuals from donating blood, due to astronomically higher rates of HIV in the gay community. But even this is under attack and being repealed. The LGBT lobby will risk giving HIV to hospital patients if it means they get to win another battle.

I would like to remind everyone Matt is a self identified Catholic and father of small kids. If Matt's thinking is correct, most notably that statics mean everything and 100% of the time apply to individuals no matter how old they are, then shouldn't he give up his own kids? Even buying Matt's excuse it's the fault of gays within the church (it makes about as much sense as it sounds), that still means gays are common within the church. So should Matt not be allowed to have his kids. Maybe. Honestly, I'm just sick of these excuses.  

   

         

"Everyone Else Sucks, So Why Can't I"-The Republican Story

As many of you heard, Donald Trump's press sectary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a Red Hen restaurant. She then took to Twitter to say this: 

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

Of course, right-wing twitter imminently started complaining about the double standard surrounding this story. 
Ben Shapiro tweeted about it:

1. It's terrible if a Christian baker won't use his services for the benefit of a same-sex wedding.

2. It's awesome if a Leftist restaurant order refuses service to a Republican public official.

Pick one.

I don't think anyone called it "awesome" but okay. 
That Dylan guy from "Educating Liberals" tweeted about it:

A Red Hen restaurant can refuse service to Sarah Sanders & her family based on "moral grounds,” but the baker from Colorado had to go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to refuse service based on religious moral grounds.

The hypocrisy of the Left is unbelievable.

As if Huckabee is unable to take this place to court and repeal any discussion that doesn't go her way until it gets there. These people don't seem to think highly of their own president.
 Heck, Matt Walsh even wrote an entire article about it:

. . . the Left has largely argued that business owners don't have the right to refuse service. One of the most common arguments I have heard against Jack Phillips goes like this: "He's a baker. His job is to bake cakes. Therefore he should be legally required to bake cakes for anyone who wants one."

Well, it is not hard to see how that logic should apply to Red Hen: "They are a restaurant. People come there and eat food. Therefore they should be legally required to let anyone come there and eat food." 

It's clear that the Right is trying to paint these owners as hypocrites because of this incident. Ignoring the fact that is was their guys who Jack the case in the first place. For that matter, it seems that these people have no issue review bombing Red Hen with Yelp. But don't you dare go after the former CEO of Firefox. What? If they can treat us like a collective, it's only fair we do the same.
Fun fact, I was going to do a bit where I actually read what Kimberley Strassel has said on this, but I can't. Why? Because she hasn't said anything on this matter. It seems that the author of The Intimidation Game can't take time out of her busy schedule to say anything about this intimidation game.
But fine, let's actually compare the two situations and see why they're different. First off, Jack's famous cake shop was a small business meanwhile Red Hen is a national chain. This means that holding all of them accountable for the Sanders incident makes very little sense.
For that matter, the gay couple in Colorado and Sarah were denied for some very different reasons. The gay couple was denied because they were a homosexual couple, which is something they can't control. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was denied because she worked for Donald Trump, which is something she can control. It's not as if she was kicked out because she was the daughter of Mike Huckabee, she was kicked out for political reasons. As of right now, politicians are not a protected class.
The point is, this isn't hypocrisy. And even it was, by complaining about it you are also being a hypocrite.     



    

The Right-Wing War On Mental Health

If you've been watching The Ephrom Josine Show, or even reading the blog, you've more than likely heard of Matt Walsh. After all, I have covered him quite a bit. You may also be aware of what I've called "the war on mental health". Again I've covered that pretty often. 
However, it was only recently those two things combined, leading to the topic of today's article. Jumping on the bandwagon of people like (committer of treason) Oliver North and Candace Owens, and now believes ADD and ADHD aren't real. Maybe he's bitter that Thom Hartmann, someone who has written a lot of books about ADHD (and who came up with the hunter vs. farmer hypothesis), was a Bernie supporter.
Mind you, this isn't the first time Matt has expressed skepticism. In an article called The Four Terrible Things That Are Destroying Boys In Our Culture Mr. Walsh makes it clear that he thinks "The education system is designed for girls". 

boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. By high school, 20% of boys - 20% - are diagnosed

20%, a whole 20%. In case you don't see what Matt is saying, it's 20%. 
Yet, I still have a few questions. Mostly, if this is a plot to turn men into women (at least, that's what I think Matt is saying), why isn't it a majority? Are only 20% of boys what Matt would consider "real boys"? If so, what about the other 80%. I get it's easy to look at the 1 in 5 and assume something big is going on, but the other side of the coin is 4 in 5.
Second, he says "boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed", well if this is a plot against boys, how can you even calculate it? Shouldn't it be closer to 100 to 1 instead of 2 to 1? To give you an idea of how much that really is, that means 1/3 of people diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are girls. Yet Matt doesn't focus on those numbers. 

Yet . . . we never stop to consider that perhaps we are not . . . diagnosing boys as we are diagnosing boyhood

And girlhood in 1 out of every 3 cases. In case you're wondering, Matt also doesn't believe in transgenderism.

If the school system were not predicated on sitting still and memorizing things . . . there would be no ADHD

And if everyone had (insert illness that no one is debating exists here) no one would. That's really all Matt had to say in this article, luckily, he expanded on it. 
Now, before we actually read the article, I think we should actually look at some of the reactions to it. I know, it seems kind of odd to not start at the start, but I have a reason. You see, even Matt's own fans didn't think what Walsh said in this article wasn't completely accurate. So, he spent a few days trying to defend himself on Twitter. Here are some of my favorite defensive. At one point, someone mentioned the idea that Mr.Walsh had no medical experience. Matt responded:

This may be shocking, but I have discovered a thing called a “book.” I can use it to learn information on many topics. Try it sometime!

Well, Matt, I would like to recommend you read some books as well. Just head to Amazon, and type ADHD in the books section and you should find some good work. In fact, I'll do it for you. 
On a side note, can I address something I'm sick of? I've seen all these older people talk about how books are the only place where truth is held my entire life and it has always confused me. Karl Marx wrote books, I'm sure Matt Walsh disagrees with those. What about books that are responding to other books and authors? Going back to Karl Marx, there are tons of books about him, some like him, some don't. Are they both equally true? Sorry, just needed to vent for a second.
Mind you, it seems Matt himself doesn't believe what he just said considering he said this:  

The fact that you cite the DSM as a legitimate medical text is pretty hilarious.

But Matt, it's a book. I thought those were always right. 

I never claimed that people with an “ADHD”-type personality don’t exist. I claimed that it is not a DISORDER.

Replace ADHD with something like bipolar disorder and you'll really see how strong this argument is. A bipolar like personality does exist, but does that make it a disorder. The answer is yes?
Or what about depression. Is depression real or is it just a bunch of people being Debby downers? 

What is a regular person? Who decided that he is regular? How do we know the regular person isn’t actually the irregular person? Or is it possible that there is no such thing as a regular person?  

Matt Walsh the philosopher. 
But to answer Matt's question, regular in this case, means they are part of the majority who can function in society. 
I have a theory. I think Matt may have been diagnosed with ADHD when he was younger and his certain it's just everyone else who is wrong. You know, my father once told me Republicans think like they're 10 years old, and the more I read people like Matt, the more I know he was right.
But fine, let's look at Matt's article We Have Turned Childhood Into A Mental Disorder. And It's Ruining Our Kids.

According to a report, there has been a dramatic rise in children misusing and overdosing on ADHD medication. I happen to see that report a day after I read another study revealing an increased risk for obesity and diabetes in kids who take ADHD meds. This is not to be confused with the recent research showing that ADHD drugs could be linked to brittle bones. These must all be added . . . to the . . . already known side effects, including insomnia, irritability, decreased appetite, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

I'd actually like to point out a hypocrisy I noticed, that this paragraph helps to highlight. When I first read this article, I also checked the comments. Out of all of them, this is one I find the most interesting:

Apparently I had ADHD when I was a kid. Every time the symptoms appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for ADHD but doctors can't prescribe it.

