The Kentucky Dirty

skank

noun

1.

a fast dance to reggae music

2.

(slang) a promiscuous female

This post is not about reggae music.

Let's talk about Kim Davis.  Fuck her.  Ok,  next topic.

400 Days Out....

Updating my 2016 Presidential Election prediction today,  you will note the only changes from 100 days ago are:  I took Arizona and Florida away from (Hillary) and I added Ohio to the Democrat total.  Arizona was just me screwing around,  I have no reason to believe that yet; at least not until I start seeing some polling there - which likely won't be until next year.   Florida polls look more favorable to the GOP lately,  and Ohio doesn't look bad for Democrats so I swapped those two.  Other than that not a lot of changes.

Meanwhile in the past 100 days we've seen the insane jackass Trump get a UUGE lead over all the other "LOSERS" and now that lead is pretty much gone,  as the quiet spoken but equally jackass Ben Carson (Token Black!)  now is basically tied with Trump.   You remember Carson right?  He's the one that thinks jails are homosexual factories,  you go in straight but you come out gay.   Oh,  and he's a doctor.   A doctor... who doesn't know how homosexuals are made.   I bet your average person with down's syndrome knows how homosexuals are made,  and if I had Michelle Bachmann's email address,  I'd ask her.

As for the actual candidates,  I'm not going to make any real predictions this time around - it's all just too crazy.  Still probably Hillary though Bernie definitely has some momentum,  and if he can convince Democrats he can win it all,  he could actually win the nomination.  On the GOP side,  I don't care,  they're almost all evil fucking assholes with no redeeming values and I hate them all.  Ok I might not hate John Kasich, and his chance of getting the nomination is about the same as Bush's chance of telling America his brother "kept America safe"  and not be called out for that pile of bullshit.   Maybe Bush thinks the English language works the same as everything else with Republicans and you can just have an opinion about what words mean,  and "kept America safe" actually to him means "ignored dire warnings of imminent terrorist attack,  went on vacation,  and then read a children's book while the biggest terror attack in the history of the country was taking place".

Ok enough about the GOP field of dicks.  Here is my prediction 400 days out:

Worst. Argument. Ever.

"But if we let a man marry another man,  what's next... a man marrying a dog?"

This,  ladies and gentlemen,  is the "Slippery Slope"  argument.   Also known as the worst and most illogical argument ever.  The slippery slope template is basically this:

"We cannot let A happen,  because if we do,  then it is absolutely positively an undeniable fact that B will happen,  we cannot stop B from happening if A has occurred,  and we can all agree that B is horrible and should never happen,  right?"

How is this quote any different than the first quote in this post:

"But if we let a man marry a woman,  what's next.... a man marrying a dog?"

Answer:  it's not any different - it's the exact same failure of logic and reason. It is the EXACT same argument:  If we let something happen,  then the other thing will happen.   But has anyone actually ever said "if we let a man marry a woman, what's next... a man marrying a dog?"  No.  And do you know why?  Because the only people using slippery slope arguments when it comes to things like gay marriage are people who are bigoted, hypocritical and ignorant.   And those people of course don't have any problem with men marrying women (and divorcing them when they get cancer,  and marrying a different woman,  and then cheating on that 2nd wife while publicly whining about someone else's affair).   So they never make that particular argument because they are cognitively unable to see that the flawed and failed argument can be applied to heterosexual marriages just as easily that they apply it to homosexual marriage.

Speaking of flaws,  the flaws of the slippery slope argument are quite obvious:

1. Prove that if A happens,  it is absolutely 100% positively true that B must happen. You can't. Therefore B is irrelevant to A. 
2. I support A but not B,  you assumed I support both.  You are wrong. 
3. And,  most importantly:  WE'RE NOT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT B,  WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A!   You cannot logically argue against A so you want to talk about B instead.  I will not allow that.  Logically explain to me why A should not happen based on the merits of A and only A.   You can't.  

