May
4
2015

Vote Dan Schwartz For GOP Nomination

Share Button

Vote for Dan Schwartz for the GOP nomination!!!!!!!!!

Write him in if you have to…. To quote Tony The Tiger….. “Heeeeee’s GREAT”!!!!!

Mar
18
2015

Explanation Of Moral Facts – Misses The Moral Boat.

Share Button

This is really a strange article. On the one hand, the author makes this point about the distinction between “truth” and “proof”:

“First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It’s a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.”

So much wrong here:

“It could be true that there is life elsewhere…”. The inclusion of the modifier “could” automatically disqualifies this from being an actual fact. Even though the odds say there should be life elsewhere, there is no proof. Therefore, it’s not a fact. It is indeed opinion and / or conjecture.

“Conversely, many of the things we once “proved” turned out to be false”. So? I don’t get the point. The truth or facts change over time when evidence is discovered that disproves it. We do that in science, and in sociology. And as far as people believing the world was flat??? That wasn’t a common belief. It was based on ignorance of science. It was well known much farther back than the 1400’s, Columbus’s time, that the world was round. The belief that the world was flat was superstition, opinion, belief, held by those who were not skilled or taught science or math or nautical navigation. Ironically, the belief that the Christian Church believed the Earth was flat is also a myth.

And then, this:

Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can’t. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Good Lord! This guy is a teacher??? That is a horrible example to use! I can’t off the top of my head tell you the circumference of the Sun, but that doesn’t make the most accurate measure to date a fact. You don’t have to understand the chemical mechanism behind the effects of ingesting hemlock to know that doing so will kill you. It’s a very proven fact.

The author relates this interchange with his son:

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes….

I asked my son about this distinction [between fact and opinion] after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:

Me: “I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?”

Him: “It’s a fact.”

Me: “But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion.”

Him: “Yeah, but it’s true.”

Me: “So it’s both a fact and an opinion?”

The blank stare on his face said it all.

If an opinion proves to be true, it is no longer an opinion; it is indeed a fact. And the example given, “I believe that George Washington was the first president”, is horrible if you are fleshing this out. The answer is actually a matter of opinion. There were seven Presidents of the United States of America under the articles of Confederation. The answer to the question depends on where you put the marker; at the first failed government of the country; or the second, under the successful one. I have no idea if either the author or his kid knew this… But Yeah… The blank stare did say it all. The author just misread it.

So, to the beginning of the article. How does this article start? It starts out this way:

“What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture. “

Question – How many of your students think it’s OK to kill people for fun???? Who ever answered “yes” to that question???

Who thinks cheating is not wrong??? I teach high school, and have run into instances of students cheating from time to time. To a letter, they know it’s wrong. But, because the good grade has been made the most important value in our school system, the cheating student will justify the act in order to get a better grade. It’s almost immoral to get low grades if you care about such things.

But the biggest problem with the article is, the author never establishes that, when breaking down the distinctions between facts, truth, and opinion, there are indeed moral truths.

PS. Just in case some may be inclined to think he’s some sort of religious nut, comments on facebook indicate he’s already been labeled as such, here is his rebuttal on the idea that the Bible says that homosexuality is a moral failing.

Feb
15
2015

Another Concise (short) Rebuttal (counterclaim, reply) To A Dumb Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

Share Button

There is an interesting conversation going on on a Youtube video about same sex marriage, and whether you are being oppressive if you speak out against it. Here is one comment:

Oppression?  Give me a break!  Supporting marriage, as it was meant to be, (one man, one woman)  is not oppression, it’s preserving the human race.

Here is my reply:

I’m gay, and I, like all gays, I concur and whole heartedly join you in your support of marriages between one man and one woman. We also support extending the right / privilege to same sex couples. Gays are probably only about a 5 % of the population, and of that 5 %, about 20 % of those would choose to take that path. Statistically, that would be about .01 % of the population who would be entering into same sex unions.

Since people can and often do have babies without getting married, which means the human race is quite capable of preserving itself quite nicely, how is allowing and extending marriage to about .01 % of the population going to destroy the human race???????

I’m just asking.

Here’s the video that sparked the conversation.

