right-wing stupidity

i often come across stupid comments right-wingers leave on the internet. today i truly found a gem: an entire thread full of comments by them denouncing the new york times and proclaiming how happy they are that it is going out of business. it actually isn’t going out of business, but these conservative lunatics have a very tenuous hold on reality, and as they make clear in their comments, they wish that the only media that existed were conservative propaganda outlets like fox news, right-wing rags like the new york post, washington times, and wall street journal, and right-wing talk radio (rush limbaugh, sean hannity, mike savage, etc.). ok, so here it is, take a look! just read the comments there, and you will see a huge number of incredibly idiotic comments by right-wing loonies, and a few sensible comments by people who are not right-wing lunatics. when i was in college at cornell i read every issue of the cornell review that was published during that time. it is the ultra-right-wing student newspaper written by complete lunatics at cornell, and it was founded by ann coulter when she was a student at cornell. anyway, reading the cornell review was a form of entertainment for me and many other cornell students, and the vast majority of us who read it found it to be full of nonsensical articles that are completely without merit written by people who seemingly inhabit some parallel universe where creationism is factually true, any sexual intercourse outside of a heterosexual marriage is an evil sin, unregulated free-market capitalism is the only economic system that works, the war in iraq is perfectly justified because saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and evil godless liberals (who are all communists in disguise) were somehow ruining the country even at a time when conservative republicans controlled all 3 branches of government. so anyway, i have long observed that conservative republicans are completely disconnected from reality because they are so indoctrinated by their absurd ideology, and this seems to hold true both when they are in power and when they are out of power. they seem to think, for example, that ad hominem attacks against al gore for his personal energy usage disprove the scientific theory of global warming. the beautiful part about all this is, pretty much every republican politician out there calls themselves a conservative, and lots of democrats do too, but hardly any politicians are willing to be associated with the term liberal, because they are all scaredy cats when it comes to being associated with liberalism. this is because foaming-at-the-mouth rabid conservatives have spread their infection to much of the public, making people think that liberalism is somehow bad, and thus only a small percentage of people have the guts to actually call themselves liberals. i am a liberal, of course, because i am not some dumbass coward afraid of the ramifications of admitting the truth. now let me discuss the merits of the arguments the conservatives were making in this thread at politico.com. many of them were saying “who cares about darfur?”, admitting to the public that they do not really care about the suffering of other people, even if the other people are innocent victims of a genocidal campaign of terror by a brutal dictator, namely sudanese president bashir who has been indicted for crimes against humanity. of course, i have always known that conservatism is based on selfishness and liberalism is based on actually caring about other people, and statements like this by conservatives only confirm this truism. i also read many comments rejoicing in the downfall of the new york times, claiming that it was full of liberal bias. i suppose that conservatives don’t care about facts, like the fact that the new york times helped lead the way in cheerleading for bush’s war in iraq before the war started, or that the new york times always has at least 2 staunch conservatives among its small group of paid opinion columnists, and whenever 1 of them leaves, they find another staunch conservative to replace them. if you look at a conservative newspaper such as the wall street journal or the washington times, you will find that every single opinion columnist is a diehard conservative, and no dissent from the party line is allowed. the new york times regularly criticizes both republicans and democrats, but republican publications such as the wall street journal and washington times are completely 1-sided on their opinion pages. the news pages of the wall street journal are respectable, but the news pages of the washington times are just as full of right-wing bias as the editorials, which is not surprising, given the fact that the washington times is owned by korean cult leader rev. sun myung moon, who served time in federal prison in the united states before he managed to use his political connections to become a free man once again. sometimes conservatives even accuse the washington post of being a democratic paper, which is far more ridiculous than saying that of the new york times, since the washington post is a centrist paper that usually favors the conservatives, not the liberals. the conservatives who comment on threads like the one i linked to get almost all their information from conservative propaganda outlets, except these internet conservatives tend to get most of it from conservative websites on the internet, not television, radio, or newspapers. i get news from the internet, television, radio, and newspapers... from all of them... even news-magazines like time magazine too. conservatism is insane because it is a form of fundamentalism