Let's start with #3 (because it's most important and most powerful in my opinion):  We're talking about this not that.  We're talking about A, not B.   The relevancy to logical humans is of course this: you must not be able to argue against A,  since you're trying to make this about B instead -  and this is exactly why people use a slippery slope argument:  because they can't actually logically argue against A !   Call them out on this every time.  Every damn time.

Let's talk about #2 next.  The important point to note about #2 is that there is an assumption made on the part of the person making the slippery slope declaration.  If you claim to support gay marriage,  for example,  and someone on the other side of the argument says to you "but if we let a man marry a man,  the next thing you know someone will want to marry their dog,  or their toaster".   If this person knows you support marriage equality and is making this slippery slope argument to you - what they're really saying is that you must also support a man marrying his dog,  or a toaster.   Because what they're saying is if we let A happen, then it will absolutely positively lead to B happening.   And that is of course another flaw of the slippery slope argument because it requires that this be true:  every single person who supports A would of course obviously also completely support B as well.   Which is absolutely not the case,  ever.   My response to slippery slope is usually something like:

We're not talking about men marrying their dogs,  when someone proposes that perhaps you should ask me what I think about that rather than assuming I would go along with it.  Or,  if you want I can tell you right now that no I do not support that,  yet I do support a man marrying a man.   The reason for the difference is quite easy,  for starters a dog cannot give consent.   A dog is unable to satisfactorily and unquestionably consent to marrying a man.  But two adult males most certainly can give clear consent of their intention to marry each other. Having said that,  it is irrelevant why I would not support a man marrying a dog,  or a toaster,  because neither has anything to do with a man marrying a man.  They are completely unrelated to one another and I do not need to prove that I would support one but not the other,  and I do not need to logically state why I would not support a man marrying a dog - but I did anyway,  just because it's so easy to show how incredibly stupid your argument actually is.  

This effectively blows the slippery slope argument out of the water because what slippery slope says is "Under no circumstances must we let A happen,  because if we do,  it is an absolute fact that it will inevitably lead to B happening."   This is of course wrong because first there is no rule or law that says if A happens it means B happens automatically;  and it is also wrong because clearly there are people who support A but not B and thus,  a majority supporting this does not mean automatically that a majority support that.    You see, the power in destroying the slippery slope argument lies not in the person making that ridiculous argument,  but in the person the argument is being presented to.  Because the person making the argument is most obviously against both A and B!   And for their argument to be valid,  the recipient of such logical bunk must clearly support both A and B!   The argument only works if YOU agree that you would go along with both. That's the magic of the Worst. Argument. Ever.   The power is completely in the other person's hands.   All you have to do is say "Sorry,  I support A but I don't support B , so you're wrong".

And finally,  completing our trek backwards,  we have #1 which is the simplest and shortest route to shut down a slippery slope argument.  You simply say "Prove to me that if a man marries a man it means a man can marry a dog,  or that it will lead to the legalization of a man marrying a dog.  Prove this to me that it is absolutely true this will happen,  without question and without any shred of doubt.  Prove to me that it is a rule or law of physics that if one happens the other must follow.   Go ahead,  I'm waiting....."  And wait you shall.   It cannot be proven, why?  Because slippery slope is the Worst. Argument.  Ever.

I have never once heard a slippery slope argument that is not logically and completely broken.  Not once.  The reason is,  by definition it is already a failed argument.   We're not talking about that we're talking about this.   That alone is enough.   "We aren't talking about that".   Period.   All slippery slope arguments are logically broken by definition.  You cannot give me a slippery slope argument that cannot be destroyed by "we're not talking about that we're talking about this ".   Try it.  I challenge you to give me a slippery slope argument that is not fundamentally broken and invalid.