I like this comment because it shows a double standard. Notice, how in the column Walsh wrote, he blames ADHD medication for all of these and acts like none of these symptoms can be overcome. Compare that to the commenters' view that all symptoms of ADHD can be overcome with punishment. Try as I might, I couldn't find a comment that went like this:

Apparently I took ADHD medication when I was a kid. Every time a side effect appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for side effects of ADHD medication but doctors can't prescribe it.

 But let's see more of what Matt has to say:

Maybe this is why a majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD wind up developing other mental illness as they grow older

Or because some things take longer to develop than others. 

Drug companies and the psychiatric industry have so far gotten almost 20 percent of the country onto psychiatric drugs

Or, maybe that's because 20% of the country have ADHD. Why does the amount of people who are diagnosed with it matter anyway? If 100% of people had HIV, would that make HIV fine?

Many of these drugs cause suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. Meanwhile, a lot of Americans are having suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. One need not be a detective to notice a potential causal relationship here.

And we have no way to deal with depression. It's not like there's a form of medicine known as anti-depressants. Oh wait, are those a conspiracy too? 

The psychiatric industry has set out to catalog and medicalize virtually every human behavior, emotion, inclination, temptation, and personality trait.

Blogspot doesn't recognize the word "medicalize" by the way. But okay, so if psychiatrists (or "the psychiatric industry, whatever that means) are just making up illnesses, why does it matter if people on ADHD medication develop depression?
Matt goes on to this for a while. Basically pointing to a symptom of ADHD and responding with "well, kids have it".

So, how can we know when normal childhood behaviors may be a manifestation of mental illness?

Well, most people can't. That's why we have these people called psychologists. But, Matt hates those people. 

With ADHD . . . pediatricians and psychiatrists claim to have identified a malfunction of the whole human person.

Google (or read a book about, if you prefer) neuroscience.
Matt is also outraged at this quote from The Mayo Clinic. Any emphasis is his by the way:

In general, a child shouldn't receive a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder unless the core symptoms of ADHD . . . create significant problems at home and at school on an ongoing basis.

Now listen to how Matt summarizes it:

According to the medical community, a child's personality becomes diseased at the precise moment that his personality interferes with his schooling.

So, Matt can't read. Because if he could he would have known the statement he just quotes said ADHD "create[s] significant problems at home and at school". Of course, the other option is that Matt is directly lying, but why would he do that? 
Now Matt tries to argue that psychiatrists actually just don't understand god. 

Of course, if you take an entirely materialistic view of the human person . . . then you must believe that everything he fells, everything he thinks, all of his traits . . . are all just material phenomena. The mind is an illusion in that case. You are just your brain and nothing more. If . . . you factor in the soul, and free will, and the uniqueness of each person who is created by a Divine Force, it becomes clear that the mind exist, and it drives the brain much more than the brain drives it.

For the record, Matt believes "the uniqueness . . . [that] is created by a Divine Force" will send most of us to hell, just saying. And I have no idea where he got the "The mind is an illusion in that case" point from. As for the soul point, of course no doctor takes it seriously, they only deal with the psychical world. Even if you believe in a soul, you can't interact with it on a psychical level. 

But even if we put all of that aside . . . and even if you accept . . . that brain chemistry determines everything about a person, that still wouldn't prove . . . the ADHD personality, is disordered. It doesn't prove . . . that a person isn't supposed to be that way.

Reminder: Matt Walsh is the man who believes people aren't born gay. Even though they are supposed to have ADHD. But Matt, I have a question for you. And for that, we must look a little earlier in your article. 

