Viewpoint

I’ve followed politics since I was a teen. What I’ve learned over all these years is that I don’t really like either political party. My personal political beliefs are somewhere between conservative and libertarian. Right now, I believe the country needs a big correction, the leftist Marxist “progressives” are running amok. The whole country is swinging right due to the current disaster in Washington since the disaster is far worse than anyone projected. Here is a perfect opportunity for the right to swoop in and prove good governance and that they can leave us citizens alone, but instead they are going after religious objectives. I’m just left thinking… What!?!

I’m not particularly religious myself. I follow several pundits, writers and commentators from both sides who are both religious and areligious. For the longest time, the ones who are religious have used logic to talk through their positions. I think they do that to appeal to a broader audience. However, in just the past few weeks many, who I considered well-reasoned, went ballistic over abortion and the supreme court nominees rulings in child porn cases. These takes rubbed me the wrong way. I don’t think they understand how these views effect people who are more independent and not as religious.

The crazy thing to me is they have argued with reason through all the thorny issues from the past decade. They proclaimed that they pretty much just wanted smaller federal government, lower government spending, lower taxes, equal and proportional application of the law. Generally, for the government to stay out of our lives.

But it’s strange, reason seems to have flown out the window, now abortion and child porn need to be death sentences. I realized more clearly that the far left and the far right aren’t so different in that they both want to control you, just in different ways. It’s eye opening and disappointing.

I think that the right’s extremism that is currently being pushed is likely to wipe out gains made that could bring the country back to sanity. This upcoming mid-term election should be a landslide for the right, the next presidential election should be a landslide for the right. However, what they are doing will make some rethink their vote, but not just that, if there is any cheating in the next election, it will be more difficult to prove because the left can just point to these extremist policies and say, well, the right obviously turned off a lot of people.

As I said, if the conservatives had laid back and practiced good governance, mid-terms should be a landslide. But now it’s hard to say. If there is cheating, I expect them to split the house and senate. Probably giving the house to republicans by a small amount since there are more turncoat republicans who can be flipped. Then they’ll take the senate for themselves by a slim margin. With all this abortion talk they can just say, this is obviously a referendum on abortion.

My wish would be to hold off and let any cheating be exposed, but it doesn’t look like that’s what we’re going to get.

I don’t want to live under Marxist extremism, but I also don’t want to live under any religious extremism. So these actions give credence to democrats holding onto power.

Let’s look at these policies and why I think the anti-abortion laws and the craziness over child-porn is off-putting and will lead to a clear anti-right narrative.

Two states have so-far passed anti-abortion laws. It’s like they don’t understand that the swinging of the pendulum gets worse when they swing the pendulum from readily available abortion to completely restricted.

I don’t think abortion should ever be advocated and with my own children, that is the message I want them to understand. I’ve written about this before. I think there are major physical and psychological repercussions to a girl having an abortion. These repercussions shouldn’t be downplayed and the political right would do well to speak that truth, not just force their will. I think it needs to be explained why you don’t want to go through an abortion and not try to force an ideology because one thinks it’s evil.

I hear the arguments from many on the right that they believe human life begins at conception and therefore abortion should be banned outright. They use the argument that if we found a zygote on mars, we would say we found life, or another argument is that at fertilization, the zygote is now a unique human life-form and is therefore entitled to all protections. But hold on, while both are true, if we found bacteria on Mars, that would also be considered life and be heralded as a huge discovery even though it’s actively killed on earth. But, then again, It’s also true that a zygote contains all the necessary instructions to build a clearly unique and distinct human. And I think the question of consciousness is the most important consideration.

This argument can go back and forth for days. I’d like to expand on both sides just a little bit though.

When does an embryo/fetus gain consciousness? It’s a tricky question and I think we should try to err on the side of caution. But, if we consider that a fertilized egg is a unique human and worthy of all protections, there are some sticky questions that those on the right need to answer clearly. For instance, many women use copper IUD’s, I’ve read that the way it works isn’t entirely understood, but there is evidence that the device works by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. This is disputed. But if you were to say that even a fertilized egg has all the same rights, then are you saying all those women who used copper IUD’s are unknowingly committing child murder?

Here’s another sticky question. What about couples and facilities that provide in-vitro services? These facilities harvest many eggs and then fertilize them, pick the most “viable” embryos and implant them hoping one will stick. If fertilization is considered start of life, then are these facilities committing mass murder for discarding all the other embryos?