Here are some fun slippery slope arguments I made up just for the hell of it.  You may notice some are related to actual slippery slope arguments that have been made in the past,  with key changes on my part -  that is intentional to show just how ridiculous slippery slope arguments are.  Others are just nonsensical random comparisons that illustrate the stupidity of the slippery slope argument through exaggeration:

• If we let white people marry other white people,  what's next.... white people marrying white bread?
• If we let women vote,  what's next.... letting shoelaces vote?
• If we force people to have car insurance in order to legally operate a motor vehicle,  what's next.... forcing people to eat Skittles? 
• If you must be 18 to buy cigarettes,  what's next.... requiring people to be 18 to buy toilet paper?
• If we make it illegal to smoke in restaurants,  what's next.... making it illegal to eat in restaurants? 
• If we make it a law that you have to wear a seat belt while driving,  what's next.... making it a law you must sleep hanging upside down from the ceiling?
• If people are allowed to eat Skittles, what next.... forcing people to eat dog poop?

Worst.  Argument.  Ever.   

THB

The Hypocrisy of Throat Shoveling

(note:  I started this post a few days ago and now that the all important decision on same sex marriage has been delivered by the SCOTUS today,  I figure there is no better time to publish this)

"I'm so sick of the gay agenda being shoved down my throat!" Ignoring the obvious juvenile comeback to that one, this is one of the most common hypocritical statements coming from conservatives these days (and for the past decade).  The truth is, it is conservatives that wish to shove their agenda down other people's throats.  Let's examine...

Have you ever heard a homosexual person come out of a Nicholas Sparks' romance movie and exclaim anything along the lines of "What a sweet movie, except I'm really tired of straight people shoving their agenda down my throat!".  No? Of course not.  How about say... a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street - ever heard someone leave there saying "I'm so sick of rich corporate bastards shoving their agenda down our throats!" ?  No? I didn't think so.  If you're straight, have you ever been confronted in public by a GLBT person, who takes offense because you are holding hands with or kissed your partner, with something like "That's disgusting! There are kids here! Stop shoving your heterosexuality down my throat!"  Or if you're gay, do you have any straight friends who have a story like that? No?  Nah, I didn't think so.  What the neo conservative movement calls "shoving the gay agenda down my throat" is actually more accurately described as "people living their lives in a way I don't accept, and worse,  they don't try to hide it from me or pretend, just to make me feel better". The truth is, it is the conservatives that want to shove their agenda and their views down everyone else's throats.

When a Christianist (this is what I call a person who pretends to be a Christian, to distinguish from actual good Christians) complains about gay marriage and whines about the gay agenda, what they're really upset about is that their religious agenda is failing.  What really bothers them is that more and more the far right nut jobs are unable to enforce their views and beliefs on everyone else. What is touted as Freedom of Religion is actually "the lack of my ability to force my religion on others".  Let's examine that...

Amendment I to the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty simple. Is there anything about Christianity being more important than Buddhism, Nihilism, Atheism or anything else?  There is not.  But Christianists seem to think there is, and this is one of the main reasons we hear the constant whining and bitching about things being shoved down their throats.

Here's the the most important thing about Freedom of Religion: Yours ends where mine begins, and vice versa.  What I mean by that is you are free to exercise your religious beliefs, as long as they do not prohibit me from exercising mine. Freedom of Religion, like Freedom of Speech, is not absolute. You cannot do whatever you want, especially if that includes breaking the law, just because you claim your religion demands it. Think of it in the most extreme terms. If I started a religion and said "There is only one rule in my religion, to go to heaven you must kill at least one person every year for 5 years in a row. After the 5th year, you will get your ticket to heaven stamped and you're good to go."  Would someone subscribing to that faith be shielded from legal action if they killed someone? Would they be able to just throw up their hands and yell "Religious Immunity!!!" similar to that South African prick at the end of Lethal Weapon 2....

...of course not! And that just drives home the point that the Constitution is the highest law of the land, not someone's (anyone's) religious beliefs. And, if Congress cannot make any laws establishing a religion (in this example, Christianity), then what possible legal power does a Christianist have to impose their religion on someone else?  None. Zero. Zilch.  And yet, that is exactly what they seek to do when they seek to deny gays and lesbians from marrying.  

What is the reason Christianists give for being against the freedom to marry whomever you choose? The Bible. But that's religion, not law. Furthermore, it's their religion.  If I can't subscribe to a religion that says I have to shoot someone to get into heaven, and if that exercising of my "Freedom of Religion" doesn't take precedence over your right to not be murdered, then your religion doesn't take precedence over my life, either. It really is not a complicated matter.  You do whatever you want to do, and let other people do whatever they want to do. 