UPDATE: And it gets more interesting. After one commenter notes “To condone sin is a sin, we are to be for God’s word and not what the world wants!”, I respond:

“OK… So why not leave the argument at that, instead of making stuff up about preserving the human race.

Now that we agree on that point, could you come back and list some of the times you’ve condoned other sins? Because I’m betting you’ve not taken the same stand with family and friends who you knew were committing other sins… It’s just that Gays are icky.?”

The reply?

“OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER SINS BUT THE TOPIC HERE IS HOMOSEXUALITY AND HOW PERVERTED THIS WORLD HAS BECOME BECAUSE OF IT! ?”

Note that my question is never addressed. By not responding, the commenter seems to be admitting she is willing to ignore other sins in order to go after the favorite bugaboo. So, this statement “To condone sin is a sin” is meaningless then, isn’t it.

Feb
1
2015

A Concise (short) Rebuttal (counterclaim, reply) To The One Dumb Argument Against Same Sex Marriage

Share Button

“I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.”

“I, ______, take you, ______, for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part.

I, (name), take you, (name), to be my [opt: lawfully wedded] (husband/wife), my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

(Name), I take you to be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife). Before these witnesses I vow to love you and care for you as long as we both shall live. I take you with all your faults and your strengths as I offer myself to you with my faults and strengths. I will help you when you need help, and I will turn to you when I need help. I choose you as the person with whom I will spend my life.

I, (name), take you, (name), to be my beloved (wife/husband), to have and to hold you, to honor you, to treasure you, to be at your side in sorrow and in joy, in the good times, and in the bad, and to love and cherish you always. I promise you this from my heart, for all the days of my life.

In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.

______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wife/husband, and wilt thou pledge thy faith to him/her, in all love and honor, in all duty and service, in all faith and tenderness, to live with her/him, and cherish her/him, according to the ordinance of God, in the holy bond of marriage?

All these quotes are, of course, traditional wedding vows: Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc. Note the common themes – love and cherish, honor, richer / poorer, sickness / health, till death do us part.

The one thing you don’t see?

Now get down and have them big babies!!!!!!!!

It may be important to do, and marriage may make the bond between people who chose to be parent more permanent, but unlike “loving” and “cherishing” and “honoring” and staying together “Till death do us part”, having a child is an option, and not part of the pledge a couple makes, in front of God, or otherwise.

So please just stop using procreation as a reason why gay couples can’t get married.

Jan
29
2015

Remember When Someone Said…. (With Update)

Share Button

This????

Sarah Palin says this was an excellent night, that now the American people know we can turn things around because Romney was able to articulate that contrast that everyone has been desiring to see. As for Obama, she said he didn’t have answers because he was missing “his buddy the teleprompter”. Ha!

And This???

And This???

I think someone owes someone else a HUGE apology.

Actually, there are a whole lot of somebodies that owe someone an apology.

UPDATE! Uh Oh…. This might be worse than we though. There are reports that Sarah Palins teleprompter didn’t even go down. It may have glitched a couple of times, but it kept going.

Which of course means that she can’t even do this WITH a teleprompter!!!

Jan
16
2015

What Comes Around…..

Share Button

Recently, potential 2016 Republican candidate Ben Carson is quoted as saying this:

“A bunch of rag tag militiamen defeated the most powerful and professional military force on the planet. Why? Because they believed in what they were doing. They were willing to die for what they believed in. Fast forward to today. What do we have? You’ve got ISIS. They’ve got the wrong philosophy, but they’re willing to die for it while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness. We have to change that.”

Personally, I don’t have a problem with this kind of comparison.

But not too long ago, a certain political party did have a BIG problem with it.

When both Michael Moore and Brian Williams made the same inference, that, in some ways, Islamic terrorists are comparable to our founding fathers, it set off a shit-storm among right wing talkers and bloggers. For example…

Did you know that Barack Obama has the US military teaching an indoctrination course that equates our founding fathers with al Qaeda?

In some sort of twisted liberal politically correct logic, dumping tea into the Boston Harbor is the moral equivalent of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

This is according to a startling column by retired U.S. Navy Captain Jim Kinney.

Captain Kinney writes that in the new indoctrination course, the military, which is sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, is being taught that the authors of the document were terrorist extremists!

