So-Called Liberal Site, "Freaked Out Nation," Freaked Out by (Then Censored) My Comments on Tom Cotton & Tehran, Iran

I had commented around the Internet a bit on the subject of whether Tom Cotton had known that Tehran is the capital of Iran and "got into it" on one site in particular: "Tehran Tom Is Alarmed That The Capital Of Iran Is Controlled By Iran."

However, if you go to that post and scroll down to see the comment section, you will find that it says, "You must be logged in to post a comment." That means they turned off the DISQUS commenting on that post.

Out of curiosity, I decided to check whether they automatically do that with old posts after they get to a certain age (which I doubted because DISQUS would still allow the older comments to be seen). Well, they don't. There are older posts where the DISQUS commenting is still on. What they apparently did is turn off DISQUS comments on a few "Tom Cotton" posts.

It seems clear they didn't want people to be able to read what I wrote there and didn't want me chiming in on other "Tom Cotton" posts around the same time. I had stopped commenting there but simply thought it would be wise to show them how to handle Tom Cotton without resorting to making things up about him, such as that he didn't know Tehran is the capital of Iran. That's how I found out that they had taken the steps they did to send what I wrote there down the Orwellian memory hole.

I simply planned to post a link to my more recent post on Tom Cotton: "More on US Senator Tom Cotton, Republican, Arkansas: Where and Why He's So Wrong."


Tom Usher

Look, people can censor all they want on their privately run blogs. I censor here. Some things just go beyond the pale. Some people want to swear up a storm or post porn or troll endlessly (not answer questions, etc.). However, I was certainly not unreasonable in any of my comments on that blog post. Their moderators hadn't cautioned me about violating any of their rules or anything. What they did was simply block others from seeing that they (Freaked Out Nation) had made a mistake by going along with the falsehood that Cotton didn't know the capital of Iran. To me, that's cowardly and dishonest on top of being wrong. It's what gives "liberal" a bad name.

So, here's the link to the discussion thread that was on that post. (Note: It loads accurately and quickly in Chrome.) That discussion thread is still there on their site (in their database and accessible, if you know what you're doing; I'm not talking about hacking either).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

More on US Senator Tom Cotton, Republican, Arkansas: Where and Why He's So Wrong

Watch this interview (that dances around the issues):

Uncommon Knowledge: Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton.

Here's my brief take on it.

Tom Cotton is completely wrong that a free press doesn't have the legal right to disclose any classified information. He specifically mentioned what Edward Snowden did. The press most certainly had a right to divulge the classified information. In fact, they, as did Edward Snowden, had a duty to disclose it. That's because what was classified was illegal activity on the part of the US government, unconstitutionally illegal activity. Absolutely zero classification is legal when it masks unconstitutionality by the government, period.

Concerning Iraq, the discussion in the video doesn't start with the Bush-43 policy toward Iraq leading up to the invasion and occupation. That's telling and of course, expected because the decision to attack was based upon a pack of proven lies, lies which were being called lies before the attack including being call such by yours truly.

On Ukraine, the discussion is based upon the false meme that Vladimir Putin has invaded Ukraine. In addition, the interviewer, Peter Robinson, makes the false claim that Merkel and Hollande were directed to go negotiate with Putin. They made the decision themselves and acted upon their decision over the objections of Washington. Then Cotton totally mischaracterizes the deal Merkel, Hollande, and Putin concluded. In no way were the Donbass forces not required to pull back from the frontline. They were definitely required and did so well before the Kiev forces pulled back on that side.

Tom Cotton referred to Russian violations of earlier nuclear-arms deals with Washington. What violations? The US violated the ABM Treaty.

