January 7, 2016
Over the past several years, I’ve watched several cancers grow within the left and it’s strange to watch. I don’t even know where to begin. Let’s just jump right in.
How many of us have seen intellectuals criticizing different forms of bigotry, misogyny, and intolerance within mainstream religions and then a mob of regressive leftists turn back on them and claim that no, THEY are the bigots. People stand up for women’s rights, gay rights, and free speech and are told they are racist and intolerant of others beliefs. It’s so bizarre.
Or how about the language police? Turn on MSNBC and you’ll see this clown, Melissa Harris-Perry. Apparently, if you claim someone is a hard worker you’re now racist, offensive, and “problematic”. The only real hard workers are the poor single mothers struggling to provide for their children, or the black slaves way back when picking cotton in the fields. They knew hard work! The rest of us? We haven’t a clue and we can’t even use that word anymore. She also feels Star-Wars is racist. Why is Darth Vader, the evil villain, black huh? Was George Lucas trying to imply that blacks are evil? Watch it for yourself. Her sort of ilk live to stir up racism and want to pick fights. They’re vile.
Over half of young people within the left don’t believe in free speech anymore. You might say something that offends somebody. It’s all about safe spaces, coddling everyone, and making them feel at home. Many of you probably don’t follow this stuff, but it’s festering everywhere these days. If you watch this next video from Yale’s campus you see a mob of young people surrounding their chancellor, swearing at him, yelling at him, and telling him to resign. And what for? It’s hard to believe, but if you look into it, this was due to Halloween costumes. These students thought their chancellor should prohibit certain costumes because they thought they weren’t culturally respectful or whatever, and the chancellor basically said everyone should chill out and enjoy the holiday. This next video is what ensued.
I can hear you guys thinking, yeah Jason, those are just a cooky minority, and we always have those. They’re just a loud, vocal minority, nothing more. We can safely ignore them. Really? Let’s look at what these young people are watching on MTV.
To my generation, when Halloween comes around, you just try to be creative and have a good time. Whatever your costume, it’s not a big deal. If girls want to put on a sexy Halloween costume, hey, lucky us right? However, the left is becoming just like the prudish religious people I remember seeing growing up. As many of you know, my father is a pastor, and growing up he was an evangelist. We would travel to all these different churches and I remember one country church in particular where the women weren’t allowed to wear make-up and they all had to wear long dresses down to the floor. You wouldn’t want to give in to lust and sexual temptation! It amuses me to see that feminists are now bringing that sexual repression in a new form; dressing sexy is degrading and women can’t let themselves be sexually objectified. They’re so controlling and judgmental.
Listen to Laci go on about racist costumes, culturally insensitive costumes, sexual objectification, and on and on. She blows it all out of proportion, thinking way too much about it all. With these young people, just going out on Halloween night with your friends has become a social landmine field. You can’t wear that sombrero, it might offend Mexican immigrants. You can’t wear that sexy nurse costume, don’t you respect yourself? You can’t wear that samurai armor, don’t you understand there’s an entire culture and ideology behind that? This is the sort of petty drivel they work themselves up over. They suck the fun and life out of everything.
You’ve probably heard about how comedians will no longer come on college campuses because young people today are too politically correct. You can’t even make jokes. They get offended by almost everything. It’s not about your intent, or anything you’ve actually done. These leftists don’t care about that. It’s all about adhering to all of their social taboos. Certain words are just bad because they’re bad. A black comedian like Chris Rock can’t even make jokes about the culture he grew up in or the things he’s experienced because of uptight, entitled brats with no sense of humor. These campuses could never handle a stand up routine like this video below.
If you want to see how insane it’s getting within universities, check out this one. A transgender woman who was attending an all women’s university changed her sex to a man. Note that it’s very important that we get her sexual orientation right! He now identifies himself as “masculine of center gender queer.” My gosh, what a mouthful. I mean honestly, come on, is sexual identity THAT complicated? He was apparently running for some position as a diversity president of some organization on campus. This caused outrage and all the women screamed out that they wouldn’t tolerate a MAN as their president. Men are the very symbol of the patriarchy and oppression! So they tried appointing several black women for the position, but they didn’t want it and dropped out of the race. So this erupted into protests all over campus and all these women were telling the other students not to vote at all.