By this liberal logic, George Washington and Osama bin Laden are men of equal moral stature and equally to be honored…or equally to be branded as terrorists…depending upon your point of view.

Our ruling class defends the NSA spying authority…while a vast majority Americans holds the so-called “extremist” view that the scandal is a violation of our constitution.

Next:

Did you know that America’s Founding Fathers were terrorist “insurgents”? That’s not only the favorite line of the HAMAS co-conspirator CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations), but it’s now also the standard line from the AMC cable network.

AMC–the cable network known for the hit series “Mad Men”–has gone mad. Its new series, “Turn,” wants you to know that Islamic terrorists are no big deal because, hey, WE–yes, the Americans–were terrorists once, too. Like I said, this is HAMAS CAIR’s standard BS, and now it’s mainstream entertainment’s message, too.

Next, from 2005:

Brian Williams Spits on Founding Fathers

One of the best things about the Fourth of July season is that it reminds us how supremely lucky we are to inherit the gift left to us by our Founding Fathers — the gift of America itself. This is a time of year when all of us can tip our hats to those great men, whose sacrifices, risks and devotion to the concept of liberty led to the freedom and wealth that we enjoy today and should never take for granted. Unfortunately, there will always be some who do take them for granted, and lack not only gratitude, but basic respect — NBC’s Brian Williams, for example.

Williams was uninterested in the revelation that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president-elect of the brutally repressive theocratic dictatorship in Iran, is probably one of the terrorist thugs who held dozens of Americans hostage at our embassy in Tehran for 444 days, beginning in 1979 and not ending until the blessed day that Reagan was inaugurated. After all, Williams reasons, the Founding Fathers were terrorists too.

WorldNetDaily quotes Williams from his broadcast:

What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called “terrorists” by the British crown, after all.

The “someone” William mentions, as Michelle Malkin suggests, was apparently himself.

Here’s the complete list of the deeds of Washington, Jefferson, and the other heroes who bequeathed to us this great country that are in any way comparable to the terrorist activities of the Iranian regime:

There, I believe that list is exhaustive.

Williams can’t even claim originality for his obscene comparison of the Founding Fathers with Islamic terrorists. He borrowed it from the equally confused — though much less meticulously groomed — Michael Moore.

The term “mainstream media” gets to be more of a misnomer with every passing day. There is certainly nothing mainstream about the absurd liberal elite viewpoint expressed by network anchors.Brian Williams Spits on Founding Fathers

One of the best things about the Fourth of July season is that it reminds us how supremely lucky we are to inherit the gift left to us by our Founding Fathers — the gift of America itself. This is a time of year when all of us can tip our hats to those great men, whose sacrifices, risks and devotion to the concept of liberty led to the freedom and wealth that we enjoy today and should never take for granted. Unfortunately, there will always be some who do take them for granted, and lack not only gratitude, but basic respect — NBC’s Brian Williams, for example.

Williams was uninterested in the revelation that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president-elect of the brutally repressive theocratic dictatorship in Iran, is probably one of the terrorist thugs who held dozens of Americans hostage at our embassy in Tehran for 444 days, beginning in 1979 and not ending until the blessed day that Reagan was inaugurated. After all, Williams reasons, the Founding Fathers were terrorists too.

WorldNetDaily quotes Williams from his broadcast:

What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called “terrorists” by the British crown, after all.

The “someone” William mentions, as Michelle Malkin suggests, was apparently himself.

Here’s the complete list of the deeds of Washington, Jefferson, and the other heroes who bequeathed to us this great country that are in any way comparable to the terrorist activities of the Iranian regime:

There, I believe that list is exhaustive.

Williams can’t even claim originality for his obscene comparison of the Founding Fathers with Islamic terrorists. He borrowed it from the equally confused — though much less meticulously groomed — Michael Moore.

The term “mainstream media” gets to be more of a misnomer with every passing day. There is certainly nothing mainstream about the absurd liberal elite viewpoint expressed by network anchors.

Michelle Malkin:

Brian Williams said what?

Tons of readers are e-mailing me about NBC News anchor Brian Williams’ comments tonight in which he apparently compared the Founding Fathers to modern-day terrorists.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Neither Hannity or Rush seem to archive their shows that far back, but I used to listen to both when I was more comfortable being in the Conservative camp.

