Hitlary

First let me be clear on what I mean when I say "Hitlary":

We have before us two sets of problems, one cultural and one economic:

• The war of the sexes is now becoming unsustainable. The LGBT community is caught in the middle of it with political games being played about weather or not they should be allowed to raise children. The two extremes are Men Going Their Own Way, who in a nut shell feel that it is time women should simply be replaced in Men's lives by robots, and 3rd Wave Feminism, who declare masculinity as a vice or evil, and joke around about the male population being reduced by 90% (since conflict is supposedly bad and testosterone supposedly causes conflict.) Policies attacking so called "dead beat dads" when men have a minuscule fraction of birth control options compared to women and absolutely no ability to reproduce without a female cooperation are an example of this problem. Men not getting motivated to find a spouse until his (and her's) genes are so old that they are at increased risk for autism and other birth defects are another example of this problem. And this war of the sexes is escalating rapidly, with no end in sight.
• Our world and country's populations have become too big for everyone to be playing real-life Monopoly for keeps. If you think that the "free market" is going to solve the staggering environmental, combat, terrorism, starvation, slavery and other safety challenges our world faces today then you are naive. Ultimately now we have to choose between democracy and capitalism, because the world has become too small for both of them. Choosing capitalism is choosing an end to that world, choosing democracy is to choose for us to keep moving on as a species into the future.  Allowing Obamacare to leave so many uninsured while blaming this failed policy on employers is one example of this problem. A higher education system that leaves its students it is supposed to be helping heavily in debt with few job prospects is another example of this problem. Meritocracy itself has failed us.

A vote for Hitlary is a vote to address the cultural problems. A vote for Sanders is a vote to deal with the economic problems. Obviously intelligent educated people with internet access understand that humanity's survival is at stake, and are militantly supporting Sanders. We can not stomach the idea of voting for someone like Hitlary who wants to go backwards from what Obama has accomplished, and who is so closely associated with a man who massively failed the progressive movement in the USA.

However should Hitlary still get the nomination, I may still vote for her, and maybe so should you, and here's why:

1. In 2008 I supported Hitlary over Obama because her individual-mandate was left of what Obama was suggesting he wanted as a universal health care system. Even though Obama got elected, it was Hitlary's health care system with the individual mandate that prevailed. Obama has suggested Hitlary is playing a smarter political game than Sanders, and can't just brag about how "socialist" she is to taunt the right. Name any given policy that Sanders supports that Hitlary doesn't, and it might be just as likely to culminate with Hitlary as it would with Sanders. Take her lackadaisical attitude towards health care - we can all smell that she intends to let the right take it apart while she blames it all on them. I suspect her plan is to do that with incremental "compromises" that expand medicaid and medicare, so that by the time the GOP is done with their repeal and replace victory we'll have the medicare for all that Sanders (and apparently Trump) are so exited about.
2. A young father recently asked me "what is the big deal about Justice Scalia, why all the celebration over his death?" I replied to him "almost every crappy thing in our lives can be traced back to this one man." Only partially kidding, I have since realized how literally true that statement was. A supreme court vacancy is no joke. Sure I would be a lot happier with Sanders choosing the supreme court replacement over Hitlary, but am I going to say that her pick would be as bad as what Cruz or Trump would come up with? No way. This is a very irresponsible time to vote 3rd party.
3. We are in a far more advanced place now when talking about ethnic prejudices than we were before Obama was elected. "Black Lives Matter?" Not if Hillary got the nomination in 2008. This culture war between male and female has to end, too much resources are being diverted to this cause that shouldn't be. We need to move the conversation very far past Men Going Their Own Way and 3rd Wave Feminism. The only way I see us getting out of this left-on-left infighting over genetics and sexuality is appeasing the majority of the aggressors by electing a female president:

Affirmative Action

I am what most people would call "white." I have an advanced degree from a private university. I have just about as much white straight male privilege as anyone from an economically challenged area could dream of. I don't rub shoulders with economic elites while eating caviar, but I obviously have far more advantage than most others.

I love affirmative action. Here's why: every time I apply for a job or a raise, and I do NOT get it, I really have to ask myself "is this because I am a white straight male?" I applied for a union organizing position in 2010 where they said "minorities and women strongly encouraged to apply." Not only did I write a Master's thesis on organizing worker cooperatives and have management experience, I had the inside scoop on a very specific contract this very specific union was after.

I didn't even get an interview, not so much as an e-mail response or a phone call. You MUST be asking "is this because I was white straight male?" And that's great. It's AMAZING!

Why? Because every time any minority doesn't get a job or a raise they ask for, they have to ask themselves "is this because I was not a white straight male?" The ONLY realistic way to make THAT fair is to make white straight males have to ask themselves the same question. Affirmative action accomplishes that.

