The Future of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has officially announced that he plans to retire. This means that the president can now appoint another justice to the highest court in the land. 
Now, I'm not as worried as many people on the left seem to be. After all, Kennedy was a Republican and got appointed by Reagan in 1988. However, that doesn't mean you still shouldn't be worried because he's going to be replaced with another Republican. That is still worrying. Not helped by the fact that, while Kennedy would commonly toe the party line, he was at least sometimes willing to ignore what they party wanted and do something good for the people.
For instance, he was part of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Which stated that no government could place an "undue burden" on getting an abortion.
Anthony was part of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down laws that banned sodomy. He ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in the United States v. Windsor case. And, most importantly, he ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. All of which were great things for homosexuals. 
The justice also took the majority ruling in Texas v. Johnson which legalized flag burning. Showing that he at least cares about the first amendment.  
So why should you be worried? Well, Donald Trump has proven that he has been on the wrong side of all these issues. For instance, he appointed Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States. And his attitude on reproductive rights and gays is well, flawed to say the least. So Donnie hasn't really shown himself to have the best record with appointing people.
But what's his history with appointing people the Supreme Court? Well, that's a pretty easy question, after all, he has already appointed one. Ladies and gentlemen meet Neil Gorsuch. Republican "new right" commentators love Neil Gorsuch. That should tell you all you need to know about him, but I'll go on.
First off, he sided with Hobby Lobby in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. If you don't remember that case, it was the one where Hobby Lobby tried to ignore an ACA regulation that said they had to provide birth control because of religious freedom. Let me rephrase that in a way that actually makes it accurate. Hobby Lobby tried to save money by not providing employees with birth control and tried to get away with it by claiming religious freedom. Neil Gorsuch either bought it because he's an idiot or went along with it because he's a shill. 
Let's also not forget his hatred for human euthanasia. Gorsuch even wrote a whole book about it. Because healthcare companies have to make money somehow. 
Basically, Gorsuch is a corporate shill. Expect whoever comes next to be the same. This is going to be painful.          

  

"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.     



    

3 Simple Ways To Pay For Universal Healthcare

This is something that we've heard over and over again. Whenever anyone announces they support Medicare for all, no matter who they are, the question that is imminently asked for is "how are you going to pay for it?". Mind you, these people often ignore how single payer would save most people money, but that's beside the point. 
Mind you, I'm not saying it shouldn't be asked. Of course it should. Have you seen our debt? However, the vast majority of the time it's not by someone who is curious or unfamiliar with the concept, it's by someone who already knows the answer and is asking so they can look like they came out on top. 
So, if they can have a copy paste response I think it's fair that we have one back. So here are 3 ways to pay for a universal healthcare system. 
#1-The Good Old Fashion Way
Yeah, it's the most obvious one, that's why it's the first. Figured we should get "raise taxes" out of the way early. 
Of course, this scares people who own Don't Tread On Me bumper stickers, but here are the facts. First off, these people typically don't understand how taxes work. Taxes are a fee that you pay for to the government. It's only fair that you, the person who pays the taxes, get something in return.
However, how high are the taxes? After all, taxes being too high can cause negative economic effects (which these people seem to think never happens the other way around, but that's beside the point). I mean Bernie Sanders, the man who made the idea popular, said he wanted a top tax rate of over 90%. Wait, no that Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bernie just pointed it out. 
Here's the tax plan he actually proposed while running for president: 
 