that applies to all issues. conservatives are fundamentalist about religion, fundamentalist about free markets, and fundamentalist about pretty much everything, which means that they all have 1 point of view that they all agree on, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, and they stick to that point of view no matter what. being liberal, as a dictionary will tell you, has among its definitions being open-minded. as for conservative, the first definition is “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” the first definition for liberal is “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.” another definition for liberal is “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.” another definition for liberal is “of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.” and liberal is also defined as “open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.” in other words, liberalism means that people are open-minded and do not stubbornly stick to old ideas that don’t work and have been proven wrong, while conservatism means either wanting to preserve the status quo and avoid change, or to go back to a previous status quo that was traditionally followed in the past until recently. now, there are several arguments that could be made against these dictionary definitions, such as saying that the dictionaries are written by a bunch of liberals, or that liberal and conservative no longer mean what they traditionally meant several decades ago, but i am not going to get into a debate over that. i would just like to say that the definitions you get at dictionary.com are fairly accurate in my opinion, and they seem to portray liberalism very positively and conservatism more negatively. perhaps the most obvious flaw of conservatism is that conservatives often find themselves debating scientists, and saying that science is wrong. this glaring flaw in conservatism is why i think it is a form of lunacy. science is what has brought us all of the modern technology we take for granted nowadays. the scientific theories underlying many of the advances in technology are the very theories conservatives claim are incorrect, yet conservatives use the same technological devices as liberals all the time. for example, much of modern medicine is based on the theories of evolution, and most conservatives are not so wacky that they refuse medical care and seek out faith healers or witch doctors instead. most conservatives are at least sane enough to accept modern medicine and allow it to be used on them. they just disagree with the primary theory underlying the very scientific advances in medicine that save their lives, the theory of evolution. evolution, for instance, explains why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, something that cannot be explained by so-called “creation science” or “intelligent design”. another atrocious thing about conservatives besides their complete disregard for science or logic in favor of ancient superstitions is the fact that they only seem to care about people who are very wealthy, and always try to change the laws to help out people who have much more money than they know what to do with, at the expense of everyone else. they even engage in blatant corruption like the awarding of no-bid contracts to halliburton, the company dick cheney was ceo of before becoming vice president, and they nakedly do this corruption in front of everyone, and have no remorse or shame about it. it is hard for me to find any redeeming qualities in conservatism, but i am liberal and open-minded enough to find at least two. first of all, if there is some old tradition that liberals want to change, and the tradition is actually good and the proposed change would actually be bad, then in this case the mindless impulse of conservatives to always want to preserve old traditions actually turns out to be the correct course of action. a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say. secondly, we liberals want to fix problems, and often our open-minded thinking leads to bold proposals, but these bold proposals are not always correct. it is necessary to have somebody arguing the opposite from what we argue, arguing that our proposals are wrong, so that if we do come up with flawed proposals, the flaws in the proposals are made known and debated, and then hopefully the flawed proposals are either fixed or discarded. but in general, liberals do want to fix problems and conservatives want to leave them unfixed. that is just the general mindset of both groups, and conservatives do occasionally realize that a problem needs to be solved. usually, though, when conservatives want to solve a “problem”, the “problem” is just liberal policies that they disagree with, and not an actual problem. for instance, in the case of the new york times, conservatives view its existence as a problem, because the new york times generally favors liberal points of view over conservative ones, and despite the fact that there are far more conservative media outlets than liberal ones, conservatives cannot stand the existence of even one liberal media outlet. conservatives would like to shut out all debate and have their opinions be the only opinions allowed, which they make very clear in the comments thread i linked to above. they are really an undemocratic group of people, but luckily they have not ended democracy in our country yet, probably because democracy is a tradition and they feel bound by traditions. now i may come off as biased, and of course i am quite biased, obviously, but i do often wonder about whether there are intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded