Does The Political Compass Test Mean Anything?

When someone starts getting into politics one of the most important questions, in fact, one of the only questions is where do they stand on the important issues. So many of them, instead of actually forming opinions, choose to go to the political compass test in order to get a basic idea. This test has also been one many YouTubers take in order to have their audience understand who they are. But one question has still not been answered, is it worth anything? 
So, in order to properly answer this question, we need to look at some more questions. Specifically, the questions on the official political compass test (link here) in order to find out if any of them are, well, good questions. In order to test this, I took a handful of questions from this quiz and decided to see if they have any major issues. So let's figure this out, together.

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

This is the first question of the test and it shows one of the biggest problems with the test. It refuses to take into account that people regularly lie. Or, to use less loaded terms, most people don't like to think of themselves as the bad guys. No one is more hated than "the establishment", whatever that means.
Let me give you a real-world example. Many people believe that we should deregulate because it will cause jobs to come back here. Is that in favor of the corporations? They wouldn't. Afterall they're creating jobs.
Also, in the United States corporations are people. 

I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.

No one thinks like this, even the people who we think are like this, aren't like this. Reagan for instance, human super-patriot, only got anywhere by criticizing Carter. George W. Bush did the same thing with Bill Clinton. They didn't always support their country. 

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other racists

This question is directly asking you rather or not you're a racist. Even David Duke, the former KKK leader, doesn't think he's racist.

 The enemy of my enemy is my friend

This is a meaningless platitude. The test also gives you no context so this could mean anything. 
On a side note: When this country used this platitude we armed Osama Bin Laden.

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. 

Most people aren't economists. Plus most economic philosophies don't care for either inflation or unemployment. 

Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold

This question is directly asking you "are you a communist". Again, no one says they're something that most people believe being against is a "no-duh". Especially a philosophy most people believe killed 100 million people. 

Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care

I think this question is trying to ask "do you believe in universal healthcare", but there's one huge problem, that's not what this is asking. The vast majority of people who believe in UHC are fine with private healthcare being an option. 

Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal. 

Again this question is trying to ask "are you pro-life" but it doesn't really ask that. It's better than the healthcare question to be fair, but not much. 
A lot of people, including many pro-lifers, would also include rape and incest in times abortion is fine. That would make them pro-choice according to this question. Even though most of society would say otherwise.

All authority should be questioned

This question is asking you "are you an authoritarian". And even then even most authoritarians would answer yes. They had to rise to power somehow after all. 

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind

This question is asking you rather or not you support "separate but equal". Which most people believe is the same as asking rather or not you're a racist. 

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children

This question has nothing to do with politics.

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things

Second verse, same as the first.
In conclusion: These questions are meaningless and using them to describe your ideology is idiotic. 

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.  

  

     

  

      

  

  

Top 5 Republican FAILS Throughout History!

I'm sure many of you have seen the recent video in which Steven Crowder lists times liberals have been wrong throughout history. So that gave me an idea, why not go through his video and not only debunk the list he came up with, but also make my own list to compete with his. 
So here we are with the Top 5 Republican FAILS Throughout History (with 5 Crowder fails)! 
Crowder "Myth" #1-Peak Oil
I mean where would people get an idea that a non-renewable resource is something that we can run out of. The fact is that at some point oil production rates are going to have to decline because there is only so much oil in existence. Unless you are really going to argue that we have unlimited oil, in which case I would like to laugh at you. 
Also, I think it should be pointed out that peakoil.com, you know the website about peak oil, says we will reach it around 2020. Just figured that needed to be mentioned. This is the first graph on the article from a website called Peakoil.com. 
Myth #1-Paris Climate Agreement  
You remember this, claims that by the way, Crowder himself has made. A deal that is non-binding anyway so even if it would hurt the economy, you don't have to pull out of the deal in order to not have those disadvantages. 
But that's even giving them more credit then they deserve. The truth is the Paris Climate Agreement would help the economy But that's all bad because of globalism and Agenda 21.
But even if all of that weren't true, even if it didn't help the economy and was binding it would still be worth it to help stop the effects of Climate Change.  
Crowder "Myth" #2-AIDS
Yeah, of course, he mentioned this one. Even though his views on AIDS have been debunked he's still spewing the same thing. 
The only thing I feel like I need to point out is Crowder is still making the argument that getting AIDS is your fault and we should fund diseases that people can't control if they get like cancer and diabetes. But, by his own logic wouldn't it be there fault? I mean according to him the only way to get AIDS is to have gay sex with random people or shove dirty needles in you. But can you really get throat cancer without chain smoking 20 packs of cigarettes in a day? Of course, you can but he doesn't know that. 
Myth #2-GRID
Yeah, remember this one. You know Gay-related immune deficiency or what we used to call AIDS, you know Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. You see, we used to think that the only way you could get it is if you were gay, turns out that's not true. 
To be fair, it is believed that most straight people only started getting it because of bisexuals (their boyfriends had boyfriends) but if only gays could, how would that matter?
Crowder "Myth" #3-Reagan's Star Wars Program
Crowder just sort of complains that people didn't like the fact that Reagan used this program to get welfare (during record high military spending and a record high deficit). Also, he goes into this weird rant about how the British people turned there back on Winston Churchill after the war. Ignoring that time he compared Labour to Nazi's just before the election and that he wanted to invade Russia. 
Myth #3-Reagan's tax cuts
As I mentioned in the last article, saying Reagan cut taxes is a very misleading statement. Once payroll taxes are taken into account the bottom 20% had their taxes increased by 15%. The 2nd poorest 20% (21%-40%) also had their taxes increased by 0.6%.   
Now, none of that would be a problem if the economy did well under Reagan, the problem is it didn't. The economy reached its worse point since the Great Depression under President Reagan, doesn't sound like a good one to me. 
Crowder "Myth" #4-Model Cities Program (More Or Less Just An Attack On The War On Poverty) 
Let's get one thing out of the way, the war on poverty HAS worked greatly. Despite two economic collapses, poverty has both stayed the same and remained LOWER than it was before the war on poverty started. 
As for his claims about Chicago ignores that it was free trade deals that caused Chicago's economy to be ruined. I'm not even making a statement about free trade as a whole (in fact I'm usually for it) I'm just stating facts.   
Myth #4-New Deal
Let's just keep this to Social Security for the sake of ease. Republicans have been talking about how it doesn't work and how it's unsustainable when none of that is true. 
Bill Clinton got social security up until the 2070's, yet it will go bankrupt in the 2030's. That's because they spent the money so it will go bankrupt, so they could try to privatize it. 
Crowder "Myth" #5-Venezuela
Okay, he has us there. 
Myth #5-Iraq  
Let's go down the list
-Sadam did not have any involvement in 9/11
-Iraq did not have WMD's
-The people in Iraq hated us after we invaded them
And that's just off the top of my head 
I could spend a whole post going into all the myths Republicans spread during the Iraq war, but this post is already getting long and I don't have the time. 