Now, here's how many percentage points your taxes would increase:
$1-250,000: 0% (Your taxes stay the same)
$250,001- 411,500: 4%
$411,501-464,850: 2%
$464,851-499,999: -2.6%
$500,000-2,000,000: 3.4%
$2,000,001-10,000,000: 8.4%
More than $10,000,0001: 12.4%
So you would need to make over $10,000,000 to have your taxes raised over 10%, over $2,000,000 to have them raised more than 5%, and more than $250,000 to have them raised at all. 
#2-Enforce The Tax Laws We Already Have/Make Taxes The Same For Everyone 
We have lost AT LEAST $70 billion to tax havens in one year. How is that not illegal? We all know they do it, and if you did it you'd be convicted of tax avoidance. How is this not a crime?
How about for the fact that (except for a brief point in the '80's) the capital gains rate is smaller than the individual rate. So someone making $80,000 a year through work could be paying more in taxes than someone making $500,000 a year through investments.
How about ban those non-sense "economic development" programs that actively don't work. Remember Amazon, the company that paid no taxes last year. Meanwhile, Jeff is still one of the richest men in the world.
And don't think I'm not going to mention the inequality in payroll taxes. Social Security taxes, for instance, only taxes up to $128,400. And people wonder why it's going bankrupt. 
#3-Cut The Military
It previously seemed to be impossible make it more clear how cartoonish our military spending can be. Then Trump tried to create a space force.
As pointed out before, by the end of the Obama administration the United States had a military budget larger than the next 7 nations combined. We have over 800 military bases, including around Iran which the White House calls a giant threat. Bet John Bolton will never tell you that. 
Then, without any debate, we increased the military budget by enough to pay for public college. Because if we don't the communists will take over or something, seriously this is ridiculous. Yet, no one ever asks how we're going to pay for the billions we spend with the Pentagon.
And these are just 3 of the millions of way progressives have given over the years to pay for a program that every other country in the modern world has.    
              
     

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.    

  

  

  

      

  

  

       

   

    

   



  

No Sympathy For Illegals

So imagine this. You read a story about a criminal, the crime is irrelevant in this case, getting separated from their family. Your first reaction is more than likely "good" assuming you care at all. Now tell me this, why should that change when the crime is entering a country illegally? 
Over the past week story after story after story has come out related to kids being separated from parents at the border of the United States and Mexico. Part of me wonders why, if these parents care so much, they would try to cross the border in the first place. I mean if ICE is "the American Gestapo" (seriously, I've heard some people call it such), then why are you the Jew entering NAZI Germany? That doesn't seem like a better life to me. But I digress.
But, either way, these stories have gotten a lot of coverage. Even though, post-DACA, we have had some of the laxest immigration laws since the Reagan administration. Plus the net 0 illegal immigration from the country where the wall is supposed to be built for a decade, meaning this is a non-story. Let's not forget the media being silent about both the fact that Clinton created tough on illegal immigration policies and George W. Bush trying to build a fence (with support from both Obama and Hillary Clinton). Now George and Bill seem to have got the wives together to explain how wrong they are. You think they could have said something when they were actually in power.          
Speaking of which, Laura Bush seems to have taken the time to come out of retirement after her husband's pocket stuffing of a presidency, to talk about how bad it is that criminals get punished. It should be noted that The Washington Post is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. AKA one of the millionaires the Bush's love fighting for. Ivory tower or something more? 

In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care.

What kind of monster would create such a thing? Well, her husband. 
This is what I have dubbed an example of Krang's law, named after the Vice writer who goes under the name Krang T. Nelson (you can also call it pulling a Holder). Named after the time former Attorney General Eric Holder came out in favor of making cannabis legal, Krang (in a tweet I couldn't find directly) responded with:

it’s extremely cool how every single one of these dorkass politicians pull a total 180 on pot the very instant they no longer have the power to ruin people’s lives over it

Here's another example of this from Laura:

These images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for . . . [the] Japanese . . . during World War II

Really, because they kind of remind me of the torture (I mean enhanced interrogation that just happens to be oddly similar to torture) at Guantanamo Bay. 
Look, I could go on. However, there seems to be one big lie that's being spread about illegal immigrates. A lie that is currently being spread by both the left and the right, that ruins the entire conversation. 
That lie is typically in the form of the question, "what if they haven't done anything wrong?". Typically, these people will also use the phrase "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants". Even Secular Talk, someone who I have a massive amount of respect for, seems to have engaged in this game once or twice:

Before Bush we existed without this US version of the gestapo

IT'S BAD BECAUSE IT'S NEW. Hey Kyle, didn't we exist without the Iran Deal until 2014? You know, the same deal you were against Donald Trump pulling out of. 