And to take it to the extreme, what about miscarriages? Can you guarantee some religious zealot won’t open an investigation into a miscarriage forcing the woman to prove that she didn’t cause the miscarriage? What if some activity does cause a miscarriage? It seems ridiculous to prosecute a woman for a miscarriage, but things get crazy in any extremist run regime.

If we go back to consciousness, it’s pretty much impossible to prove, but I think a conservative estimate would be that it happens at least after the first heartbeat. I think heartbeat bills to many would be more acceptable vs outright bans. Then insure rape or incest victims have the option available for longer periods depending on whether they have been held against their will. No woman should be compelled to bear the child of someone who violated them. For everyone else, information campaigns should be organized to educate the masses as to why abortions are harmful. I’ll admit that the anti-smoking / anti-drug campaigns have been more effective than I thought and hopefully anti-abortion campaigns could be effective as well.

I completely agree with many on the right that abortion should not be an issue decided by the courts. If some want it to be federally mandated, it needs to be made federal law through amendment to the constitution, otherwise the states should have jurisdiction. But, just because states can ban it, doesn’t mean it’s smart politically to swing the pendulum and outright ban it. It’s just dumb.

So let’s talk about the supreme court justice nominee being lenient on pedophiles. Their were some seriously worrying decisions and statements that she made about many topics, but the reaction by the right to the child-porn stuff, in my opinion, was over the top hysteria. It was punctuated by a case where a guy was caught with 600 images and she asked, well, do you think he really deserved 50-60 years for that? to which Lindsay “idiot” Graham vehemently responded “yes!”

This is where zealotry and proportional application of the law needs to be discussed.

So I’ve heard some republicans say that this isn’t about going after mom’s posting pictures of kids in bathtubs or going after teens. They say that’s a red herring. But I’ve seen the stories of people arrested for sharing pictures of kids in a bathtub. I’ve also heard my son talked about several kids at his school that were sexting and threatened with being labeled a sex offender for sharing pictures of themselves. That’s what happens when zealots get in charge. That’s what should worry all of us.

Here’s some questions for consideration.

We went to the beach many times growing up, and it’s surprising to me how many times I saw a family arrive at the beach and completely disrobe. Every one of them, from small kids to parents. I remember a teen girl flirting with me while we were out on a sand bar and she wasn’t wearing a top. Should it be illegal for the girl to be topless? Should it be illegal for the family to get fully nude? It made me uncomfortable then, but it now makes be wonder how illegal were their actions? Is it 60 years in prison bad? It should be noted, those beaches were not nudist beaches so it was illegal, but should it be illegal to look? What if you take a picture and a nude child runs across while taking the picture?

How about the bathtub question. Should it be illegal to take a picture of naked kids in the bathtub? What age is appropriate? Genitals or no? Is sharing the pics among ladies ok? Or is it ok to share on the internet? Is it Ok for the dad to share with his friends?

Should a girl or boy be arrested or threatened with being put on the sex registry for sexting naked pictures of their own bodies and charged with child porn distribution?

Next, is a picture of a child in underwear illegal? Should it be? What about bikinis or speedos?

Just to be flippant, if a child runs around naked in the house, should it be illegal to even look at your own child naked? What about doctors? Should doctors be allowed to examine naked children? What if the doctor acts professional during the exam but later thinks about it when alone?

I think the question is – is the nudity the issue? Or is it what someone does WITH the nudity that’s the issue? Do you want to punish this crime severely because of strict religious morality or because you want to protect children? And how does this crime compare to other non-illegal activities?

This is where equal and proportional application comes into play. For instance, and these are all real, let’s say you shower with your kids until they are adolescents, like the resident in the white house. Should that be illegal? and how does that harm the child in comparison to pictures? How about letting two kids who are 8 years old lock themselves in a bedroom? What if they’ve already been caught naked together along with touching each other several times? How about the parent who just yells at the kids ten times a day, how’s the psychological damage in comparison? I could go on and on. But the point is, there are many behaviors that possibly should be punished if we’re trying to protect children, so is it about protecting children or not?

Almost all the people I follow seemed to be in line with the Graham line of thought, which shocked me. They said that, well, yes, she was following the trend among other judges, but she should have stood alone and hammered the defendants.

I think those cases would be difficult, especially for her, I certainly wouldn’t want to be the judge. But criticizing her about those specific decisions while almost completely ignoring her other nonsensical cases came across as purely righteous indignation and extremist thought.