You'll notice that there is no discussion about the quite large and extreme right-wing fascist element in Kiev. Poroshenko is busily trying to mask over that, but he isn't going to alter the hearts and minds of the Bandera forces who worked directly with the Nazis. We also have Yatsenyuk having said that Russia invaded Germany when it was, in fact, Germany that invaded Russia. We also have Poroshenko claiming that the Nazis and Bolsheviks conspired to start WWII to divide up Europe. That's an utterly ridiculous revisionist, PSYOP tactic. There was no such conspiracy. The Nazis were bent upon destroying the Bolsheviks, and Stalin was stupid not to have known that rather than signing an agreement with Hitler that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Once Russia was invaded by Germany and once Stalin came out of his severe depression at having been completely duped by Hitler, Russia resolved to fight the Nazis until the Nazis were totally crushed, which they were.

Now, what's wrong with Tom Cotton's ideology is that he doesn't understand that US imperialism has ginned up much more violent conflict in the world than the US would otherwise have seen. Terrible US foreign policy has caused the rift between Russia and the US, not Russian foreign policy. Russia and the US could be and should be the best of friends. We had a golden opportunity for just that, but George H. W. Bush (Bush-41), lacking the "vision thing," sat on his hands after the fall of the USSR rather than rushing to the aid of the post-Soviet peoples' humanitarian needs (including the ethnic Russians').

Let me point out that Tom Cotton knows these things. He's not ignorant of them. What he is, is "clever" enough to ignore them. I put clever in quotation marks because ignoring them is actually stupid. His kind of clever is the proverbial Satan's kind of clever, and Satan lost before he started.

On Iran, it doesn't have, and hasn't had since the revolution, and doesn't want, a nuclear-weapons program. Iran is being extremely transparent on this. It has agreed to highly invasive real-time inspections and oversight. It wasn't too long ago that the Bush-43 administration neocons (Cotton is a neocon) were lying through their teeth when repeatedly saying "Iran nuclear-weapons program." Even Cotton can't repeat that now because anti-neocons hammered with the truth.

The US should immediately lift all sanctions against Iran the moment the final deal is inked. There should be no incremental lifting of such sanctions. If Iran cheats. Sanctions could be reestablished and would be. Iran could even be bombed (into the stone age) if that decision were taken. It won't ever come to that so long as the US stops lying about Iran, stops spewing the neocon/Zionist garbage, etc.

As for the "death to America" chanting, John McCain sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."

Cotton keeps calling Iran the greatest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, but I have never seen a shred of evidence of such massive sponsorship or any, for that matter. Tom Cotton is just spreading false propaganda, making emphatic statements that he hasn't and can't substantiate with any hard evidence. What are US predator drones firing Hellfire missiles but terror, turning non-enemies into sworn enemies?

And what does Tom Cotton know about the Houthis? The Houthis have wanted a secular, democratic state, not a Islamic theocracy. Perhaps that will change on account of US backing for the Saudi dictatorship that is bombarding Yemen.

Cotton mentions Guantanamo but doesn't mention that a large number of those being held should never have been there (not that the place should have been created) and were cleared for release a long time ago.

Furthermore on Iran, where's Cotton's concern that the Iranians had a legitimate case against the US because the US had overthrown Iran's duly elected Prime Minister and installed a brutal dictatorship?

Then on economics, not a surprise, he lauds Hayek, the libertarian-capitalists economics demigod, who wasn't as "Libertarian" as his followers make out but who also was simply ignorant about economics to the extent that following his prescriptions is proven by the data to fail long after proper applications of governmental fiscal policies would fix the problems and keep them from arising in the first place and all while causing greater sustainable growth and technological innovation. (See: Monetary-and-Banking-Reform Platform for The United States)


Tom Usher

He did mention Abraham Lincoln, which was a surprise. He said that he is a Federalist. That's a feather in his cap. He also talks about serving the country, which came across as genuinely felt. He's just wrong about what's best for the people as a whole and the world.

What he also sounds like is terribly naive about American economic and militant, imperial history.

Finally, the anti-war movement isn't going to beat Tom Cotton and his neocon ilk by making false claims about Cotton, such as that he didn't know Tehran is the capital of Iran. We have to confront his ideology, his dangerous, misled, and misleading ideology.