Searching for undocumented immigrates. Who are criminals or not by the way.

Yeah, we'll come back to this. Heck, even right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder seem to have fallen for this game to some extent:

We are talking about deporting illegal immigrants, who are only caught exclusively because they were caught committing crimes.

Did you guys notice something? Maybe the fact that catching any "illegal immigrant" is catching a criminal. Don't believe me. Well, tell me, what's the first word in the term "illegal immigrant"? Illegal. What does illegal mean? It means:

not according to or authorized by law

All ICE has ever done is act like a police force. If you're against that, just admit you're an anarchist. 
Or you can keep focusing on the fact that Ann Coulter said something insane, as if she hasn't been doing that non-stop since the 90's (citation NOT needed), so you can stay in your burning building reminding yourself that "this is fine".
Update: I honestly can't stop laughing right now

  

  

Reminder: Peace Is A Good Thing

Before we begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'm not a fan of Trump, at all. Heck, any article I've written involving him on this site can tell you that. Yet, I feel like I'm forced to defend him in this case from the people who claim to be on the left, but have turned into the left's Dick Cheney in order to oppose him.
Mind you, I'm not saying the President is a saint here. After all, he's the one who made John Bolton the national security adviser. This is the same John Bolton who has made it clear he STILL supports the Iraq War. He also tried to sabotage the peace talk with North Korea, so again, it's not like the White House is perfect. Donald can't get my full support on foreign policy until he fires Bolton, stops bombing at least some of the 8 countries, at least somewhat downsizes the military industrial complex, and restores the Iran Deal. And that's ignoring the well over 100 ways I oppose in on other issues.
Maybe Kim Kardashian can get him to do this. (2018 politics are weird) 
For that matter, I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of many on the right supporting this. When Obama talked about meeting with the exact same country during his campaign, Fox News was angry. Now Fox got former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to explain why doing this is great.   
However, as the old phrase goes, just because everyone else is bad, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be. And honestly, I'm having trouble telling the difference between a lot of the "left-wing" political commentators who are against this, and old speeches from Donald Rumsfeld during the War in Iraq. Just look at this comic, published in a left-wing news outlet, as an example: 

Mr.President, why aren't you fighting the axis of evil?-What this comic is saying

Seriously, this looks like something National Review would have ran back in '04. Just replace Trump with John Kerry and Un with Saddam. 
But it only gets worse. Top cable "news" host Rachel Maddow decided to steal Glenn Beck's old bit of being completely insane and tried to find alternative reasons as to why Trump is doing this. I'll sum up for segment in a few short sentences for you:

Donald Trump is trying to make peace with North Korea. North Korea has a boarder with Russia. Therefore, the president is working for Russia when he did this.

 Yeah, Maddow talks about Russia quite a bit. Also, her theory doesn't make any sense, at all. By that logic, Trump already made peace with North Korea because we're still allies with South Korea. 
Also, did Rachel ignore the fact that the two countries that broader ours, Canada and Mexico, are ones Donald has been a huge critic of. 
Also, that segment went on for about three minutes and I was able to sum it up in three sentences. But here are a few more things that are brought up, but aren't the focus:
-Rachel puts odd focus on how the only way you can get from North Korea to Russia is a train. I don't know why this bothers me so much. Although, it's probably for the same reason Maddow focused on it for so long.
-Maddow is angry Trump is talking to a dictator. That is literally a right-wing talking point from when Obama met with Iran. 
-At one point she says the summit was in North Korea. It was actually in Singapore.
-She goes on and on about how we're "normalizing dictators" by meeting with North Korea. When I thought we did that when we started backing 73% of the world's dictators. Hey Rachel, how many segments have you made on that? After all, you seem to be worried about us supporting these two, imagine how angry you should be hearing we support many more. 
-Maddow is also FURIOUS that we didn't make any demands for North Korea to follow. You know, besides not starting a war.  
But even then, let's say Maddow is right and this is all a plot by Russia to do, something. I don't know what, but something. How does that make what Trump is doing bad? If Putin really wants peace between not only the 60 year long enemies of North Korea and the United States, but also the even longer discontent between North and South Korea that has gone on since the Cold War, than Putin sounds like an awesome guy. 
But sad MSNBC hosts aren't the only ones who are angry at peace. Senate Democrats have wrote a letter making it clear that they will not support an Iran style deal unless they have these following 5 points:

1.The deal must include the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea

Okay, that's perfectly fair. 