Speaking of which, I’ve never understood the left’s obsession with sexual orientation. Pansexual, demisexual, asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, they’re obsessed with sexual orientation. If you go on a leftist sight like Huffington Post, almost everyday you’ll see some celebrity coming out as some sexual orientation. Miley Cyrus comes out as pansexual! Really? Great! Why is this mainstream news? Don’t get me wrong, I’m very live and let live. I’m not going to interfere with your sex life and frankly, I could care less about it. There’s way more important things to be thinking about.
But the left doesn’t think so. Sexual identity is their big thing. They even try to create a new language around it all. Someone has decided that all these different sexual orientations need their own pronouns now, and those who aren’t using them are insensitive and disrespectful. I don’t agree with everything said in this next video, but take note of all this diversity and inclusion language stuff.
Honestly, I don’t know how these weaklings will ever function in reality. A debate took place at Brown university between a feminist and a libertarian. The feminist women were terrified that this speaker would “invalidate people’s experiences” and so they went to set up a safe space, a special room filled with coloring books, cookies, Play-Doh, calming music, puppies, and blankets. I’m not joking. That’s how infantile and pathetic this is all getting. Any of these poor women who might be troubled or triggered during the debate were to run off into this special room, their safe space, where they’d be hugged and coddled and told it’ll all be ok. I have way too much respect for women to believe that any of you ladies are that weak and can’t even handle a dissenting opinion. This is all because a speaker came in arguing a different position from theirs.
All of this is absolute lunacy. I can’t help but wonder where all this madness came from. The world wasn’t this crazy just a five or ten years ago. This stupidity just exploded onto the scene and now it’s everywhere. My friends and I have talked about this and think that this stuff existed in the past, but these vocal minorities have been very effective with social media, and their madness is seeping into the mainstream, like toxic sludge. Most people are not as crazy as those in the videos above, but you can see young people taking in these ideas and it’s sad.
I don’t really know how all of this happened, but I heard one young woman on Youtube talk about her experience. She started off on Tumbler, sharing her art with friends. Then someone sent her information about the gender pay-gap and some inspiring empowerment quotes from Beyonce. That got her subscribed to these feminist feeds and then she started absorbing all of these sorts of ideas. She started to become a full on social justice warrior until she found some Youtube channels of skeptics pointing out the flaws in all these ideas. Then she thought, my god, what was I being sucked into? That’s my best guess as to how these sorts of people are born and why so many young people are drawn to this garbage. They’re young, idealistic, and naive. This indoctrination of stupidity is happening everyday, as young teenagers sit in their rooms, alone on their tablets and computers, reading Tumblr and Facebook.
December 6, 2015
This is a paper I wrote for my neuroscience class and I thought it’s worth sharing on my blog. I’ve been studying beauty for a while now and I tried to do a quick overview of a lot of the research which is taking place today, placing it in all in a larger context. However, I really struggled writing this. I only had ten pages (double spaced) to work with. I could barely even scratch the surface with that. I will be on Christmas break here soon, so I plan to write some more posts on beauty and why the subject has been of interest to me lately. I’ll be able to get into more depth and detail then.
Throughout the tradition of western thought, truth, goodness, and beauty are three terms which are always discussed together. The world is delineated into the polarities of true and false, good and evil, and the beautiful and ugly. Truth finds itself in the spheres of thought and logic, goodness resides in actions and morals, and we are to enjoy beauty in aesthetic works. That is not to say these regimes are isolated from one another. Moral treatises discuss the spiritual beauty of a noble man with a virtuous character, scientists find an ineffable beauty in the structure and order of the universe, and poets attempt to crystallize beauty in a scene, in a face, or in a deed. There is certainly an overlap in these ideas, and they are difficult to untangle; beauty in particular is a very difficult concept to pin down. If beauty is entirely subjective, if it is simply adherence to the arbitrary customs of a particular time and place, then it is not something that can be defined. On the other hand, if it is objective, if it is something immediately apparent to any observer like other simple sensible qualities, then why is so much discussion required to sharpen our perception of it? The truth seems to lie somewhere inbetween, and whatever beauty is, it always seems to escape rigid definition. Despite these difficulties, modern science is attempting to shed new light on very old questions in the relatively new and rapidly growing field of neuroaesthetics. This discipline uses neuroscience to explain and understand aesthetic experiences at the neurological level. Using cognitive models, sophisticated brain scanners, and evolutionary theory, these neuroscientists are finally making some headway in the formerly intractable domain of the philosophy of beauty, though their progress is limited and there is a long way to go.