I wonder if they’ll call out Carson, a guy they all really really like, for committing the same offense?

Jan
16
2015

YouTube Banter! Hot Hot Hot!!!!!!

Share Button

 

MikeVonDoom states:

That bottle-throwing is pollution man! FUCKING POLLUTION!!!

Cyberw4y replies:

Glass = SiO (Silicon Oxide)

Lava: Molten Al, Si, Fe, Ni, Ma, Ca and their respective salts, including SiO.

Blame the volcano for spewing pollutant lava.

Mr. VonDoom replies:

+Cyberw4y Trolling like a sir! xD

This my friends, is the way it’s done!

Jan
15
2015

The New Honey Boo Boo’s – Mormon Homosexuals.

Share Button

 

So… The “Learning” Channel… Not having the Honey Boo Boo freaks to kick around anymore, have found a new set of freaks for us to gawk at… Homosexual Mormon men who marry straight women!

Yay! This should be a ratings bonanza!!!!… Not.

I would have loved to have been in the room when someone pitched this idea: “Hey! I know! Lets find and humiliate couples who marry to try to cure or avoid the grooms admitted homosexuality! Won’t this be FUN!!!!!”.

Yeah. Sounds like a blast.

Everything you want to know about the show exists in the trailers circulating on the web.

Though i never watched it, Honey Boo Boo worked in part I guess because you were always wondering whether or not these people were really this way, or are they turning up the “trailer trash” to 11 just for the show. Statistics on the longevity of these kinds of marriages are abysmal; between 51 and 96 percent end in divorce.  Seeing that these marriages are almost certainly very fragile to begin with, add the extra pressure of being foisted up into the circus spotlight, I expect we will probably see a divorce happen as the season unfolds.

Maybe that is the ultimate goal of the show. To see a divorce happen in real time.

It’s also a not too subtle attach on Mormons.

My Mates family is Mormon, which was very weird for me when we first began sharing our lives. At the same time Greg and I were solidifying our relationship, his jealous ex called his mom and told her everything about her son that she would never really have wanted to know.

So yeah…. The first few months into our relationship had some issues!

After the shock for everyone involved wore off, things became pretty good actually. The ex may have, in hind sight, done us a favor, as we no longer needed to conceal the true nature of our relationship. Though Greg’s parents were very active in ensuring the passage of both Propositions 22 and 8, they have treated me, and the relationship I have with their son, with great respect. By the end of the first year, I was invited to the yearly family reunions, get-togethers, and other family outings. We even slept in the same room on the first reunion I went to – which was kind of weird knowing how Mormons feel about homosexuality! When the time was right, they helped us look for a house, and his grandfather threw in a bit of money to help us out.

Thing is – They value the idea of family more than they hate homosexuality. So much of this hostility toward Mormons of course goes to their opposition to same sex marriage. His mom and I have had conversations about the marriage issue, and she still feels that the institution should be reserved exclusively for a union between a man and a woman.

Some people have told me that I should confront her and make her see that she is wrong.

To what purpose. She’s not going to change.

Guess what. Neither am I.

This show is, in its own way, confronting the Mormon religion. I would love to say their heart is in the right place… Showing something that, in the long run, is not a solution to the conflict between religious doctrine and the reality of ones personal life. But that is not the intent. It’s just another way to make Mormons look weird.

And here’s the thing…. What TLC, and so many others are missing, is that the Mormon Church, because of the easy way that church rules can be changed, they can be very flexible when they need to be. They will move much quicker toward acceptance than most of the other churches can.

Jan
8
2015

Why I Turned Away From Conservative News

Share Button

As the title says, I don’t trust Conservative news outlets much. There is the obvious cases where the reporting is just plain wrong. Last week, Conservative website Newsbusters chided the “national media” for either not covering the story a of former Acting Director of Cyber Security Health and Human Services who got busted and now sentenced for accessing child porn.

Here is their headline: Omission Watch: Media Bored by Violent Child Porn Sentencing of Former HHS Cyber Security Chief

They single out The Washington Post as one of the “national media outlets” that was interested in the story. They compare a short WaPo article concerning the recent sentencing of Timothy DeFoggi with a  “longer” article published by the Conservative media outlet The Washington Times, published when Mr. DeFoggi was originally convicted last year in September. The difference in the length is approximately 11  paragraphs for the Washington Times vs 9 for the WaPo.