2.The U.S. must ensure a "complete and verifiable denuclearize of North Korea" removing all items related to nuclear-weapons productions to prevent the country from reversing course.

Again, I guess that's fine. After all, you can't have a deal unless both sides are following it.

3.North Korea must end its ballistic-missile programs as well.

Wait, why? All the weapons listed before are considered WMD's and banned under the Geneva Convention (with the US never singed onto, but still). But Ballistic missiles seem to be a little far.
Doing that would just make them sitting ducks in case South Korea ever wants to topple them. They understand MAP, that's how they survived for so long. 

4.North Korea must comply with "anywhere, anything" inspections to ensure it is not cheating on the deal, and sanctions must be immediately restored if it does cheat.

Again, I guess that's fine.

5.The deal must be permanent.  

 So, wait a minute. What if they're actually being attacked by someone? Then can they get there missiles back or are they just forced to fight with less?
This is what I mean, the "left" wants to sabotage peace in order to harm Donald Trump, and it's honestly disgusting to me. I hear, and have even used, the phrase "wrong side of history" before. Tell me, how often are you on that side when you support war? 

  

  

     

Tariffs and Trade Wars

At this point, I think saying that our president is insane may be the nicest way of putting it. The latest way of proving this seems to be by giving a voice to people who watched Roger And Me 30 years and have never shut up about it, or the man who directed Roger And Me 30 years ago and never shut up about it, by attempting to implement protectionists in the United States. So I figured we should actually look at some of his cases and talk about why he's obviously wrong.
One of the most common cases Donnie and his supporters have made is that Canada, the country Washington D.C. is currently targeting the hardest, has incredibly high tariffs on some products. What Donald seems to ignore is that many economists consider Canada's policy to be a bad thing. For instance, when IGM asked economists from many different schools of economics if "Adding new or higher import duties on products . . . to encourage producers to make them in the US - would be a good idea" 0% of them said yes. And before anyone mentions it, this includes David Autor, who wrote The China Shock.
Caroline Hoxby, an economist from Stanford, commented that "tariffs would make the average American worse off". This is a  statement that is so obvious that it shouldn't take a Stanford economist to explain that. Why do I say that? Well just look at the definition of tariffs. 
Tariffs, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary are "a schedule of duties imposed . . . on imported or . . . exported goods". Basically, a tax that increases the cost of goods from a certain country. Now here's the question no tariff supporter is willing to answer, who pays that tax? The answer is, obviously the consumer. And while the average virtuous middle-class liberal may go on about how "I wouldn't mind paying more", he never thinks that some people can't pay more. Those are the people who are hurt the most. 
So the President is right when he says Canada has a high tariff rate. But as the old saying goes, if your friend (or in this case, someone you're trying to make an enemy) jumped off a bridge, would you? 
So it's been established that protectionism hurts people, that's obvious. However, does free trade help people? The answer is also as obvious, but in this case, it's a yes.
While it's very easy to imagine that free trade only helps the big companies that ship jobs over to China, that's far from the case. What the people who support protectionism never tell you is that said "outsourcing" lowers the price of products and, as such, gives us greater purchasing power. 
YouTuber Shane Killian (who I don't agree with on most issues, but has made informative and entertaining content on free trade) calculated that in 1993, one year before the implementation of NAFTA, it would have cost someone over $17,000 to have all of the features present in your average iPhone. And that's ignoring the features that he couldn't calculate because they didn't even exist in any form back in the 1990's. Don't believe me, how many times did you video call someone over the course of that entire decade? Post NAFTA, the iPhone X is so easy to get people can line up around the block, regardless of income, to buy the newest model. This is only because they use so much oversea labor. 
Now, some may respond that this will cost the country a large number of jobs. This is true, but putting the economy in a vacuum like this is never a good idea. The fact is, the elimination of these jobs from the United States economy has been nothing but a positive for the average worker for all the reasons listed above. The fact is, the economy will adjust. In fact, it already has adjusted. At least, that's what the Trumpers keep telling me. After all, more jobs left this country in Trump's first year than Obama's last. So the prices of products only go up but that doesn't matter because it will create jobs the economy doesn't need.
So now there's only one thing that the president and his supporters have left to rely on, the old idea of the trade deficit. This is one his supporters, including many this blog has already covered, have left to rely on. For this, all you really need to do is understand what the "trade deficit" is to understand why this doesn't make any sense.       
A trade deficit, as defined by Investopedia, is "an economic measure of international trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports". Basically, a trade deficit is when a country buys more from another country than it gives out. However, what the anti-free trade crowd never tell you is that this number is 100% meaningless.
Let me show you what I mean. Did you know you have a trade deficit with any store you go to? You give them money, but they never give you any money. Do you care? Of course not, they gave you what you bought. 
What I'm getting at is, the trade deficit is also a pretty silly argument. 
All of this makes one thing perfectly clear, the United States needs free trade to survive and continue to be prosperous.  

