"Bernie or Bust" Will Get Trump Elected, and That's OK.

Once again it is an election year, and once again there is infighting aplenty within the Republican and Democratic parties. What is different this year is that there is a schism within the Democratic party that may hand the GOP the Presidency. That may not be a bad thing. As a Democratic Socialist I never thought I would ever say that.

How, you say?  The Bernie or Bust campaign.  Pledges to the campaign promise to either write in Sanders or vote Green Party if he loses the Democratic nomination. Clinton supporters argue that not voting for Clinton in the election would be the same as voting for Trump.  Naturally, they assume, much like main streammedia that Clinton will get the nomination. The outlook on that in dubious.  The GOP got rid of their royal line, little ol’ Jeb, but many Democrats are reluctant to give up their queen.  However, Sanders has not only split the DNC, he also has a large, grassroots following among independent voters who now outnumber both the Republicans and the Democrats. While the battle rages for the post March 15^th primary States, the Bernie or Bust campaign is growing.

The reason why I say a Trump win wouldn’t be that bad is because of Congress. 34 Senate seats and all 434 House seats are up for election. The past few years of Republican dominance in Congress has shown the electorate how defunct the Republican party is. They refuse to work with the Democrats or the White House, they have shut down the Federal Government more than once just to get their way, and now are refusing to do their job by refusing to even hold a hearing for Obama’s SCOTUS appointee. This year most of them will be fired. Capitol Hill will turn Blue next January when the 2017 Congress convenes, and that is why a Trump victory wouldn’t be so bad.

If Bernie wins the nomination, he is a shoe in for the Presidency. Clinton, perhaps not. Many voters, like myself, would find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils and Trump would be the lesser.  Clinton voted for the Patriot Act (Sanders was the in the House and voted against it), spread the racist stereotype of the “super predator,” and is in the back pocket of not only the bankers who destroyed our economy eight years ago, but also the private prison lobby which in instrumental in lobbying for laws that promote the school to prison pipeline. That pipeline is devastating the black and Latino community. Yes, Trump is a bigot, and it’s working for him, but he is blatantly a bigot. Clinton is an accomplished politician employed by some of the biggest lobby groups in the country. Trump is not.  Hell, trump used to be a Clinton supporter. Clinton’s support for the private prison system indicates a subtler, hidden form of institutional racism.

As an accomplished politician, Clinton knows how to get things done. With the country in dire straits and the probable takeover of Congress by the Democrats, Clinton will accomplish much.  For the first two years at least. A win for Clinton is a win for the status quo which would put Congress back in the Red in 2018. With Trump in office, I think there would be sufficient outrage over his leadership that Congress will stay Blue until at least 2020. As Trump is not an experienced politician, he will struggle getting anything done in office.  That means he will probably be a one term President, and he will definitely join the ranks of the Do-Nothing Presidents. Both Trump and Clinton will keep us at war with some one or another.  However, at least Trump is against free trade agreements that Clinton champions. You know, deals like NAFTA and the TPP.  Deals that have cost Americans jobs and shrunk the middle class.  While Clinton says she has "reevaluated" her views on the TPP to mirror Sander's views, anyone who thinks that she isn't just saying that to appeal to Sanders' supporters is delusional. The TPP will be a money maker for everyone at the top of Clinton's donor list. You know, the people she works for.

If Sanders lands the nomination his first hundred days will be a smaller version of FDR’s first hundred days, thanks to a Blue Congress. With Sanders we have a chance to fix a broken political system.  Neither Clinton nor Trump will do so, they will maintain the status quo. The difference between Clinton and Trump is that Trump won’t be able to get anything done, good or bad, unless it originates on Capitol Hill, and then it is just a matter of Trump staying out of the way. Which, for most of US history, is exactly what Presidents did. With a Clinton nomination it's four years of a Do-Nothing Trump.

Rand and Humanism

Is Libertarianism compatible with Humanism?
Originally published on the Bluegrass Skeptic's blog (now defunct) in 2015.

Modern Libertarianism is based largely on the works of Ayn Rand.  A glance at the philosophy section of the Ayn Rand institute and you'll see it nearly mirrors the philosophy of the Libertarian Party. Both espouse civil liberties for all, and both desire Laissez Faire Capitalism.  In the realm of skepticism and education, Rand's philosophies begin good enough, but once she gets to economics, politics and ethics, not so much.  But are these ideals compatible with Humanism?