If you go to the doctor because you think you have diabetes, he won't ask: "Well, is the diabetes causing problems at home or school?" Diabetes is diabetes no matter how convenient or inconvenient it may be to you or inconvenient it may be to you or those around you.

His mention of diabetes struck me at first. Because, what Matt doesn't seem to know is, type one diabetes is 100% genetic. Were those kids supposed to have diabetes? And that's not going into the many birth defects that I could go into. 
That's every point he made in the article. He goes on to talk about how a child should act like a child and how ADHD drugs are stopping kids from being kids, and none of it makes any sense. So in conclusion, take your meds.    

  

  

  

      

  

  

       

   

    

   



  

The Daily Wire Meltdown

On Friday it was announced that CNN contributor Anthony Bourdian killed himself at the age of 61 years old. A man who CNN has called "a gifted chef and storyteller" and who many have felt sad for. Combine this the recent death of Kate Spade, also from suicide, and the nation is currently trying to figure out what's going on. 
Now I didn't know much about either of these people until this week. I don't follow famous chiefs or fashion so I would have no reason to know about either of these people. Basically, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, and this is a big, however, this doesn't mean that I can't call out the awful reactions I have seen from the right in response to this.
Take, for example, the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro. In a recent episode of The Ben Shapiro Show, he spends some time talking about the new "epidemic" (I'll explain why it's in quotes in a bit) and how his website is going to talk about it in the future. But let's hear why he thinks this is happening:

First of all, clinical depression is obviously linked to suicide  

Okay, Ben figured out a basic psychological fact, I'll give him that. I take it he makes sure of that with his wife (who is a doctor, in case you haven't heard) but still.

I would suggest there is a societal lack of meaning. That young people have basically been taught  . . . there emotional state is key. . . we've treated each other as objects. Some of that has to do with . . . social media.

Slow down. Ben already talks fast as it is and now he's giving one nonsense reason after the other.

And some of that has to do with decline of religion 

What? 

There are good studies that suggest

This will be fun

 As religion declines . . . rates of depression go up

Which studies? Yeah, remember the rule of thumb I gave a few posts ago. Whenever someone says that studies show something, they haven't read those studies. 
However, while Shapiro talks about the changes that are going to be made, it seems like another columnist jumped the shark a little. Yes, it's time to talk about Matt Walsh. In a recent post, Matt thinks he found the reason the whole suicide thing is taking place, atheism. 

People will say that suicide is on the rise because we are not doing enough to fight the "mental health crisis" but . . . the rate was a fraction of what it is today back when nobody had ever heard of "mental health".-Matt Walsh

This [the story of Adam and Eve] was before doctors, so cancer and that kind of stuff didn't exist yet-Stan Smith

Figured I'd keep it in Matt's ballpark with what I compare him to. In fact, let me burst Matt's (and the entire media's) bubble real quick, there is no depression epidemic. The rate of diagnosis has gone up, however, the rate of depression has stated the same and we are just getting better at finding it.
Ignoring this fact has led to all sorts of weird conspiracies popping up that we need to ignore. Remember, when we made this same mistake before we honestly thought vaccines caused autism. The housewife who hid her drinking problem in the mid-1950's didn't have depression by the standards of those days, now she would because we know more about depression. Or, no one use to die of AIDS, they died of GRID.

There is an emptiness at the core of our culture . . . [because] We have fled from God . . . and embraced a soft kind of nihilism

And where is Matt's proof that either of the two people that caused him to write this article, Anthony Bourdian and Kate Spade, were nihilists? Seriously, I'm asking you because I can't find it. 

We stop at the brain . . . but we never pause to ask why all our brains have apparently gone haywire . . . If this is all just a matter of mental disorders, why in the hell are these "mental disorders" so common now?

This is one of the main mistakes Matt and his types have made with how they address issues. They always assume that we have always had the exact same knowledge and as such whenever something ticks up or down, it's because of humans. Also, Matt doesn't understand anatomy very well.  