Of course, the author of this piece that took down the evil “national media” apparently is Google challenged, as he didn’t seem to check if the WaPo had written anything in August when the guy was convicted, which of course, they did!

Fast forward a few months.

Lately, there is a story circulating right now about a 17 year old Connecticut teenage girl, who was diagnosed with cancer and is fighting the state about her cancer treatment. Due to severe side effects of the chemo-therapy the doctors are prescribing to treat the cancer, the teenager, with the support of her mom, is refusing treatment. The state has stepped in and is trying to force the girl to get treated.

Here is the story as presented on FOX News (you should read it to get the full flavor of the article). The article stresses the conflict over who has the rights to determine what treatment is used, and if the teenage, who IS nearly an adult, should have the adult right to refuse treatment. The story describes some of the bad side effects that often go hand-in-hand with chemo treatments.

On the one hand, these are legitimate questions in and of themselves. But this story, as presented on FOX News, is incomplete. They left some details out of the story.

You see, the young woman has Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This is a very important detail.

Why?

Because it’s one of the types of cancers that the medical community has become very successful at fighting and beating.

Here are some of those pesky details that the “lame-stream-media” went to the trouble to include. From NBC News:

Among oncologists, Hodgkin lymphoma is widely considered “one of the great success stories for cancer treatment because we can cure a high percentage of the cases,” said Dr. Mitchell Smith, director of the lymphoid malignancy program at the Cleveland Clinic. (He is not involved in Cassandra’s case).

Those outcomes depend mainly on the stage of the disease when it’s detected. The stage also helps doctors map out the most effective treatment course, which could consist of chemotherapy alone or chemo plus radiation. The standard course of chemo for Hodgkin lymphoma spans four to six months.

“I would say, overall, 80 percent is probably a reasonable estimate of how many patients are cured,” Smith said.

“It would be higher if you’re early stage. … The treatment’s very good. It’s all outpatient, usually well tolerated. Yes, patients lose their hair. Yes, there are risks to it. But in young, healthy patients, the vast majority of them get through it and go ahead and live essentially normal lives.”

Why do you think FOX News left out the detail that it’s very curable if detected and treated early???

Because it interferes with the “Bad Ol’ Big Guvment” theme that is a staple of Conservative media. I’m not saying it’s bad to be concerned with government bloat and the rights of citizens vs their government. But leaving out this information makes the governments case here much more reasonable as early treatment will save her life… And if your audience is also committed to being “pro-Life”….

Further, I thought this FOX quote was interesting:

“She knows the long-term effects of having chemo, what it does to your organs, what it does to your body. She may not be able to have children after this because it affects everything in your body. It not only kills cancer, it kills everything in your body,” Cassandra’s mother, Jackie Fortin, said in a video published on the Hartford Courant’s website.

What are the prospects of reproductive organ damage?

With regard to chemotherapy, the extent of damage to a patient’s fertility depends on the agent administered, the doses received, and the patient’s age at the time of treatment. Age is an important factor, and the possibility of gonadal recovery improves with the length of time off chemotherapy. The germinal epithelium of the adult testis is more susceptible to damage than that of the prepubertal testis.[3] The evidence to date (largely from adjuvant studies) suggests that patients older than 35 to 40 years are most susceptible to the ovarian effects of chemotherapy. The ovaries of younger women can tolerate greater doses.[4] Predicting the outcome for any individual patient is difficult, as the course of ovarian functioning following chemotherapy is variable.[3] Relative risk of ovarian failure and testicular damage from cytotoxic agents has been studied, and the alkylating agents have subsequently been shown to be damaging to fertility. The following agents have been shown to be gonadotoxic

So yes, she could end up being infertile. It’s not a guarantee that she will or won’t be able to have kids after the treatment.

That said…. Um…. Unless there is spontaneous remission of her cancer, which almost NEVER happens, NOT getting treatment means certain death, which of course, also leads to infertility. And by fighting and delaying treatment, they decrease the odds that the cancer can be cured at all. If they are concerned about passing on Cassandra’s genes, they could have some of Cassandra’s eggs frozen and stored if they are this concerned.