Throughout all the black lives matter protests, fake hate crimes, speech isn’t violence and whatever other criminal activity, I’ve listened to the rational talk about why such and such activity is a crime and why the law needs to be applied equally and proportionally. And I agree. The example of very unequal and disproportionate application of law is highlighted with those that murdered and committed mass felonies during all the BLM riots while people walking around the Capitol on Jan 6 are still rotting in jail having received no trial or bail for trespassing.

Equal and proportional application of the law looks at the harm caused to the victim and how that harm is proportional to similar harm caused by other actions and adjusting punishments to be proportional and applied equally to all. When I look at the most insidious crimes, I rank them number 1- slavery/kidnapping, 2-murder, 3-rape/assault. Child porn is further down the list, still illegal, but it’s way too dependent on what the intent is.

I think the subject needs to be delved into more and considered with as much objectivity as possible. I’ve heard the arguments about child porn, that it often leads to trafficking, molestation and rape. That’s true, trafficking (slavery), molestation (assault) and rape are very serious crimes, but that’s not really the question. It’s the question of whether pictures of nude children is child porn and to what extent is viewing a child that is naked illegal?

You have to ask, why are naked pictures of children bad? And to what extent is the harm that is inflicted upon the “victim”? This is important when looking at proportional and equal application of the law. How harmful were the pictures themselves. How harmful to the victim is the person who paid for said pictures vs someone who just downloaded them, a situation where nothing was traded to obtain the pictures? And is simply possession of said images equal to trafficking, molesting and rape? I’ve heard many say that possessing leads to a market for the material and the people taking the pictures often traffic, molest and rape and therefore simple possession should lead to hard convictions!

I want to first deal with the argument that possessing creates a market and therefore should be punished equally as though you had done the assault. OK. Let’s apply that logic to other things. First, how about a blood diamond? We can all agree that enslavement of people to mine diamonds is wrong. Enslavement is worse than death, to me. So let’s say you’re a dealer, you know about the slave practices and know that it is illegal to buy them, but you don’t really know that the slaver starves, beats and has killed many workers. You’re ignorant. So here’s the question, Is the dealer equal to the slave driver who is doing the enslavement and killing?

I don’t think so.

What about the jeweler that suspects the diamond could be a blood diamond, but doesn’t ask too many questions? Or how about the Customer who maybe or maybe not suspects the diamonds they are looking at could be blood diamonds? Are they all guilty of enslavement and murder?

How about Nike, it is widely known that they use Chinese labor that is a mix of sweat shops and slave labor. If you buy Nike, are you guilty of enslavement and murder? How about Disney that produced Mulan with the help of Chinese slave labor. If you watch it, are you guilty of enslavement?

Let’s take another example that’s slightly different. As I stated, I believe enslavement to be the worst followed closely by Murder. When we work, we are trading our life for goods. It is a willing trade and is acceptable. When someone steals your possessions, they are essentially enslaving you because you gave up your life and they got the goods. Anybody check what the punishments for theft and fraud are? It’s not close to enslavement or kidnapping.

So now go back to the statement that possessing creates a market and therefore should be punished equally – This is blatantly false because it depends on the product. Diamonds, clothes and phones that are produced by subjugating humans to the most disgusting and deplorable lives possible are apparently perfectly fine to buy and possess. At worst, the punishment from government may be that they take the product away. But not so with the naked pictures. So the punishments are obviously unequal. Slavery is worse than rape, which is worse than molestation, which is worse than pictures. I think that’s pretty clear. But we ignore the evils of how some products were made simply because the diamond, phone, or shoes look nice and shiny. How does the attractive value negate the harm in production?

How about this, many child actors have talked about being sexually abused in Hollywood. Should everyone who watched their films be arrested since they created the market for child actors? It sounds absurd, but that is exactly what these prosecutors are claiming.

So let’s look go back to the first question, is a picture of a naked child bad and harmful to the child? I think the answer is, it depends. I think the harm caused is at the crux of the issue if you are looking at the issue from a logical reference. The question is how much harm, and compare it to other things that cause proportional harm.

Back to why this is bad politics, I think the case is clear. Number 1, it’s just moral pandering to religious zealots and not about actual justice. Plus, this gives cover to any “voter irregularities.” This doesn’t make sense politically or morally in my opinion. The people passing this legislation know the political effects, so why do it?

I see it as religious fanatics and corrupt conservatives bonding to pass legislation they know is going to lose votes overall for the party, but they have their own separate objectives. For the fanatics, it’s moral control, for the corrupt conservatives, it’s trying to force those out of power that have tried to fight the corruption.