If You're Going To Take A Challenge, Make Sure It Doesn't Involve Ann Coulter

So I figured it's time to talk about someone who I've wanted to address for a very long time. 
Recently on twitter, I decided to have a little fun and take a shot at Ann Coulter fans. Apparently, that is an act of wrong think as within hours my twitter notification was filled with people who hate thin-skinned like me and just scream nonsense whenever someone they love is criticized like a normal person does.  
I was then informed that I just don't understand the genius of Ann. You see, it takes a true intellectual to repeat Republican talking points while sounding a little mean. Then I chose to have a little more fun and asked an Ann Coulter fan which of her work he would recommend to someone like me. I asked which one, to which he told me this:

Any of them. Amazed that one could be so bold as to wager a default dismissal of her prodigious talent. Read and learn. In fact, perhaps a beatitude is in order...Blessed are the meek for they shall....

So here's the deal. I'm going to go through the first chapter of one of her books, in this case, her 2013 work Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican, and we're going to see her "prodigious talent" together. Luckily for me, all of that is available in the Amazon preview so I don't have to give her any money to read it. 
The first thing I would like to point out is that Ann really needs to get her talking points figured out. For instance, look at this line from page 2 of her book:

[The left] act like [Reagan] was a good partener with liberals in winning the Cold War

Okay, no one does, but okay. What makes this odd is that on page 3, the very next page, she says this:

[L]iberals claim that Ronald Reagan didn't win the Cold War, it just ended.

So liberals act like Reagan was with them during the Cold War, which they also claim he didn't win. Again, this is literally one page apart. 
She then goes on to complain about how liberals use the courts to bully conservatives. You know, for a lawyer she does have an awful understanding of how the law works. 
The whole point of the Supreme Court is to not have the constitution change due to the majority rule. This is also why they are appointed and not elected. 
Also, I have no idea where she got the idea that the only unpopular opinions of the courts are liberal. The majority of Americans are against money in politics and yet since the 1970's more and more cases have allowed more and more money in politics. Do I really need to remind Ann how unpopular Bush V. Gore was? 
Now let's see her ignorance of history:

Reagan's tax cuts gave a huge boost to the US economy-as did tax cuts under . . . Calivin Coolidge. 

Yes Ann, let's go back to the economic policies of the 1920's. What could go wrong? As for the claim about Reagan's tax cuts, I have no idea what she's talking about. Once you take payroll taxes into account the bottom 20% had a tax increase of 15% under Reagan. On a side note, the top 1% did get a tax cut of 15%, funny how that works.
Okay, what else, what else? Oh here's her making a bad prediction:

[W]hy are any . . . bussinessmen showing up in [the Republican] presidental primiaries? They're never going to get the nomiattion

If only. Look it may seem like I'm cutting a lot out, and that's because I am. This is because of what bothers me most about Ann Coulter, she's boring as tar. Take out all the insults and times she fakes being edgy and all you get is Republican party talking points. 
I mean I guess every now and then you'll get something crazy (soccer is what's wrong with America, D-Day is a communist plot, her weird hatred of the family members of 9/11 victims) but that's few and far between.
What I'm getting at is, I'm not her biggest fan if you catch my drift. 
I would like to end with this. The original plan for this article was that I would look through many of the columns Ann put in this book and talk and about the ones that seem interesting. That fell apart when I realized, none of them were interesting. But I'll just give you some of the titles to these pieces and let you decide if they're worth your time:
-On This Aborted Fetus, the Democrats Plant Their Flag
-Only His Hairdresser Knows For Sure
-Obama Birth Certificate Spotted in Bogus Moon Landing Footage
-Negroes with Guns
-Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!
-Guantanamo Loses Five-Star Rating
-America Needs El Tipping Pointo
-Watching MSNBC Is Torture (To be fair, she isn't wrong in this case)  
-Media: Halliburton Paid Dick Cheney to Commit Rape in Iraq
Oh yeah I forgot to mention, she isn't funny either. 
Now if any of you need me I'm going to be someplace else, hopefully someplace where I'm not thinking about Ann Coulter.