A great philosopher, I forget which one, once mused that philosophy is the art of starting with premises no one rejects, and coming to conclusions no one accepts. This is (or should be) the case for Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. Or as those past the age of 15 call it "being a selfish, spoiled brat." Perhaps that is a little harsh, but only if you do not look into Rand's philosophy. To do so is to see that at first, Rand's philosophy is seductive to Humanists, but on a closer look, her philosophy is quite incompatible with Humanistic thought.

Ayn Rand's ideas begins innocently enough, she asserts that reality is real (no brains in a vat), and that the observable universe is all that there is. For a Secular Humanist, we are good so far.  Though a Sectarian Humanist may depart ways here.  Rand's philosophy leaves no room for God or other superstitions. For Rand, since the only reality is the observable universe, we must all face facts, no matter how uncomfortable and think critically to make use of those facts.  For the skeptic, this is spot on. For those with a soft spot for children (like me) we know a few comforting words can soothe a distraught child. For instance, I would never tell a child that mittens had to be gassed to death, rather I would say they had to put her to sleep.  Though I draw the line at kitty heaven claims.

Either way, none of the above are incompatible with Humanist thought. However, things begin to break down once we get to the rest of Rand's philosophy. Rand's work in ethics begins nice enough by claiming that divine command theory, getting our morals from a godhead, is wrong. Her conclusion on morality is that what is good moral behavior is what is in our own self interest. Since humans have no natural code of conduct, we must act in accordance to our needs. Sounds sexy, right?

It almost sounds Humanistic.  However, even though Humanists hold that morals definitely do not come from God, that is were the similarities end.  The selfish principle, or Egoism, is where Humanists part ways with Rand and the Libertarians. A Humanist's base for morals is ending the needless suffering of fellow humans.  In Rand's philosophy, such an endeavour is only moral if it is in your own self interest. Rand would be all for MMR vaccines for all so her children wouldn't get sick (thus causing Rand to spend more money).  For a Humanist, vaccination is important to decrease the suffering of children for their own sake.  See the difference?

Another contention, is that Rand's ethics are highly relative.  She claims that humans have no natural ideas of morality or "automatic codes of survival".  While there are issues with this, it really has nothing to do with Humanism, so I will leave it for another day.  However, with Rand's philosophy it is perfectly moral to manipulate people into supporting you.  You would be using your talents to their fullest potential to meet your needs.  If someone is out a few bucks, then they should face the facts and learn to think more critically.  In Rand's philosophy, it is the often victim's fault.

When we examine Rand's economic philosophy, the part that Libertarians extol, we see a continuation of her selfish principle.  Rand believed in full Laissez-Faire Capitalism, a complete separation of Corporation and State. The only role the Government should have is to provide courts for law suits, and a police force to keep the rabble in line.  Laissez-Faire Capitalism not only doesn't work, but in incompatible with Humanistic thought.  The reason is not just the distribution of wealth, but that of power too.

In Rand's ideal State, and the ideal Libertarian State as well, the government is subservient to the corporation.  This is because the corporation has more power.  The EPA, USDA, FDA, SEC?  Forget them.  If human arms ground up in hamburger, useless drugs, flammable lakes, and insider trading are bad, then "the market" will correct the mistake.  Of course, the market means the myth of the free market.  I have already written about the "Free Market" here so for the sake of brevity I won't recap the myth of the free market.

In ancient Greece both Hedon and Epicurius based their philosophies partly on self interest. Rand was not claiming that we should be Hedonists. That is the eat-drink-and-be-merry style of freedom. Nor was she advancing Epicurian thought, which rests on the same basic principles as Hedonism, but valued long term happiness through education and understanding and not in the moment pleasures. However, both philosophers acknowledged and respected that other people have the same rights as anyone else.  What Rand proposed, what Objectivism amounts to is a form of Might Makes Right.

To Rand, if a person can leverage you into doing their will, then they have the right to do so.  If a corporation (which is an extension of the people running it) can exploit its employees then it is because the employees are weak and deserve it.  If an entrepreneur destroys the environment to obtain wealth, then those in the environment who are too weak to stop it can simply move, or they too deserve to get what they get.  One must wonder what then Rand would have thought about rape and institutional racism.

A refugee from Stalinist Russia, Rand rejected only the Communist limitations on the economy, but in reality she championed and tried to justify Stalinist authoritarianism.  Stalin leveraged his way to the head of the Communist Party, and used his power, his strength to run the USSR according to his whim.  This is precisely where Rand's philosophy takes you.  It is also why Social-Darwinists love her so much.  Ironically, Rand hated Stalin and his USSR, and yet a Stalinist style of government is where it ultimately leads.  The only difference is that Stalin would have began as a CEO and not as a lackey to Lenin.

