How to spot a political extremist.

       Many times, online especially, you will run across people who seem to be so far out beyond reason they cannot be reached.  Those who live inside their own distortion bubbles.  While identifying them in other countries is easy, as they tend to carry rifles and shoot at government buildings; here in America, we are a bit more tame.  We need a way to easily tell who they are, so as not to waste time interacting with them.  I have a few methods I would like to share.

       First is the easiest: they self-identify as part of a known extremist group, such as the Tea-Party.

       Second, and less obvious:  they post items online that rely on assumptions to prove "Facts".  Examples are: "working class people who vote Republican have been brainwashed because the Republican party is run by rich people." and "The Republican base fears Obama will take their guns because they are all ignorant red-necks."  

       Now before you point out the obvious contradiction, or say I'm picking on anyone, those examples were used only because I had seen them both in the last hour.  

       A third method of spotting extremists is to look for "The Emperor's new clothes" reasoning.  "This is so obvious only a fool not worth talking to, would disagree"  (Again, from the last hour or so.)

       Any single one of these will not mark someone out as an extremist.  We've all fallen into logical traps like these before.  The idea though is to not look like a Bigfoot hunter.  Not to insult Bigfoot hunters, as a group, I am just holding them up as the standard of self-delusional stupidity.  Ghost hunters too, for that matter.  If at any point, any evidence could be perceived, in an any way to back up their claims; they stop looking for any other explanation. 

       This is the same as the "Birthers" not accepting the President's birth certificate.  "The real one is from Kenya, therefore this one is fake."  No other possible explanations are pursued, nor are they accepted.  

       Another tack you will see is the: "This is based on real numbers", yet no source is given.  This one infuriates me more than the others because, if you are online already to post something, you can take the five freaking seconds to look up a source.

       All of these methods, you will see, discourage debate, contradiction, or conversation.  Some outright punish it.  In science, any theory which has no method for disproving it, is false by definition.  We need more of that logic here.  

       What I am saying is based on real science and is so obvious, no one but a fool could see it any other way.  The rich, gun-toting red-neck hillbilly, bible-thumping, right-wingers, will obviously disagree with this.  So too will the anti-gun, entitlement-program loving, liberals who are giving our country away to the illegals.  But clearly, as they disagree with this, they are fools.

Rapid Fire

       I know I promised lengthy discussions on topics, but sometimes there is a lot of ground to cover in a short time so hang on and close your eyes if you have to.  Remember, my views are mine.  I only speak for myself, and sometimes my dog, but never anyone I have ever worked for, or whose schools I have attended, public or private, real or imagined, dead or alive.
   
       In my former fair city of Chicago there is currently a movement led by alderman Danny Solis to make the possession of marijuana a misdemeanor, punishable by a ticket, rather than jail time.  Rather than focus on what may or may not be the positives and negatives of this move in terms of legalization, lets focus on the alderman's argument.  That argument is that police spend 89,000 man hours arresting, booking, and jailing offenders.  That is just the police in Chicago.  No other city, not counting court time, etc.  This alderman feels that the officer's time would be better spent on more important things.  Good point.
       Alderman Tom Tunney is suggesting a crackdown for ordinance violations in the city ranging from dog licencing, and handicap parking to using camera technology to enforce speed limits and sidewalk shoveling.  I like that, enforce speed limits with robo-tickets.  That is the point when you stop pretending it is about safety.  A police officer giving you a warning enforces the speed limit.  An electronic ticket, aside from violating due process, is only about revenue.
       So Chicago news is summed up as:  Marijuana possession, decriminalized.  Not shoveling snow that you did not put there: criminalized.  See what I did there.

       At work we had a teleconference where some upper level executive was proudly telling us how CEO's of other major companies are approaching our company with basic problems, and asking for solutions.  He was rather happy because this clearly meant more money for our company.  What's not to like?  It does point to a sad truth though.  The CEO of a hospital does not know enough about running their business to know what equipment, or professionals they need to treat patients.  At that level this is actually expected.  They also don't know enough to ask the Doctors and Nurses and Technicians who already work there, and would know this information.  Likely they would know it better than the sales team of a single company.  Just sayin'...