If one carefully looks through the literature, a reader will see that aesthetic judgments rely on a vast interplay of many different factors. Most research relates to the visual aesthetics of images, such as paintings or computer graphics, but there is also significant work dealing with music as well. The field has slowly been developing and adhering to an aesthetic model (Leder 2004) which captures the key processes of aesthetic experience, and while it mostly pertains to visual imagery, it can also be applied to other areas as well. This model (Figure 1) is useful in providing a general framework by which to organize the discussion in this text, though it must be noted that many important works in this field pay no mind to this model. This text will highlight a handful of studies which fit within the model and then move to some which do not.
Looking at the top of the model, the reader will see that every aesthetic experience happens within a certain context. If a person is told they are looking at a work of art, this will put the brain in a certain aesthetic orientation, and research has shown (Cupchik, Vartanian, Crawley, and Mikulis 2009) that his brain will process the information differently than it would have otherwise. When in an aesthetic orientation, brain scans reveal a much higher activation in anterior prefrontal regions. When not in this frame of mind, the brain processes the image almost entirely in occipital regions, related to perceptual processing. An aesthetic attitude primes the mind, creating an expectation of pleasure which heavily influences the intensity of pleasure experienced by the viewer (Kirk, Skov, Hulme, Christensen, and Zeki 2009). This effect can be very powerful. For example, if you present images of a beautiful city to people, yet tell them that the area of town is known for its terrible crime rate, they will rate the images and the people they see in them with a much lower beauty score than if you tell them it is a peaceful place which is wonderful to raise children (Leder et al. 2010).
Many aesthetic theories try to explain the various aspects of aesthetic perception by carefully analyzing the different stages of the perceptual process, and this is illustrated in the beginning stages of Leder’s model. For example, you can place colored shapes onto different colored backgrounds and ask people to rate the appearance. Research has shown that a strong contrast between the shape and the background is preferred (Reber, Winkielman, and Schwarz 1998). Why? These researchers say it is due to an idea called processing fluency. Basically, the brain is a lazy instrument and the more easily it can process an object, the more it will reward the person. They claim this also explains why we humans like things to be symmetric; symmetric objects are easier to process. It sounds plausible, but other research indicates that it cannot be the entire picture. If you show a person complex nature images but meddle with the contrast, you can change the image’s beauty rating without changing its processing fluency (Tinio and Leder 2009); contrast was found to have no impact on how quickly participants could identify the displayed images’ contents. Also, if the brain preferred to experience the same thing over and over, boredom would not exist. So this gets rather complicated. The brain seems to like things it is comfortable and familiar with, but it also craves new information and experiences. This has led researchers (Biederman and Vessel 2006) to propose models as to why people crave new experiences and grow tired of familiar experiences with repeated exposure. It is claimed this is due to the distribution of mu-opioid receptors in the brain and competitive learning. The density of opioid receptors increases as you reach deeper levels in cortical processing and repetition weakens the amount of positive stimulation. Their hypothesis proposes that the rate of endomorphin release in parahippocampal cortex determines, at least partially, our human preference for experiences that are both novel (because they are yet to undergo competitive learning) as well as those open to many interpretations (because such patterns would initially activate, through associations, many dense regions of mu-opioid receptors). There is evidence to support this point of view as well. For example, many music listeners report experiencing “chills” while listening to certain stirring pieces of music. If you give them the drug naloxone (Goldstein 1980), a mu-opiod antagonist that prevents endorphins from binding to these receptors, the chills disappear. There is a lot of debate in this area.
Other researchers are avoiding the use of complicated models to explain beauty. One experiment (Ishizu, T. & Zeki, S. 2011) had subjects look at pictures of paintings and listen to musical excerpts and then rate them on a scale of 1-9, with 9 being the most beautiful. Three sets of stimuli were created from these ratings – beautiful, indifferent, and ugly – and the subjects viewed and listened to these stimuli while being scanned by an fMRI machine. The results showed that while several areas were active during this process, only one cortical area, located in medial orbito-frontal cortex (mOFC), was active during the experience of both musical and visual beauty. They found that the more activation present in the mOFC, the stronger the reported intensity of the experience of beauty. Studies judging human sexual attraction report similar results (Ishai, A. 2007). Herero- and homosexual men and women were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of human faces. In heterosexual women and homosexual men, attractive male faces elicited stronger activation in their mOFCs than attractive female faces, whereas in heterosexual men and homosexual women, attractive female faces evoked stronger activation than attractive male faces. These approaches are valuable in that they tell us which area of the brain is responsible for our subjective sense of beauty, but they do not bring us closer to understanding what beauty is or why some things are judged beautiful and other things are not.