Throwback: Dinesh D'Souza's Awful Argument Against Gay Marriage

A while back I wrote a review of the Dinesh D'Souza film Hillary's America. However, when I wrote that article I made it clear that wasn't my first choice:

I was going to do a throwback on some chapters from his book Letters To a Young Conservative, but I was unable to get a full copy in time.-Me, about a week ago 

Well, thanks to the great folks at archive.org, I now have access to his book for the next two weeks. Remember, it's not piracy if it's from a .org. 
The chapter I picked to do an article on is chapter 23, Against Gay Marriage. It is Pride Month after all. But before I do that, let's look at some of the other chapters present in the book:
-How Reagan Outsmarted the Liberals
-Why Professors Are So Left-Wing
-How to Harpoon a Liberal
-Speaking As a Former Fetus . . . 
-Why Liberals Hate America 
It should be noted that I may have to go back to this book because there's honestly a lot to cover. But let's look at why the gays annoy D'Souza so much:

"Recently, I saw a group of gay men marching in a pro-choice rally . . .I asked myself, what possible interest could homosexuals have in this issue?"

I don't know Dinesh. Why do you, a straight man (and for as obvious as that joke would be Dinesh doesn't talk about gays enough for me to think he's in the closet) have an opinion on gay marriage? It's like people can have opinions on issues that don't personally affect them. 

"Then I realized that gay activists hope to legitimize their lifestyle by promoting a view of sexuality that is completely severed from reproduction."  

 You can also blame that on condoms, the morning after pill, spermicide, implants, medical surgery, and I could go on. 

"As the political activism of gays today suggests, homosexuality has become an ideology."

The pro-gay marriage conspiracy to, allow people to do whatever it is they want. Not only that, but Dinesh has figured out the 3 step plan for the gay agenda.

"The first step is tolerance. Here the argument is, 'You make think we are strange and disgusting, but put up with us'. And many Americans go along with this."

Okay, that seems like I perfectly valid argument. I mean they aren't hurting you, so who honestly cares? 

"Then the gay activists move to stage two. This step may be called Neutrality, and it involves a stronger claim: 'You should make no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality'"

Again, sounds like a perfectly valid claim. 

"If this step is conceded, the gays are ready to advance to stage three. This step may be termed Subsidy 'We have been discriminated against for centuries, so now we want preferential treatment'"

3 years after gay marriage has been legalized nationwide and this has still not happened. Just saying.

"It does not appear that very many gays want to marry"

Then why did any of them fight for it? 