Lastly, I found this FOX featured quote from the mother kind of funny:

“It’s a question of fundamental constitutional rights– the right to have a say over what happens to your body– and the right to say to the government ‘you can’t control what happens to my body,’”

Now where have I heard that line before????

Dec
31
2014

Dumb Associations – Why Can’t Politicians Get Out Of Their Own Way.

Share Button

Here we go again. Another Republican, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), is in trouble for being associated with white supremacists. I was going to name this post “Republicans And Racism – Why Can’t They Get Out Of Their Own Way.” , but there is more to this than that.

I want to first make note that the  controversy is very reminiscent of the Ron Paul brough-ha-ha that surfaced in 2008. I kind of liked Ron Paul for a little while. He was kind of a thorn in the side of Republicans at large. I especially like his (and his sons) stance on getting untangled from so many of our needless foreign policy commitments.

I had thought about casting my vote for him.

But his, and his sons associations with Lew Rockwell is definitely a deal-breaker. Ron Paul insisted that those letters were not written by him, and he didn’t know about the racial undertones in them….

What?

This leaflet is a monthly letter! It’s got your name on it! It ran for years!!!!! There is NO WAY you don’t encounter it at some point. And if it’s not something you endorse, you, as a politician, would make DAMNED SURE this vile thing with your name on it gets shut down!

That brings us to this latest incident.

Part of me wants to believe this is an innocent mistake. So far, this seems to be the only incident of this manner. That said…. You have two problems:

(1) The guy that invited you to speak at this gathering is Kenny Knight, who, even at the time was a part of David Dukes political entourage and an open white supremest. Here is what Kenny Knight himself says happened:

“This all came about because I organized the EURO meeting for David Duke as a courtesy after he had moved to Russia. I’ve known David for 40 years so I did him a favor. As part of that, I decided to ask Steve, our local representative, to come by and say a few words before the conference started,” Knight said. “He agreed, believing it was going to be neighbors, friends, and family. He saw me not as David Duke’s guy, but as the president of our civic association.”

Knight continued, “Now, at the time, I was a prominent person in state politics. I was on the radio, I was doing campaigns. Steve knew who I was, but I don’t think he held it against me. He knew I lived by his street and that I was active in our community. And I didn’t see a problem with having him speak.”

So Knight himself establishes that Scalise knew he was a Duke acolyte. Knight himself doesn’t see a problem with Scalise speaking there… But why would he! He is hosting the event!

And then:

(2) The name of the organization is “The European-American Unity and Rights Organization”. Given Knights known association and support of David Duke, one would think that a politician of any awareness would hear warning bells given all this information.

This all gets back to my original comment about Ron Paul. Though, unlike Paul, things were not done in Scalise’s name, the fact that Knight was well established to be David Dukes right-hand guy would be cause enough for Scalise to turn down the invitation.

So why wasn’t it????

The answer can be found in two words: Local Politics.

It’s the same reason why then State Senator Barrack Obama had no problem associating with Bill Ayers and other former Weather Underground members. It’s not a problem when it’s local and the local communities are either indifferent to the problem, or, which may be the case here, support the cause. From the article above, it’s noted who spoke before and after Steve Scalise:

“Scalise spoke about taxes and government slush funds for a mere 15 minutes, Knight said. Scalise appeared in between a representative of the American Red Cross, who spoke about CPR, and a representative of the local sheriff’s department, who spoke about setting up a local Crime Watch group.”

Did the Red Cross and the Sheriffs Department also know who was throwing the party?

Hard to say.

Thing is, if both those entities were aware of the broader association of Kenny Knight and EURO, they probably didn’t give it much thought. When something bad is part of the natural political / social landscape, it becomes very easy to become desensitized to the wrongness of it. Is that very thing a part of the problems we are having right now concerning police brutality and race? One side simply can not see the problem because it’s part of the accepted political landscape.

I doubt then Senator Barrack Obama actually supported the actions of the Weather Underground, but it was a dumb political move in retrospect to have any association with Bill Ayers. At this point, without more evidence that Steve Scalise has done other things that point to overt racist views, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here.