It is also possible to explain some aspects of our sense of beauty using evolutionary explanations, though it is difficult to find a clear evolutionary purpose for our aesthetic appreciation of art and music. If we want to argue that that an aesthetic appreciation is biologically ingrained in all human beings, these claims must be proven to be independent of any particular culture. This is difficult to achieve, however, there are studies which have demonstrated cross cultural aesthetic stimuli which are appreciated regardless of culture. Research has shown (Orians and Heerwagen, 1992) that nearly all children, regardless of their race, gender, or culture, are drawn to nature images which resemble the East African landscapes in which our species evolved. These images feature savannahs with a variety of open wooded spaces (for living and hiding), a body of water (for drinking), and trees with low hanging branches (for gathering fruit and escaping). This preference seems to be ingrained in most of us, and these preferred landscapes are found all over in calendars, screensavers, and murals worldwide (Dutton 2003). As a person grows older, they may think of all the mosquitoes, the crocodiles, and other dangers in that landscape, and all of these sorts of things may change their subjective preferences for a particular environment over another; but humans seem to be born with a default appreciation for East African landscapes. However, it is important to keep in mind that while this idea is plausible, these sorts of explanations fall victim to the same difficulties all evolutionary explanations do. No matter what theory you have, you can always make up an evolutionary reason why such and such must be the case. Why do people cooperate? That supposedly helps contribute to gene perpetuation. Why do people fight? It means their genes perpetuate and not somebody else’s. So do we like savannahs because they are where we evolved? Maybe, but it could be something else entirely.
There are also neuroscientists attempting to explain our appreciation for abstract art using evolutionary ideas (Ramachandran and Hirstein, 1999). The authors introduce eight laws of aesthetic experience, a set of heuristics artists either consciously or unconsciously use to optimally stimulate the visual areas of the brain. One such law is called the peak shift phenomenon, a neuroaesthetic principle which states that if an organism is instinctually or conditionally trained to respond to a stimulus, it will respond even more intensely to extreme versions of the stimulus. For example, it is well known that if a rat is taught to discriminate a square from a rectangle then rewarded for the rectangle, it will respond even more intensely if it is shown a longer and skinner rectangle. But what does this have to do with aesthetics? Take the highly sexualized cartoon character Jessica Rabbit from the popular movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit. What is it about how she is drawn that makes her so sexual? Jessica is a caricature of the female form which has been highly amplified. To make a figure like hers, you start with a normal woman’s body and then subtract away the average of all human bodies. This leaves you with an essence of the female form, the perceptual differences that make a female’s body female. Then you take this essence and amplify it into a distorted caricature. If a person is attracted to females, their mind will respond to this caricature in the same way the rat does to longer, skinnier rectangles. These ideas are informed speculation and it would be interesting to investigate whether the mOFCs of those attracted to women would be highly stimulated by Jessica Rabbit animations, even more so than realistic female forms.
This text only briefly highlights a few studies in a very new and exciting field. Neuroscientists are slowly building a model of the aesthetic process, but considering the infancy of neuroaesthetics, research is still all over the place. Most ongoing research deals with visual imagery and music. Many different plausible ideas are being proposed to explain different aesthetic experiences, but in general, there are disagreements, even when it comes to simple things like why we like one colored shape as opposed to another. Some researchers, like Zeki, choose to define beauty not in terms of a complicated model, but in the strength of activation within the medial orbito-frontal cortex (mOFC). While this may be the best we can do for now, overall it is unsatisfactory. What we want are general principles of aesthetic perception, similar to Ramachandran’s eight laws of aesthetics. Even so, we are a long way from arriving at a complete list of these principles and we have not even begun to tackle tougher issues, such as moral beauty or why a physicist finds a mathematical equation beautiful. Still, it is refreshing any progress is being made at all. Questions of beauty are as old civilization itself and little progress has been made since the ancient Greeks. As technology allows us to probe the minute details of the brain, we’re sure to uncover what the mOFC and other brain areas are doing along with the general aesthetic principles behind how they operates.