"Marriage could put a serious crimp in the promiscuous lifestyle of many male homosexuals."

Because as we all know straight people are never promiscuous. Ignore the fact that the average person has 7.2 sexual partners in their lifetime. Louisiana, which has supported every Republican since 2000, has the highest amount of average sexual partners per person at over 15! So maybe it's conservatives who don't want to get married because of there promiscuous lifestyle. Or promiscuity has very little to do with rather or not you'll get married later in life, just saying. 

"The real goal of the gay movement is to break down moral resistance to the homosexual lifestyle."

He's on to them. 

"Not long ago homosexuality was considered an illness."

Tfw when you're so conservative you want to go back to a time where gays were considered mentally ill. 

"Now moral criticism of homosexuality is described by gay partisans as a kind of psychological disorder." 

 According to who?

"The person who has moral qualms about homosexual behavior is said to be 'homophobic'."

Homophobia is not a mental disorder, that would mean there's an excuse. It's just normal bigotry. 
Dinesh then goes after journalist Andrew Sullivan for being pro-gay marriage.

"Sullivan's argument can be condensed to the slogan 'Marriage civilizes men'"

 How about age civilizing people? Or lack of energy civilizing people? Or responsibility civilizing people? Or needing to work for someone and not bash them over the head so you can be paid civilizing people?

"Marriage doesn't civilize men, women do"

How?

"Ronald Reagan made this point many years ago"

Of course he did. Why wouldn't he? 

"If not for women . . . men would still be running around in animal skin and wielding clubs. . . male nature needs to be tamed, and that taming is done by women." 

Am I the only one who finds that kind of sexist? I mean I know a lot of gay men, and none of them are ever "running around in animal skins" or "wielding clubs", let alone both. For that matter why only gay men? Why aren't asexual men? What about bisexual men? Are they just "running around in animal skin" or "wielding clubs" or both or neither? 
I'm sure most of you know of the Kinsey scale. If not, it's the scale of human sexuality related to orientation. 0 typically meaning 100% heterosexual, 6 meaning 100% homosexual, 3 meaning 100% bisexual. What exact number on the Kinsey scale equals "running around in animal skin and wielding clubs". 
But to make sure, I asked a real-life gay person who will go anonymous: 

Me:Hey [his actual name], can I ask you a question?

Gay Guy: Sure

Me: Do you ever run around in animal skin or wield clubs?

Gay Guy: No

 But he wasn't letting me off his case that easily.

Me: Are you sure?

Gay Guy: Yeah I'm pretty sure 

Now, I also had to make sure he wasn't just an exception.

Me:Do you know any gay men who do?

Gay Guy: Uhm, no. I don't think so.

But maybe Dinesh can come up with some real examples of this happening:

"Untamed male nature can be witnessed in . . . gay men who have had hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners." 

Citation needed. 

"Marriage is defined as the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other."

Well, was but this book in 2002. I love the right-wing notation that marriage isn't something we humans just made up one day. Heck, we changed the definition when we made it straight people only. 
That's really all the arguments he makes, so as you can see, Dinesh is kind of an idiot.  

  

     

  

      

  

  

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.   

  

  

  

   

Will Italy Make The Right Give Up On Capitalism?

In case you haven't heard, Italy is going to have a far right "populist" (in quotes because Republicans are almost never populist) government soon, at least that's what you'll hear if you listen to conservatives. Most notably, Infowars editor and chief Paul Joseph Watson. 
In his recent video, The Truth About Italy Paul spends more time than expected for a conservative praising welfare and going against capitalism. In fact, here's a list of some more liberal views Paul seems to have adapted. 
-Getting angry at EU commission president Juncker for saying "Italians need to work harder and stop blaming the EU for there problems" 
-Praising democracy (remember these are the same people who complained about "tyranny of the majority" when Trump was "elected") 
-Supporting welfare for mothers and child care provided by the government (I wonder how much longer until he supports Universal Healthcare)
-Most notability, the man who once made a video called Why Capitalism is Great seems to have given up on capitalism in exchange for, nationalist socialism I think. 
(Note: I'm not calling Paul a national socialist as in NAZI with that last statement. I'm simply saying he seems to have a nationalist social view while having an economic view similar to socialism. For as much as I disagree with Paul, calling him a NAZI would obviously be inaccurate.)
Of course, Paul also praises the new governments view that abortion and gay marriage are plots to depopulate the world or something. Did Paul become a secret liberal and is currently trying to re-redpill his audience while throwing in some harder right views in the hope they don't notice? But what I find most interesting, as already mentioned, is Paul giving up on capitalism. I mean it's not like he's the king of principles.