The goal of Humanism is the exact opposite of this.  The primary principle of Humanism can be summed up as "alleviating unnecessary suffering of our fellow humans".  All endeavors should be towards this end.  This means we must protect the planet (our environment), feed the hungry, educate the youth, etc. etc. etc.  To ensure that everyone has access to opportunity, and necessities, they must be enfranchised equally within the government, which necessitates limits on personal power, and at times wealth.  While such a state may sound socialist, it is not necessarily so.  Humanism itself does not concern itself with economic ideals in so much that the economic system does not contribute to suffering.  This makes Humanism pragmatic, and not idealistic, like Objectivism.

10 Mistakes of the Indoctrinated.

The following is by a guest writer, Lawrence Tomas, who originally posted this to the Freethinkers United Facebook page.

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THAT ALL CHRISTIANS MAKE

Almost all Christians (followers of Christianity) make one tragic mistake in the very beginning when they first accept the religion and yes…it is a whopper!

Becoming a Christian at the tender age of 12 years old, I never knew of course that I was making this mistake.

But now that I see the mistake, it’s impossible to keep quiet about it! I can’t keep quiet... nor should I keep quiet. I have to share this…so listen close!

HERE IS WHAT HAPPENS…

It usually begins at a young age when someone (parent, friend or family member) approaches you and they ask you the famous question…

“If you died right now, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?”

They then proceed to tell you the Gospel story how that 2,000 years ago, God loved you and sent his son Jesus to die on a cross to save you from your sins and save you from going to Hell.

Well, if the timing is right, this particular confrontation is too overwhelming and as it tugs on your heart strings, you somehow feel obligated to repent and ask Jesus to save you.

If you ask any questions, they are quickly shut down and we are told…

“We don’t go by factual evidence or proof, we accept it by “faith”. Jesus said to “only believe”. He also said that the devil will lie to us and try to deceive us into disbelieving. Trust me…it is all true…I promise you!”

So we do what we are told and accept it by faith without seeing any evidence what soever to back any of it up…none…zero.

SO WHAT IS THE BIG MISTAKE!

THE BIG MISTAKE IS….We never check any of it out…

1. We never do any research to see if Jesus actually existed.

2. We never do any research to see if the apostles actually existed.

3. We never do any research to see who actually wrote the Roman New Testament…the hows, whys, whens and wheres…we never check any of that out.

4. We never do any research to see who actually started this religion and why?

5. We never do any research to see if the Apostle Paul who allegedly wrote over half of the New Testament actually existed or started any churches.

6. We never do any research to see if the Hebrew/Roman Bible is historically, scientifically and archaeologically accurate & correct. We never do any research to see if what the ancient Hebrews were telling us… was factually sound and 100% true.

7. We never do any research to see if any of the so called “Church Fathers” were legit and actually telling us the truth.

8. We never do any research to see if any of the Old Testament Bible characters were legit and actually existed.

9. We never do any research into the ancient Romans to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Rome during the 1st Century CE. We never do any research into the ancient Judean Hebrews to understand the religious culture & political climate which existed in Palestine during the 1st Century CE.

10. We never do any research to see that Imperial Rome had their dirty hands upon this new Christian religion from the very beginning and that the entire Gospel Story is nothing more than a fabricated Roman lie.

NO…we never checked anything out for authenticity…we just went with it. We accepted the entire story upon the basis of “faith” and never spent ONE MINUTE of our time to see if any of it was ever true.

Then we start going to church where we are told if we question anything it displeases God and we are to accept & believe everything on “Faith Alone”. This brainwashing usually continues until we die unless we have an “epiphany” and somehow come to our senses which most people never do.

Yup…Christians have been taught to believe that the church was born 2,000 years ago and that’s the big mistake. They naively assume that everyone has been telling them the 100% absolute truth from the ancient Romans down to the modern day Christian ministers.

We believe and accept it without doing any research whatsoever…we just go with it because someone told us to. We buy into and believe the greatest hoax that mankind has ever seen. What we thought was true (the Bible), turns out to be 66 separate books which are nothing than mythical fabricated fairytales.

And it’s a whopper of a mistake because it controls & colors every single aspect of our thinking and being. We become a Christian, develop an imaginary friend, and spend the rest of our lives thinking we are immortal and that we are going to live forever in a paradise. This false beliefism will control us and our family for the remainder of our natural lives.

QUESTION: Then who is to blame for making this monumental mistake?

ANSWER: YOU and YOU alone. Because you never took the time to do any personal investigation or research. You just believed the lies and for doing that you payed or are still paying a great price…

WAKE UP!