Biederman, I., & Vessel, E. A. (2006). Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist, 95, 249 –255.
Cupchik, G. C., Vartanian, O., Crawley, A., & Mikulis, D. J. (2009). Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain and Cognition, 70, 84 –91.
Dutton D (2003) Aesthetics and evolutionary psychology. In: The oxford handbook for aesthetics (Levinson J., ed), pp 693-705. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, A. 1980. Thrills in response to music and other stimuli. Physiological Psychology 8:126-129.
Ishai, A. (2007) Sex, beauty and the orbitofrontal cortex. Int. J. Psychophysiol., 63, 181–185
Ishizu, T. & Zeki, S. (2011) Toward a brain-based theory of beauty. PLoS ONE, 6, e21852.
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44, 1125–1132.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489 –508.
Leder, H., Tinio, P. P. L., Fuchs, I. M., & Bohrn, I. (2010). When attractiveness demands longer looks: The effects of situation and gender. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1858 –1871.
Orians G, Heerwagen J. Evolved responses to landscapes. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture [e-book]. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 1992:555-579.
Ramachandran VS, Hirstein W (1999) The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience, J of Consc Stud 6:6-7.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364 –382.
Tinio, P. P. L., & Leder, H. (2009). Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica, 130, 241–250.
November 29, 2015
You’ve probably all heard about the recent attack on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs. A 57 year old man went into the place, gunning down three people and injuring nine others. We all wonder to ourselves, “How can this happen?” Well, if you watched the Republican debates, you probably saw the candidates attacking Planned Parenthood, telling crowds of people that the organization is chopping up babies and selling their body parts for money.
Where they come up with this stuff, I have no idea, but media outlets like Fox News have been playing this up for months now. What better way to get their base stirred up? Abortion is an issue dear to most conservatives, and they were using this sort of rhetoric to make people believe that Hillary and Obama support an organization guilty of these atrocities. In his statement, the shooter specifically told the police, “no more baby parts.” He felt this was a holy cause and he was defending unborn babies.
We all know this is terrible, but I want use this incident to point out how there is double standard progressives use when criticizing religion. Progressive websites like the Huffington Post are railing on about how Colorado Springs is “America’s Christian Mecca”, and these backward beliefs can be linked to this sort of violence. The article rightly points out,
Local politicians have also been vocal about speaking out against abortion. In March, state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R-Colorado Springs) said that God had cursed America for its stance on abortion after a stranger stabbed a Colorado woman and ripped her baby from her womb.
“This is the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb,” Klingenschmitt said at the time. “Part of that curse for our rebellion against God as a nation is that our pregnant women are ripped open.”
So ok, backward religious beliefs can cause a minority of people who really believe in their faith to act on those beliefs. It’s a real problem. I’m in complete agreement.
But how come when different intellectuals, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or even the talk show host Bill Maher criticize Islam for a lot of similar backward beliefs, they are “Islamaphobic”. They’re labelled as bigots, racists, and anti-Semitic, and all debate on the topic is shut down. When we see videos like the one below, are we not allowed to discuss them? The leader asks his congregation if they believe that women who commit adultery should be stoned to death. They all raise their hands. He asks them if women should be isolated from making any decisions within their society. They all raise their hands. He asks them if they agree that all gays should be executed there on the spot. They all raise their hands. Then he goes on to say, “We all believe this way.”
There are a lot of backward beliefs floating around in Islamic culture which must be criticized. People who address these issues, fighting for gay rights and women’s rights are not bigots, racist, or Islamaphobes. Religion should not be immune from criticism.
You know what Huffington Post, you’re a Christaphobe! Christians everywhere, it’s time to rise up and scream, “Not in my name!” How could you possibly link this atrocity to Christian dogma? Millions of Christians live peacefully everyday, and now you’re going to associate this backward stigma on them, that they’re violent and liable to terrorist like acts due to their religious beliefs? Shame on you! Where’s Ben Affleck?
Ok, I’m not being serious. You’re not a Christaphobe. You should rightfully criticize backward, irrational religious beliefs. Just go a little further. Criticize Islam too. You can do it. There’s just as much stupidity in the Quran as is in the Bible. Culture is something that must be open for discussion and debate.