When Christianists seek to prevent gay marriage what they really are doing is saying "MY religious beliefs say that you cannot marry whom you choose, if they are the same gender" and what they're also saying is "YOUR religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are irrelevant here, all that matter is what I want you to do and what I want you to do is to follow MY religious beliefs, regardless of what your religious beliefs are".  And to continue this path of progression... what that means is what they're saying is "I have Freedom of Religion but you do not,  I wish to impose my religious beliefs on you, and FUCK your Freedom of Religion!".  Which of course leads us, finally,  to this: "I want to shove my religion down your throat". Make no mistake,  that is what is really what is being said when Christianists tell you that same sex couples should not be allowed to marry.  

If I sound angry, it's because I am.  This is an obscene violation of citizen's rights, and the Constitution.  Sarah Palin loves to throw around the terms "un-Patriotic" and "un-American" to anyone that disagrees with the crap that flows from her hole she calls a mouth.  But the truth is, there aren't many things more un-American than trying to force your religion on others.  That's Iran or Saudi Arabia, that's not America. The irony is, Christianists don't see how similar they are to groups like ISIS.  They think ISIS is the opposite of what Christianists are, but actually they're just two sides of the same oppressive coin. 

But back to why Christianists are against the freedom to marry whomever you choose. As I've discussed, they have no reason other than their religion.  Every other lame excuse I've ever heard has been destroyed by LFR (Logic, Facts and Reality). Let's look at a few examples: 

1. "If Homosexuality is natural, why aren't there gay animals"?   There are   NEXT!
2. "Gay people choose to be gay"  Oh really?  Tell me the exact date and time you chose to be straight,  along with specific thought processes you went through weighing whether you should be gay or straight and how you finally chose one over the other.   NEXT! 
3. "It's unnatural".  See #1.   NEXT! 
4. "It's gross".   So is that shit stuck in your teeth.  NEXT!
5. "Marriage is for procreation ONLY".   O.M.G.  This is one of my favorites. So incredibly ignorant. So every straight couple should have to submit proof of fertility before receiving a marriage license, right? And if any member of a straight married couple loses the ability to procreate (menopause,  anyone?) that couple's marriage should immediately be dissolved at that point,  right? And any post-menopausal female should automatically be precluded from ever marrying again,  right? Wrong. NEXT! 
6. "If we allow a man to marry a man what's next?  What about if a man wants to marry a dog".  Ugh.  Well for starters,  I could say the exact same thing about straight marriage.  "If we allow a man to marry a woman,  what's next, a man marrying his dog?". It works illogically just as well either way.   Oh and also,  slippery slope theories are bullshit. A slippery slope argument is basically this: " If we let this thing happen, what's next, some other thing that has nothing to do with the first thing?" Um... well that's simple.  We'll talk about that other thing when someone brings it up, until then we're talking about this,  not that.  NEXT!
7. "A child needs both a mother and a father".  Ok so then any pregnant woman who isn't married and refuses to be married before giving birth should be forced to abort, right?  And any couple that divorces should either be forced to still live together with their kids,  or if they refuse to live together then the kids should be taken from the split couple and adopted by a couple that is married,  right?   But here's the best one:  Say a woman is married to a Marine in Iraq...they have 3 kids.... he gets killed in battle... immediately we should remove the kids from her home and give them to a married couple instead,  right?  Yeah,  I didn't think so.  NEXT! 
8. "If gays are allowed to marry it will weaken my marriage".  Only if you're a closeted homosexual.  NEXT! 

The interesting thing is many of those claims have the same logic fail. They are things that when turned around to apply to heterosexual people, they are immediately exposed as being completely asinine.  I've never heard anyone suggest that people who can't have kids should not be allowed to marry, have you?  That tells me anyone using procreation as an "excuse" is just making shit up because they don't really have an argument and probably are only against marriage equality because "it's icky". 