conservatives who are capable of considering other opinions and defending their own opinions in a logical manner without resorting to absurd arguments or arguments based on claiming the factual authority of things like the bible. there are a few conservative columnists and pundits that occasionally seem to be sentient beings, but just when i start to have faith in humanity and think that maybe conservatives aren’t all bad, my new favorite conservative always has to go back to spouting absurdities without logical justification, and i have to stop liking them, since the whole basis of me liking them was that they seemed to be logical and make sense and not be total wackos. as for liberal commentators, there are many that i like. for instance, i like paul krugman of the new york times, which you may find surprising, given that paul krugman has said that barack obama’s economic plan will not work and that i also like barack obama a great deal. i also like the columnists at the nation magazine a great deal. my main news sources that i look at each day on the internet are the huffington post, cnn.com, and the drudge report. yes, i know, the drudge report is conservative, but, i am a liberal and we are open-minded. my mind is always open to new ideas, even now. for instance, when it comes to things like bailouts, i am not sure whether they are a good idea or a bad idea. i do not trust the government or large corporations, but the government is far more trustworthy than corporations since at least it is accountable to voters. corporations are supposedly accountable to shareholders who own common stock and can vote, but in practice, this does not work at all, and corporate leaders are basically not accountable to anyone except the government, and only sometimes, because there is selective enforcement and double standards. bernie madoff was the former chairman of the nasdaq stock exchange, the 2nd largest stock exchange on wall street, the one where most of the tech stocks are, and he pulled off the biggest ponzi scheme in history. the person in charge of the stock exchange is the highest level you can get to in wall street, so the corruption in wall street goes all the way up to the top, bernie madoff being proof of this. and of course the government cannot be trusted, since after all, we have gone through 8 years of having george w. bush run the government, and it is still full of many conservatives he put there, some of whom are bound to sabotage things that the obama administration tries to accomplish. ok, that is just one of many reasons not to trust the government. another more obvious one is that governments can never be trusted under any circumstances, which is obvious if you look at history and see how all the governments have been untrustworthy in the past. any large enough institution becomes to some extent a malicious entity that strikes out against those who oppose it and tries to suppress information that makes it look bad, regardless of whether it is a public or private institution. part of being liberal and open-minded is being skeptical and not believing in things 100% unless you have absolute proof, so a true liberal, even if they think obama is great, is still somewhat skeptical, since you can never be too sure about any politician. if you are not skeptical about your own opinions, and you are a bit of a fundamentalist about them, then you are really just like the conservatives. you have to at least think twice about things, consider other points of view, and have some doubts about your own opinions, or else you are not truly a sentient being, but merely an overrated animal that knows how to walk and talk but not how to think. yes, humans are animals, unless you think it is better to categorize us as plants, fungi, bacteria, or something else, but of course calling humans animals is controversial to many conservatives, despite it being a scientific fact. to me, anything that conflicts with science conflicts with reality itself, and has zero credibility. science, logic, and mathematics are the foundation of all human understanding of reality, and any understanding of reality that is not based on them has no real justification at all. for years, conservatives have argued that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, this can actually increase government revenue. that is an example of something that completely violates all mathematics and logic and has basically zero validity whatsoever. pretty much everything conservatism is based on is fundamentally illogical and nonsensical, which is why the end result is the same. garbage in, garbage out. it is much more popular for people to call themselves conservatives than liberals only because conservatives are masters of sticking to the party line and staying on message, creating a vast echo chamber of conservatives who all agree with each other and spread the message to other people who are not conservatives. also, since conservatives favor the wealthy, the wealthy have a natural interest in favoring conservatives, which means conservatives have a major source of campaign contributions as well as people who own media conglomerates that will spread the conservative message for them. liberals favor the poor and middle class, who are not really in charge of anything, despite the fact that the vast majority of people are poor or middle class. this means lots of potential voters, but those potential voters can easily be won over to the other side through the ubiquitous conservative misinformation coming from so many media outlets. and the conservatives want to silence the few media outlets that do not treat their ideas as equal to