Twitter has suspended known Alt-Right extremist Steven Crowder. Wait, what? Crowder? Yes, Crowder. . . Censorship of conservatives MUST be addressed by lawmaker. #FreeCrowder

No one should be forced to provide a service. Just as a gay-owned print shop shouldn't be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church. 

His rationalwiki article (yes, I'm that kind of liberal) even has a whole section about his flip-flops. But what are his newfound issues with capitalism? I'm going to paraphrase, I linked the video a little earlier in the post if you're really curious:

Global capitalism has ruined culture and identity by allowing other cultures to exist together. 

 Of course, the idea that capitalism ruins culture is straight out of the views of Karl Marx himself. The idea that capitalism erodes culture is something that communists have been pushing for a long time. Paul is also happy that the new Italian government will make Italy full of Italian culture. It seems like someone who is angry about Miss America becoming communist (I'm not joking) seems to also not know about Stalin's Russification plan.
So have social conservatives given up on capitalism in order to keep the good old fashion views? Well honestly at this point I'm not even sure they had it. 
I remember back when wife with a purpose (you know, that really silly Paleoconserative) had a twitter account she posted an image that was farms back to back with cities and simply asked: "what went wrong?". Of course, the answer is obviously a free market that allowed such cities to happen. I also recall her conspiracy mongering about child tax credits leading to the great replacement (it's a very long story) but don't quote me on that. 
The fact is the new right has long given up on the free market in replace for moralism. And it's my hope that maybe the sane can slap some sense into them like we used to. 

    

Throwback: David Koch Runs For President

Note: This is more or less an updated text version of a video I made in January 2018. You can watch it here if you so choose. This post have been overall improved since the original version and as such is the definitive version.  
You ever heard of a libertarian. I don't blame you if you haven't, after all they typically aren't considered a big threat in our political sphere. However, despite what libertarians would have you believe, there is one group of people that love them, big business. David Koch ran as vice-president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, it's as bad as you think. Those who watch The Thom Hartmann Program may know about this (watch it here), but Bernie also posted it on his website (read it here).
So what does it say? Well let's find out together.

We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission

So right of the bat we see where the Koch brothers lie of issues. They're spending $400 million and the midterms by the way. So of course this is going to be on the list. 

We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs

I guess 45,000 people every year isn't enough for the Koch brothers. To be fair I don't think they don't want people to die, I just think they really don't care. Also I'm going to be skipping some of these to keep from repeating myself.

 We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary

Senior poverty only went down because of Social Security, yet they seem to ignore that. But even then, Social Security would work if they stopped spending the money (notice how no other country has to deal with it going bankrupt). 

We support the eventual repeal of all taxation 

Tfw you try to make Reagan look moderate on taxes. Of course this would lead to a boom-bust cycle, of course these people don't care. 
Also remember people, low taxes are good for everyone and not just the rich. Trust David Koch to tell you that. 

We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.

Because private schools never lead to indoctrination.

We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency

Would you like some Koch brand smoke with that air? Also here's there opensecrets.org page if you're curious. Notice how many of them deny climate change.  

We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system

Anyone who knows how the toll road system worked during the industrial revolution knows how this will end up. Mainly, a large amount of toll roads. Hope you have quarters with you. 

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration

Go to the supplement industry for your medicine if you really think that's a good idea. 
I think you get the idea at this point. Just be happy these nuts have basically no influence when it comes to actual policy.