What this brings us back to is the one valid complaint conservatives have about gay marriage: it's against their religious beliefs.  Yes, it is. But your religion does not trump the Constitution and thus, if gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs then I suggest you avoid getting gay married.

Marriage is a right,  and denying the right based on gender is a violation of the 14th Amendment...

...and as of today,  Friday June 26, 2015,  The Supreme Court of the United States agrees.  Let's end with this wonderful news:

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. 

The Ugly, Scary Side of Today's 6-3 Obamacare Decision (King v. Burwell)

Several months ago the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  agreed to take an absolutely ridiculous case which suggested that,  despite the overwhelming obvious intent in the 1000 page law, 4 words should be taken out of context and assumed to conveniently mean exactly what Conservatives want it to mean,  even though they didn't write it and even though the people who did have testified quite clearly what the intent was.   But they're Conservatives!  If anyone has the appalling audacity tell you what you think,  Conservatives are your Huckleberry.   Never mind the clear intent,  never mind the direct explanation of the lawmakers as to the intent.   We're the asshole branch of the Supreme Court,  and we'll tell you what you meant,  now sit down and shut up.

Ever since SCOTUS agreed to take the case legal scholars have weighed in,  the overwhelming majority claiming that even taking the case seemed ridiculous,  and making it clear that in their opinion a ruling against the Affordable Care Act in this case would be absolutely shameful.   In fact... now that I think about it, I am quite certain I did not hear even one legal scholar say otherwise.  This doesn't mean that Fox News didn't surely dig one or two up,  I'm just saying I have followed the case closely and read a lot of opinions about it,  and none of the experts thought the plaintiffs should prevail here.

But that's not what I want to talk about tonight.  I don't want to relish the win (I already did),  I don't want to speculate why Roberts voted the way he did (but I will anyway:  because he's not a dick, how's that for a theory?) and I'm not here to boast and brag or overstate the "6" in the 6-3 ruling.  No, I'm here to talk about the 3. The 3 Neocons who make up a full third of this court. The 3. The arrogant. The biased. The 3. Scalithomas,  3 corrupt jerks who are as consistently conservative as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.  In other words,  conservatism comes first and everything else is irrelevant.   Logic,  fact, simple decency or common sense... irrelevant.  Pride for the court and their place on that court... irrelevant.  The respect of their peers,  or some asshole with a blog.... irrelevant.   

In this lawsuit,  that means:  "we hate Obama,  we hate Obamacare,  we don't care that this lawsuit is horseshit,  we're going to side with the plaintiffs.... because we can".   They're basically untouchable - and as such,  they can do just about whatever they want and you can't do a damn thing about it.  So blow that pubic hair off your coke and drink up while 3 of the justices on what is supposed to be the highest and most respected court in the land extend their middle fingers to the President,  the lawmakers who created the ACA,  and most importantly,  the millions of people who would have lost their health insurance over 4 words that these 3 pretended meant something other than what they and everyone else knew the words actually meant.

Never mind Scalia contradicted his OWN words from the ACA lawsuit 3 years ago* when he clearly understood what the intent of Congress was and how the subsidies were meant to work, never mind the obvious doubt regarding the Plaintiff's "standing" - or that Scalia ignored the doubt about "standing" here even when in the past it's been extremely important to him (or so he pretended... at the time.... when it was convenient to do so).

*in the 2012 ruling, Scalia said:  "Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all."

They're the Supremes and they can do whatever the hell they want, even if it means ignoring their own statements from just a few years ago.  They (Scalia, Alito and the mute)  are not judges: they are not unbiased, impartial or even the slightest bit fair.   They are,  ironically,  the very definition of the Activist Judge that the GOP whines about anytime they lose a case (which is quote often).  And these 3 are Activist Judges on the highest court of the land.

1/3 of our Supreme Court is corrupt - I am incredibly disgusted and worried by that.  And you should be too.  

Don't forget who nominates judges to the Supreme Court.  The 2016 election is extremely important.