or better than liberal ideas. now think about this: many major cities, such as washington, d.c. or new york city, have very liberal populations, but their newspapers and other local news organizations do not share the same views as the public in those areas. new york city does have the new york times, but more people read the new york post, a conservative paper, since it is cheaper and has a tabloid format aimed for mass appeal, and there is also the wall street journal, another conservative paper that is quite popular. in washington, d.c., neither the washington post nor the washington times is liberal, although the residents of the city are incredibly and overwhelmingly liberal. the washington post is centrist and the washington times is very conservative, neither of them reflecting the views of the people of washington, d.c. i think this fundamentally indicates the cozy relationship between wealthy media barons and conservative politicians whose policies benefit the wealthy. for anyone who still believes the myth that the media has a liberal bias, i highly recommend the excellent book what liberal media? by eric alterman, which thoroughly debunks that myth. it turns out that even the new york times is not as liberal as people think it is, and it only seems liberal because all the other news outlets are so conservative. of course, the book what liberal media? was written prior to msnbc deciding to become a liberal network, but its thesis and many examples documenting how the media is actually conservative are still valid in my opinion. msnbc, for instance, is owned by a large corporation, general electric, and while its evening lineup may feature the liberals keith olbermann and rachel maddow, the warmup act, chris matthews, is a centrist who used to be a supporter of george w. bush, although nowadays he pretends that never happened. msnbc prominently features pat buchanan and other conservatives, and it gives hours of airtime every morning to conservative joe scarborough. in the past, msnbc gave shows to mike savage, tucker carlson, and don imus, among others, helping to spread the conservative message. the mike savage show, which was called savage nation, was especially awful. as for cnn, until recently they had glenn beck, and they still have lou dobbs. it is hard to make the case that cnn is liberal, and in fact they have a bias towards conservatives that is documented in the book by eric alterman. anyway, my point is, conservatism is basically an extension of fundamentalist religion, and arguing with a conservative is not really a political argument but a theological dispute, even if you do not even believe in their religion, because to them it is a theological dispute. it is pretty much a form of mental illness, one that is contagious, and one for which there is no known cure. most people who suffer from conservatism will have it for the rest of their lives. i hope that someday we can find a cure for this dreadful form of mental illness. the once great republican party, whose first president, the great liberal abraham lincoln, freed the slaves, has over about 150 years steadily gotten more and more conservative, and is now worse and more malignant than ever before, when the republican party was originally a source for good in our country. it is quite a sad tale how conservatives came to dominate the republicans, and when all the dixiecrats left the democratic party to become republicans, along with “reagam democrats”, the republicans successfully peeled away almost all the conservative democratic voters, and later most of the liberals who had voted republican in the past (such as for nixon or reagan) switched to voting for democrats like bill clinton. every 4 years, each presidential election seems to have the ideological split between the 2 parties become more rigid than ever, and there are always a number of former members of one party who “see the light” and switch parties, changing all their beliefs too. this gradual process has purified the essence of the democratic and republican parties so that both parties are now dominated by bases of voters whose views do not agree with the views of the majority of the public. the republican party, however, is much more strongly dominated by its conservative base than the democratic party is dominated by its liberal base. the democrats do not really have to do much to appease us liberals, and they can often govern as centrists and get away with it. republicans, on the other hand, have to be staunch conservatives, or else they will find ultra-conservatives running against them in primary elections the next time they are up for re-election, and they will be replaced by ultra-conservative radicals. this is why republicans in congress are so staunchly conservative and in lockstep with fox news and right-wing talk radio on everything. they have eliminated dissent from within the ranks of their party, and they have proven that they do not really have any governing philosophy other than victory at all costs and trying to pander to the base as much as possible without alienating moderates. they seem just like a fanatical cult of brainwashed zombies, except they have no leader, which has thrown them into chaos recently. at least they can agree on one thing: opposing liberalism and democrats, and trying to obstruct everything that liberal democrats try to do. perhaps i should feel sorry for them, but i cannot feel sorry for such intolerant, hateful people who think everyone who had different beliefs from them will end up in hell for all eternity, yet who do not even care about the genocide in darfur. i don’t think they would want my pity either, but