I guess we’ll see at midterms if I was wrong.

Here’s a headline from “conservative” LDS church owned KSL

Here’s the link to the article.

KSL used a misleading picture of a white guy being arrested – the photo is a stock photo. Emilio Lopez Bernal is not from Provo, nor is he a “Provo man”. He is likely a foreign born resident and likely an illegal alien. He also has multiple arrest warrants. He did not speak English and is likely not white – as in northern European/Eurasian which makes the stock photo very misleading. He likely has darker skin and is of Spanish descent and from one of the former Spanish colonies of central/south America since he spoke Spanish seemingly exclusively. The journalist should actually find out where the man is from before declaring him a “Provo man”. Also, if using a stock photo, don’t use one with identifiable features of a person who is not even close in approximation to the subject. In Fact, next time, just use a stock photo of a police car and take out all bias.

The narrative is so easy to see. If I were living over in Japan or England – legally – and I committed a crime, do you really think they would say Kyoto man, or London man? No, they would say an American here for whatever reason did xyz. Language matters. So the question is, why do they do this?

To me, this is a continuation of a narrative being pushed in articles from local and national news organizations. From the use of a white person for the stock photo and calling the individual a “Provo man” are obviously deliberately misleading since it follows a sea of similar articles from the same news organization of similar tone. It’s to push the whole white man bad, brown man good -even though most of central and south Americans are direct descendants of the Spanish settlers (look it up). One funny anecdote I have is of a woke “Hispanic” girl from the neighborhood who talked often about white people’s European privilege. She decided to take a DNA test. Results? 100% Spanish European. And let’s just say, she was more than a little shocked. Duh, you’re hispanis, ie, from Hispania (Spain)! But that’s what happens when you have narrative driven organizations pushing untrue narratives, you end up with people believing complete lies, even about themselves.

I really hate that most articles obfuscate or outright omit important information to drive a chosen narrative instead or reporting the facts. I generally have to do my own online sleuthing to get even close to the truth. It’s very frustrating.

None of this is surprising to me. A former employee of KSL explained that management was trying to gather more legitimacy by hiring non-LDS, non-Utahn (woke) employees. Obviously it shows.

The language from Foxnews is accurate – Click here to read the Foxnews article

For all the insults fired at Fox news, I find them to be the most accurate and least misleading of the major news organizations.

I think the topic of abortion is kind of fascinating. From my perspective, I understand why the religious are anti-abortion and the areligious are pro-abortion. But the motives almost seem counterintuitive.

Abortion isn’t something that can be logically reasoned out because there is a component that is added to the mix that can’t really be tested or proven and that is a soul. This soul, according to many religions, is your spiritual “body” and merges or is created with the physical body. Then, after the physical body is spent, the soul continues on, eternal, in some form or another.

(more…)

I don’t get this surgical/cloth masking thing. Am I missing some controlled study where coronavirus patients were placed in a controlled group of random people without coronavirus and then transmission rates were studied both indoors and out? I am 100% behind where the science says to go, if a randomized control trial shows indisputable evidence that these masks are effective against the coronavirus, sure, no problem, let’s mask up. But if they are being mandated due to nebulous general population “studies” where some areas show effectiveness and others not as effective (as I’ve currently seen and is largely the basis for the state order) – all to make it look like the politicians are doing something, then I am 100% against it. I’m surprised hardly anyone is questioning the rationale behind masks.

(more…)

This is probably an unpopular opinion – but doctors and nurses are getting too much attention and credit right now. I imagine if I had continued to pursue a career in medicine, this atmosphere wouldn’t make me thrilled.

Look, I’m not at all surprised by all the adulation being heaped on medical personnel. There’s a threat of a virus which has raised the general fear level quite a bit. So there is a natural inclination to think, these people are saving our lives, we need to reward them. It is true, doctors and nurses provide a valuable service as a part of a functioning society. My life has most likely been saved at least a couple times, or at least kept me from some serious long-term debilitating injury. However, As a side note, isn’t it amazing how doctors have essentially green-lit a level of recklessness from the general public that a hundred years ago would have left huge swaths of the population severely handicapped?

(more…)

Looks good to me. Let’s confirm this and get everything back to normal.

Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19

How does facebook, a multi-billion dollar company, have such horrific support? no phone number, no text chat, no ticket submission, nothing. My facebook page was compromised, but resolving this issue is madness. They didn’t even detect the breach! First time I became aware was when I got multiple emails in the middle of the night saying, thanks for creating this facebook ad! What?

(more…)