I think it's because [depression] is not purely psychological. It goes beyond our brains and into our souls

Matt, where is my soul? Point to my soul right now. Also for it to not be psychological it would have to be at least somewhat physical. 

What everyone craves deep in their bones

Your bones do not have cravings. Fine, I'm nitpicking.

What everyone craves deep in their bones is truth and meaning. . . that is objective and inherent and beyond our ability to remove or change.But our culture tells us that nothing of the sort exists . . . And if we make nothing of it, and find nothing of it, then . . . there is no reason to carry on living anymore.

 For the record, Matt did not cite one study or article during that entire rant. Nor does he during this entire column. Not the claim that we need "meaning . . . that is objective and inherent" (whatever that means), or the claim that nihilism is on the rise, or that "our culture" is promoting it.

If someone is feeling [depressed], yes, it is good to give them a number to call, and tell them they are not alone and people care for them . . . But it's not enough . . . People need more than . . . therapy and phone numbers. They even need more than the knowledge that other people love them. They need meaning. They need hope. They need there to be a point to all of this, a reason.

Quick question to Matt, what does that even mean? I guess you could ask what the meaning of what you just said was, or was the point of all of that, the reason. Oh, by the way, guess what he thinks the solution is.

Well, praise God because . . . there is a meaning. God is our founation . . . We are not mere accidents. We are not clumps of dust that grew randomly from the Earth and somehow devoloped consciousness and a moral code and the capacity for love. 

Random question: Does Matt have a deadly fear of lists with commas? 

That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it.

Can I have the list of famous, well known, and vocal atheists who have killed themselves? Hitchens didn't, Harris hasn't, Dawkins hasn't, TJ Kirk hasn't, Cult of Dusty hasn't, George Carlin didn't, and I could go on. Also, notice my use of commas and learn Matt. 
One more thing, I showed this to fellow Ephrom Report blogger J.P Savard, and his words exactly:

Walsh: I think it is because the disorder is not purely psychological.

J.P,: Dude, you're still not answering the question

Walsh: something about God

J.P.: Matt no

Walsh: That doesn't make sense, and we all know it doesn't make sense, and we will literally kill ourselves trying to make sense of it. 

J.P.: Nothing does, Walsh. Nothing does.  

Walsh also talked about this on twitter, and did a little better:

You can’t go on about “the right to die” and describe suicide as “death with dignity” and then expect that your words of solace to suicidal people will mean anything. You just explicitly promoted suicide as a dignified and rightful death. What did you think was going to happen? 

So Matt doesn't think there's a difference between letting someone who is going to die very soon and in horrible pain (physical pain by the way, not emotional ones) and allowing people with a long life ahead of them. Interesting to know he's that simple in his worldview.  

We treat “doctor assisted suicide” as not only morally acceptable but even courageous and inspirational. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why so many people are killing themselves. We are fools.

Who's inspired by doctor-assisted suicide? 

Here’s a crazy thought: if we don’t want people to commit suicide, maybe we should stop celebrating suicide. 

I do agree with Matt that we shouldn't celebrate suicide. Good thing no one is doing that. 
Back to Ben:

You see this in regard to opioid addiction as well 

Ugh 
Let's see if he's at least more tolerable in article form.

Surely rising rates of opioid abuse have contributed to the suicide increase 

Citation needed. 

There's one measure that we . . . can take more immediately: thinking about how we cover suicide. 

Now up until now, you may be thinking "isn't this the same reaction these people had after the last shooting?". 

In the age of mass media, the . . . Werther Effect . . . is the temporary uptick in suicide rate that often follows heavy media coverage of suicide.

Conservatism: The philosophy that society is best when people are ignorant. 

when Netflix released the suicide-glorying 13 Reasons Why

13 Reasons Why didn't glorify suicide. It told a story about suicide.
So what's the moral here? If you don't want people to kill themselves, pretend that never happens. Just like they pretend boom-bust cycles don't, or really most things.