- THB

** Election Prediction Center **

For the past several Presidential elections I have followed the polling and state by state expectations with a great amount of interest (and anticipation,  and nervousness,  and hope).   So,  when I realized earlier today we have ONLY 500 days to go until Election Day,  I decided I would add a page to the blog and occasionally post an Electoral Map with my guess for the outcome on November 8th, 2016.

Yes 500 days is a long way off;  we don't even know who the candidates will be yet (ok actually,  yes we do)  but that's part of the fun!   Yeah... fun.

Anyway,  ok so we're 500 days out but the election is already well underway with several Democrats and 4.2 million Republicans having already announced their plans to run.   I will update this post with a new guess every 100 days until we get 100 days out,  and then I'll do it every 25 days,  with the last guess on Monday the 7th,  the night before the election.

So,  here we go,   my guess on June 25, 2015,  500 days out....

I have Hillary... er,  the Democrat beating the Bush 325 to 213,  with Clinton capturing most of the same states Obama took in 2012 except she loses Ohio and gains Arizona.  I think those are my only changes from 2012.  Polling shows Hillary solid in Florida (even against Jeb! )  but vulnerable in Ohio.  Anyway,  here's the map:

Why Republicans Have To Lie (Part 1)

I expect this to be the first in a series of commentaries I plan to make on the thesis that Republicans actually have to lie. They are forced to lie because they support positions that are unsupportable by truth and honesty. By the way, this brings up a point I want to make early on in this blog. When I talk about "Republicans" I am almost always referring to "Republican politicians" unless the context would suggest otherwise. In this post specifically, I am mostly talking about Republican politicians. And the subject of my commentary is entirely about Republican politicians. Or at least, I think it's going to be since I haven't written it yet. Plus, who knows, by "Part 4" maybe I'll be talking about voters instead. Stay tuned and we'll find out together. Now, on to the actual meat...

Republicans have to lie, quite simply, because if they were to tell the truth about their positions, it would destroy the entire facade of conservatism, a facade that conveniently demands that you enter a world of fairy tales and fabrications and machinations to make any issue about what WE the GOP say the issue is, never mind how ridiculously illogical or out of touch with reality that may be.

OK, let's get down to business. Today I want to talk about Voter ID Laws and the mythical Voter ID Fraud that has taken up quite a bit of our national conversation over the past few years.

First off, let's start with what the facts are. The facts are, Voter ID fraud is not a problem in this country - not even close. There are numerous sources for this information online and one only need to do a quick Google search to find them. Here is one from Slate, and another from the Huffington Post. I particularly like that 2nd one because it uses the favorite word of my 9th Grade Geometry teacher; "Bunk". Anyway, Voter ID fraud is not a problem in this country. 10 cases since 2000 is not enough to affect... anything. If you think otherwise, you should get back on your medication right away.

So that leads us to this; If Voter ID fraud is not a problem in this country, then why do Republicans pretend that it is? Well for starters, because Republicans have to lie. But Heartless Bastard, WHY do they have to lie? Ah, that's the juicy part, dear reader. The Republicans have to lie, because as stupid and easily dis-proven as their claim is, it's still much more appetizing than the truth! The truth is, Republicans believe that requiring Voter ID will actually suppress votes, and more specifically suppress Democratic votes. And here's the kicker (make sure you're sitting down, you won't hear me say this very often) - I think Republicans are absolutely right. Studies show that low voter turnout always always always benefits the Republican ticket. This is why Presidential election years are so bad for Republicans, because more people show up to vote, and it's why liberals are lucky that Senators are elected every 6 years instead of every 4, or else there are some that we'd probably never get rid of. But that's a topic for another time.

So now we know that low turnout actually benefits Republicans. Why is that? Well the short simple answer is Republican voters vote. Always. And they always vote for Republicans. Democratic voters... they're a bit more blase about the whole thing. Democrats just can't be bothered sometimes. They don't get fired up like Republicans. Apparently hatred and bigotry are much better motivators than equality and freedom, but I digress. Republicans know that if you make it even more of a "pain" to vote, then even more Democrats will say "Oh it's such a bother, I don't have the time". But Republican voters? Oh, they'll still vote and they'll proudly show their credentials. Some branches of our Democratic voting block are also... shall we say lacking in organization? Or to put it less PC, they just don't have their shit together. Meaning, they're overworked, tired, rushed, and are much more likely to show up at the voting location without their ID. Republicans know this and that's why they want to make you show ID.