I have yet to relay my opinion to any of my many minority friends and have them say "wow, that's great! You are right, that's affirmative action is all about!" Instead they usually reply along the lines of "Wow, that is horrible. See, none of us should have to go through that!"

But if those of us with highly significant white straight male privilege are supposed to be helping those without it, as well as fighting against that privilege, how are we supposed to do that without any empathy or sympathy towards those that feel discriminated against? Even though it is a minuscule fraction of the discrimination of those without white straight male privilege deal with, this small taste of indignation gives us much more opportunity to develop sympathy than we would otherwise have.

Free Will

WARNING: This is an overtly religious post.

Atheist: What about X, Y, and Z regarding your religion? You sure are gullible.

Me: Well, A (answer to X,) B (answer to Y) and C (answer to Z).

Atheist: Apologists want to believe because they are invested in their belief. You are an apologist because you replied to my questions and accusations of your gullibility. Also, here's another 100 issues I have with your religion.

Me: Yeah, but can we get back why you brought up A, B, and C before we get into your new goal posts with those 100 other issues?

Atheist: Wow, you will make any justification you have to in order to believe, won't you? I don't waste my time with apologists!

Using science to disprove ideology or ideology to disprove science is not an appropriate use of science or ideology:

1. Science is observations and conclusions of observations about the natural world. It is by very definition what we can know about reality through observation. We use it as a means to get information. Science is never absolute, it can always be disprove in the future, it is never "infallible." This means that science itself declares that there will always be more to learn, and that it will never discover everything there is to know. Any science person saying that science has disproved that there is any "God" is making an unscientific claim, because science does not ultimately prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, if it is really science.
2. Ideology is a tool we use for making decisions. It is a culmination of values, processes and mythology that make it easier for people to make decisions. (In the case of Secular Humanism for example, because it is not possible to know that there is not a God, their assertion that there is no God is their own mythology.) If we discover environmental damage is happening by way of Science, weather or not we should do anything with that information is a question of ideology. Any "science" claiming to be a decision making process is actually an ideology, because the scientific method is by definition NOT ideology.

Not all ideologies are equal when it comes to the survival of the people who subscribe to them. Ideologies that take science seriously have a serious advantage over the ones that don't. This is a scientifically observable fact, as we see with lesser ideologies that for example reject vaccinations. (Secular Humanism's strength its solid foundation of values and heavy reliance on science.)

As the New Age fringe loves to tout, there are aspects of reality far beyond our current scientific understanding. As science states itself, we will never know everything through science alone. This means that there MUST be forces we don't scientifically understand influencing our lives today. This does mean that it is possible that one of those forces is intelligent (God,) and that we may never discover this God through science.

If there is a God we will never discover through science, how can this God reach out to us? Every miracle can be explained away by "coincidence" or "illusion": 

• If this God came flying down out of the sky tomorrow morning and shook your hand, by that afternoon you could be asking yourself questions like "am I losing my mind" or "did someone use secret technology to make me think I saw this God?" Answering those questions "yes" would be using "illusion" to explain a miracle. 
• If you had a growth in your arm, and it was growing quickly, and you received a faith healing, and the growth had completely disappeared by the time you got to the doctor a few days later, you could soon explain it away saying "oh it must have been something other than a growth that went away on it's own." That would be using "coincidence" to explain away a miracle.

Practiced doubters would be able to explain away any possible way this God could try to contact them. The more vested people are in their atheist ideology (like Secular Humanism for example,) the less likely it will be for them to discover this God.

Because of our free will, if there is a God, this God will not force us to believe. What we do is based on what we believe. (For example, I look both ways before crossing the street because I believe a car could possibly injure me if I run out in front of it.) If this God forced us to believe, that would also force our actions. A theoretical God that would want us to have free will would not dictate our beliefs because that would destroy our free will.

I empathize with atheists who have not had supernatural experiences. I can't expect them to believe in an invisible God without any evidence. I admire Secular Humanists who choose beliefs without this God that cause them to be virtuous people. 

However, for the rest of us who have had supernatural experiences, faith in this God is a choice. But a warning to those who choose to believe in this God: this God would know that you do not know for 100% absolute certainty that this God exists (or that anyone who claims to speak on this God's behalf accurately presents this God's will.) This God will not allow you to use "but I thought you were real" as a justification to excuse some evil you decide to justify through your God-laced ideology. Even if you have powerful faith and relatively large amounts of personal evidence that this God exists, this God will expect you to have secular justifications for your actions! (See also "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love thy neighbor as thyself.")