       The Gross Domestic Product is up.  That is pointing to a recovery, or at least the end of the downward slide.  This is great news.  Unless you are unemployed.  See the current 9 percent rate is only those collecting unemployment.  The actual rate, which counts people who are no longer looking, no longer eligible, and the people with advanced degrees working the drive thru., is around 30 percent.  If you are a teacher, a nurse, or in any field where governments' bad decisions affect your ability to find employment, then the following does not apply to you.  With unemployment so high, and growth occurring anyway, there is only one interpretation to be had.  Those currently unemployed, with the exception of those listed above, were not really needed.

       In the paper today some buffoon wrote in bashing the tea-party.  I will not defend the Tea-Party, or their practices.  This buffoon's letter, though was not attacking their beliefs or practices.  Rather she was attacking the fact that these people are "half-educated, non statesmen".  Perhaps it is time for a civics lesson Martha (redacted) of Crystal Lake.  Our founding fathers were half-educated non statesmen.  Our country is founded on the belief that half-educated non statesmen can run it.  Until recently you would have been laughed out of the room for such an asinine moronic inaccurate statement.  Since we mostly have Ivy-League-educated statesmen running government now, and given the complete wreck they have made of it we should give the half educated non statesmen their shot.
 
       The true crime here isn't that the GOP has a splinter group of half educated outsiders that are winning elections.  The crime is that the Democrats don't.

The Tea-Party is not Libertarian.

       In nature extremophiles are creatures which live in environments we had assumed were unsuitable for life.  Near a volcanic undersea vent live tube worms who filter their food from the ocean nearby.  In the Arctic ice live polar worms, which also filter their food from the barely liquid water around them.  Both are worms, both cannot exist where other creatures live, both are only dimly aware of their surroundings, and most creatures, including people, are completely unaware of their existence at all.  Not unlike political extremists from both sides.  Volcanic and polar are analogues of reactionary and radical.
       It is from this position, somewhere in the middle, that I have learned about the Tea-Party.  As I am a Libertarian myself I have become very offended that these extremists, who are nothing more than the "Religious Right" reincarnated, are masquerading as Libertarians.  When the infiltrated and began taking over the Republicans I didn't care.  Hell, I thought it was funny.  This is something else.
       You see a Libertarian may believe in a religion, but it will not be the justification for every decision they make.  Read the pamphlets for the Tea-Party.  They base everything on the "word of God", (whom I sincerely hope they meet so he can set them straight on a few things, but that is another post for someone else's blog).  The Tea-Party seeks to impose their way of thinking on the rest of us.  Again this is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
       In a quest to be all things to all conservatives they are not only fracturing an already broken party, they are claiming to be something they are not.  President Obama is closer to a Libertarian than the Tea-Party, and that is not to say he is remotely close.  He isn't.  But then at least he isn't claiming to be.  (Note that I disagree politically with President Obama, but still refer to him by his title.  He is still the President.  My dad is a "Mr."  The leader of the free world gets a title, even if you don't like him.  Calling the President "Mr." is disrespectful to the country, not the man.)
       Libertarians seek individual freedom.  Anyone claiming to represent this ideal, and seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone else, is either completely ignorant of the meaning of the word, or purposefully lying.  Personally I think that the Tea-Party is good for the country.  Having bested all of our fascist enemies outside the country, we need a reminder of what we might become from within.  We need them to serve as a shining example of what we must not allow ourselves to become.
       I have tried to stay away from bashing any particular side of the aisle.  I don't feel it serves much purpose to be flagrantly partisan.  In this case though I felt a need to identify the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of this small, if much talked about, group.  When I tell people I am Libertarian I do not want them to think of anything remotely like the Tea-Party.