But progressives don’t view it this way. They are motivated by cultural Marxist beliefs. They stick up for Islam because in the U.S. Muslims are a minority. There are no Christaphobes because Christians are perceived as the majority in power. There’s no need to protect them with social taboos. They stick up for people who they feel don’t have a voice. This includes transgenders, gays, blacks, or whoever else is a minority. They feel they must run to the aid of any minority and protect them from criticism. It sounds noble, but it’s a poisonous set of ideas. Whoever perceives themselves as a victim or a minority comes to believe that their ideas should be immune from criticism. Anyone who criticizes them or their ideas gets some evil word attached to them and society is supposed to shun them. Everything becomes racist, sexist, and bigoted; the words lose their meaning. Any idea, no matter who believes it, is subject to criticism.
November 15, 2015
I often look into the eyes of animals and think, “This animal is conscious and alive, just like I am. It feels emotions, it has an awareness of its surroundings and where it is, and it knows hunger and pain.” This is definitely true of higher order primates, like chimpanzees. The question is, how different are we? Well, let’s take chimpanzees. Our genetic makeup is 98.9% the same. What makes up the 1.1% difference?
Half of that difference has to do with our sense of smell. Chimpanzees can smell far better than we can. What about the rest? Well, there’s some genes which account for our difference in pelvic arch, allowing us to walk upright. There are genes for growing hair (their fur), and we find some minor differences in our immune systems. All in all, that pretty much makes up the entire difference between us.
But wait. If that’s the case, why are we so much more intelligent? In short, we’re not, but the little intelligence difference we do have is based on a few genes which cause our brain cells to divide several times more during fetal development, leading us to have three times the number of neurons. That’s it.
It’s probably not quite this simple, but if you flipped those few genes in a chimp, we’d have a chimp with a human brain. I’m guessing it’d be able to do calculus, compose music, and write novels. It’s something to think about.
November 8, 2015
I have no idea who will win the Republican nomination, but the Democratic party seems to be split between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I wanted to highlight some important differences between the candidates and why I think Bernie Sanders is far more principled.
In the video posted below, you’ll see that Hillary changes her positions whenever it’s convenient. She was for the Iraq war , but now that we the people realized it was a fiasco, she now claims it was a mistake. She was staunchly against gay marriage, but now that gay rights is an important issue for many people, she has flip-flopped. Now she’s claiming to be a gay-rights champion and that she’s always been. She was for the Patriot Act until Edward Snowden exposed it and other programs for what they are; now she acts like she’s always been opposed to these unconstitutional programs. Hillary used to be anti-immigration, not unlike what you see in the Republican debates. Now she portrays herself as their new champion (and claims she’s always been on their side). As for the war on drugs, Hillary supported it, but now that people are fighting for marijuana’s legalization and have become aware of how many people are incarcerated for non-violent offenses, she has changed her position. Hillary licks her fingers and feels the political breeze and then says whatever she has to say to get elected. Then when she gets into office, she votes for any bill which serves the powerful interests who fund her campaigns. If you visit opensecrets.org, I encourage you to look at Hillary Clinton’s top donors. Who do you think she’ll represent?
Bernie Sanders was always against the Iraq war. He was against the Gulf War. He was against all the wars. He was against the Patriot Act, and was (I believe) the only senator to vote against it. He’s always championed universal healthcare and fought against big financial interests. He’s always argued that a college degree is now the equivalent of a high-school diploma, and that college tuition should be paid for in full. He’s always been against the war on drugs. He’s always been a champion of gay rights, even when, in his early career, it completely ostracized him from his peers. His positions have been the same throughout his entire career. As for Bernie’s supporters, they’re all individual people who donate, on average, $33.00. He does not even have a SuperPAC.
I was moved watching him deliver his speech to an empty room, warning against the wars in the middle east, how much it would cost us, and how it would destabilize the region. I like people who are consistent and principled. I don’t have to agree with them on every issue, but I like knowing who I’m voting for and what they’re about.
Why do I feel Bernie is the best candidate of all of them? I know this guy will help the poor get health insurance, will help young people pay for their college, will end the wars, will focus our resources toward our failing infrastructure, end the government’s programs spying on all of us (and the world), will end the war on drugs, and most of all, he would get money out of politics. Considering he’s the only one without a SuperPAC, he seems just the man to do it.