that is all the more reason to give it to them: because it would piss them off, and they deserve it, after giving us 8 years of hell under george w. bush. conservatives make the most absurd arguments, like back before obama was even elected, back in october, some of them were already blaming the economic recession on obama, claiming that the stock market went down in anticipation of obama winning the election, and that businesses were already laying off workers and cutting production in anticipation of a future obama win and future tax increases on them. to prove this point, these republican commenters claimed to own businesses themselves and be laying off workers and cutting production in anticipation of a future obama win that they thought would mean higher taxes on small business. this proves the depths to which the republicans have fallen. they have seemingly hit rock bottom, so perhaps the only direction they can go from here is up. and that is what frightens me. that is not to say that i am not also frightened by what is going on in our country, right now, even with my fellow democrats in charge. these bailouts are quite disturbing, and i also have a lot of problems with other aspects of the economic policy, such as the large deficits, even though i know that large deficits are supposedly a necessary evil when you have a recession, according to most mainstream economists. having taken 4 semesters of economics in college, i do not consider economics to be an actual science. it is a “social science”, or in more realistic terms, economics is a form of applied mathematics used to advance ideological points of view by making dishonest oversimplifications and assumptions about reality in order to lie by using statistics. even economists who want to tell the truth and think they are telling the truth cannot really do so, in my opinion, because the field of economics itself is fatally flawed. we saw evidence of how it is fatally flawed with alan greenspan’s reaction to the current recession: he was completely shocked and had not predicted it at all. billionaire hedge fund manager george soros, who also happens to be the biggest donor to the democrats, did predict it, and made a lot of money because his predictions turned out to be true, and you can read his theories about it here. you should take it with a grain of salt, though: he might just be trying to advance policies that would benefit his hedge fund, although i think that is unlikely and he seems sincere. the other reason to take it with a grain of salt is that economics is basically bullshit, even when it makes a correct prediction. it is like trying to predict the weather. we have theories to explain the weather and scientific models, but we still cannot predict weather, and disasters like hurricane katrina can catch us unprepared. economics is far less of a science than meteorology, since economics has become part of politics, economists are divided ideologically, and the scientific method is not the basis for this so-called “science”. it is impossible to do a controlled experiment in economics, and controlled experiments are necessary for doing real science. so in the absence of facts, opinions prevail, to the detriment of everyone, since everyone is part of the economy and everyone suffers because of failures in the economy. there is really no way economics could ever be fixed, other than simply having several hundred more years of human history in advanced technological societies during which economic data is monitored and kept for future generations to study. in each generation, conservatives argue in favor of the world being like what liberals in the previous generation argued in favor of. that is human progress. and liberals never want to go back to the old ways. we always want to achieve greater things than have ever been achieved before, rather than going back to the dark ages, the 1800s, the 1950s, or any other time in the past. the fundamental basis for conservatism is being stuck in the past and wanting to keep everyone else stuck back in the past with you. i suppose it is natural for people to be afraid of change and want to stick with the old ways of doing things that they are comfortable with, so there will always be plenty of conservatives, regardless of how irrational conservatism is. i know the failures of conservatism much better than most people, because in my personal life i am afraid of change and i stick with the old ways of doing things that i have always done before, and i have found that this does not lead to any progress in life, yet i am unable to summon the courage to change things in my life. this is the problem with conservatism, except instead of feeling that way over their personal lives, people feel that way over government policy. and i know firsthand that it just won’t work, period. like they say, doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity, and that is why conservatives are insane. of course, that is not the dictionary definition of insanity, so if you want to be picky about it, conservatives are not necessarily insane any more than anybody else would be insane, but that is only if you are obsessed with going by the dictionary definitions of things, which means you are obsessive and therefore insane. as i have shown by my earlier obsessive use of dictionary definitions in this post, i am likewise insane, so you should take everything i say with a grain of salt. therefore, conservatism is 100% true. just kidding, belated april fool’s joke. being obsessive is not a form of insanity either, technically. it is a natural personality variation, just like being right-wing or being stupid.