On top of everything else, add in that the time to vote in a rich white neighborhood is mere minutes, while in some areas of Miami or Cleveland (both in the news in recent elections) inner city election locations were overwhelmed with lines of voters, some of which had to wait FOUR HOURS to vote. (which brings up another point that I'll mention later in this post) So now, consider this: you've been in a line that say lasts about 2 hours and let's say you're lucky and you've only been in line for an hour when you realize you forgot your ID ("lucky" as opposed to waiting the full 2 hours and not realizing it until the election official asks for your ID). Are you going to drive home and take 1/2 an hour round trip to get your ID and THEN wait in line for another 2 hours? Republicans are banking heavily that the answer to that question is "absolutely not" - and again, I think they're right. 

THIS is the reality of so-called Voter ID Fraud and the Voter ID laws supposedly designed to end fraud. The truth is the real reason Republicans want Voter ID laws is just so that they can suppress as much of the Democratic vote as possible and hopefully eke out a win. And the reason Republicans lie is obvious. Let's compare the two options, shall we?

LIE: We need Voter ID laws to prevent the massive voter fraud that takes place in this country. Voting is our most valuable right and the cornerstone of our Democracy and we must not let these (black) people steal our elections! We must take action to make sure our elections are fair and balanced (just like Fox News!)

TRUTH: " If we can't get the votes of the minorities, or, if we aren't willing to stop treating them like shit in order to get their votes, let's do something to prevent as many of them from voting as possible. Ok how do we suppress their votes? Well for starters make it harder for them to vote, and more of a hassle. Let's require ID. Ok how do we pitch that? Oh that's easy, just lie and say 'those people' are committing voter ID fraud by the thousands and we need to stop it! Oh, our voters will eat that shit up, after all, they never require proof of any of our claims, why should this be any different? Also, as soon as we find just one case of voter ID fraud, we'll have Fox talk about it nonstop for a month. Voila." 

And there you have it. The reason Republicans must lie about this issue is because as bad as the lie is, the truth is way worse. So they have no choice, they have to lie. It's just fortunate that they're Republicans because they're both good at lying and they seem to enjoy it since they do it so much.

One more thing. About that whole 4 hour wait to vote. Whether you wait 4 hours, 40 minutes or 14 minutes, it's probably time you'd rather spend doing something else. You want to get in, vote, and get out. Given that, let's examine the theory of voter ID fraud. I mean, let's pretend we don't already know for a fact that Voter ID fraud doesn't happen at any significant level. Let's just talk about the theory. 

The theory is this: Democrats want to cheat so bad that they're willing to do all of this: 

1. Research before election day to find someone in a precinct other than their own who is not likely to vote. Make sure to find someone of the same gender, race, basic age, etc.  (how does one even do that, exactly?)
2. Stand in line for hours to vote legally as themselves in their precinct
3. Go to a different precinct and pretend to be the person from #1 above, wait in line for hours again, pretend to be the other person and hope they aren't caught, all to cast 1 additional vote for the election.

Does that make any goddamn sense? How fucking stupid would you have to be to try that? It's ridiculous!! That is how incredibly stupid the Republican lie is... and yet, it's still better than the truth. That shows you just how bad the truth is on this issue, for Republicans. It is so bad, that the lie they came up with is dumber than a typical Pat Robertson audience. It completely defies any sense of logic or rational thought. 

If you are a Republican or anyone else that believes the Republican lie about Voter ID fraud in this country, my advice to you is simple. If you don't believe what I've told you here then check for yourself. Use the internet and find 50 cases of in person voter fraud in each of the 50 states. When you can't even find 5 cases in each of 5 states,  maybe you'll realize I'm telling you the truth,  and your politician isn't.  One can only hope. 

Summary: The next time a Republican (politician or voter) claims we have a problem with voter fraud in this country, call bullshit and set them straight.

Welcome to the land of Logic, Facts, and Reality!

I thought I would make a few comments on what you can expect when you visit this blog,   and maybe lay out a few guidelines,  ground rules (for both of us)  and definitions.

First and foremost,  the title.  Why "The Heartless Bastard"?   I thought this was a fitting title for a couple reasons.  First,  one my closest friends nicknamed me the heartless bastard a few years back,  and the title has definitely taken hold.   I don't want to give you the wrong idea,  I am neither heartless nor,  to the best of my knowledge,  a bastard.  I do have a heart and as you will see in this blog,  I do genuinely care for others.  But I also can be quite... blunt when it comes to some of the insanity that goes on in the world today.

The other reason I thought the title would be so appropriate is that it is a play on words.  I am a very proud,  very happy liberal.  Liberals are often disparagingly referred to as "Bleeding Heart Liberals".   I am not a "BHL",  hence,  the twist of a phrase and voila,  I present The Heartless Bastard.

Now,  what to expect from this blog?  Well for starters,  lists.  I like lists.   So,  let's have one here as an example.

What to expect on this blog: 

• Content:  
• You should expect a lot of posts about politics.  A LOT.   I'm just getting started,  so this is entirely a guess,  but I'd bet good money at least half of my posts will be about politics, especially with the 2016 Presidential Race already beginning. 
• Everyday musings about life
• Random comments about society
• The occasional scathing rant about something or someone that pissed me off today
• Miscellaneous crap like a list of my favorite TV shows of all time.  
• Summary: Whatever fits my mood at the time,  and that will usually be politics. 


• Rules:
• Not many.  I will speak my mind and you should speak yours.  If you reply with unsubstantiated political opinions or erroneous claims,  I will likely delete or not approve your post.  I'm new at this but presumably I have control over who posts comments and what they can post,  and I will exercise that control at my discretion.  
• Logic,  Facts, Reality:  These are the cornerstones of this blog,  occasional purely opinionated list of Top 80's movies notwithstanding.   But if the post is about politics you should expect logic, facts, rational thinking, reality, honesty.   Anything less and I expect you to call me out on it (*See:  Errors and Omissions).
• Humor:  There will be a lot of it,  even in political posts.  Have a laugh, relax, enjoy yourself.   Let The Heartless Bastard guide you.    
• Language:  There will be a moderate amount of it.  I like to swear.   


• Errors and Omissions:  Basically I'm going to say what I want when I want and if you have evidence I've made a mistake,  I will be happy to correct it.    The important words in that statement are "if"  and "evidence";  meaning, if you don't have evidence and just want to spew talking points you heard on a conservative media outlet (and no, I'm not just talking about Fox) you shouldn't waste your time.   I purposefully did not say "if you think I'm wrong".   That would indicate I will accept the opinion that you think I'm wrong.   That is not for this blog.  That is for a debate we can have over a drink or dinner sometime.   This blog is about (this should sound familiar) Logic, Facts, and Reality.

Well there you have it.  We made it through the first of many lists.  Speaking of lists,  I expect to have a page with a running list of Abbreviations I plan to use on a regular basis.   Like "THB"  for The Heartless Bastard,   or "BHL"  for Bleeding Heart Liberal,  or "LFR" for Logic, Facts and Reality.   Once I figure out how to be manage that list and update it regularly,  I'll add it to the blog.   

By the way,  I don't want to scare you away,  especially if you are a liberal, or independent thinker, or the rarely seen but much admired "OMC" (Open Minded Conservative, you betcha!). Although most of the attitude in my post above was obviously aimed at Neo cons, I fully expect and hope that the vast majority of visitors will be liberal, independent, or even the rarely seen but much admired OMC.  Basically, anyone who enjoys reading and pondering a rational commentary based on (Drumroll, please!) Logic, Facts, and Reality.   

Thanks for checking out my blog and many happy returns! 

-THB