See also: So-Called Liberal Site, "Freaked Out Nation," Freaked Out by (Then Censored) My Comments on Tom Cotton & Tehran, Iran

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment

"Obama Calls for End to Conversion Therapies," Which He Knows Little to Nothing About

Of course:

David Pickup, a licensed family therapist in California and Texas, said in an interview on Wednesday that the president and gay rights advocates were purposely misconstruing the work that he and others do. He said that minors should never be forced into therapy, but he insisted that being gay was often brought about by serious emotional problems or sexual abuse.

“We believe that change is still possible. People go to therapy because they can change, because it really does work,” Mr. Pickup said. “We help people grow into their authentic selves.”

Mr. Pickup said he and others were actively lobbying against the proposed state bans, and he urged Mr. Obama to “wake up and understand the rights of people who he doesn’t know anything about and need his help and need his compassion.”

Obama Calls for End to ‘Conversion’ Therapies for Gay and Transgender Youth -

04091502People falsely claim all sorts of things about various therapies. Some people falsely claim that such therapies are always harmful in addition to that they never work.

Well, literally thousands and thousands of people have gone through authentic reparative therapy. The majority come out satisfied with the treatment. Approximately a third are very satisfied. They don't consider themselves as having been harmed by the treatment but rather helped. Many lives have been completely turned around in very dramatic ways. Lives have been quite literally saved. People with unwanted same-sex attraction, some due to abuse, sometimes begin the therapy because they are at their wits end and even suicidal.

So, here we have a huge push on to get people falsely imagining that there's only some dark side to such therapy.

Look, the reparative therapists make no secret of the fact that therapy can stir up strong emotions and be unsettling, but that's true for non-reparative psychological and psychiatric treatments. It's common knowledge in those fields. Someone undergoing reparative therapy may have been stressed more than usual and might quit prematurely as a result and feel harmed. That though is zero reason to ban the treatment for everyone any more than it would be reason to ban all therapies where people become stressed by the progress while working through issues.

The boy who considered himself a girl in a boy's body and took the name Leelah Alcorn was not treated by a licensed reparative therapist. Such therapists are trained not to force the treatment on anyone. They instruct parents that only youths who are personally motivated and desirous of the treatment without any coercion are truly suitable clients.

Anyway, it's rather fascistic to deny individuals the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want help with diminishing or eliminating same-sex attraction. Who is anyone to tell such people, children and/or adults, that they can't be allowed to do what will do exactly that (diminish or in some cases, eliminate)? Who is Barack Obama to tell the American people that reparative therapy is evil and doesn't work and is more dangerous than other therapies he isn't calling to be banned? Honestly, he's very ignorant on the subject, as are the vast majority of people.

The NYT article mentions NARTH. NARTH has openly called for more and better research studies into homosexuality. NARTH has called upon the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to conduct studies with NARTH so that biases and errors in design and methodology can be reduced and hopefully completely eliminated. Those associations have so far refused.

I am confident that they have refused because they have been politicized by homosexual activists who put their ideology before scientific integrity. Of course, they could prove me wrong (at least going forward) by undertaking the joint research.

The American Psychological Association admits that sexual identity is a fluid thing. They admit it changes. Why they push that it isn't possible to do intentionally with the aid of a licensed psychologist and without harm just makes no sense without unscientific ideology entering the picture.

I personally know people who have gone through the therapy who swear by it. They literally thank God for it. What kind of people would deny them that, liberals, civil libertarians? Hardly.

Now, consider the child who is repeatedly homosexually gang raped and who then and only then becomes confused about his sexual orientation where he was clearly heterosexual in his own mind before that. How in the world can any civilized nation or state block that boy from getting help with overcoming that confusion and with restoring himself to his heterosexual condition? How can any law be moral that would force that child to endure even years without any such help?

Years to a child are as decades to someone my age. Inflicting such pain and suffering on traumatized children by reason of legally enforced neglect is sheer evil.


Tom Usher

I thoroughly repudiate Barack Obama's position on this. It is a rotten position based upon a pack of lies being spread by a one-sided group of people with an ideological, anti-science agenda that is vastly more dangerous and harmful than reparative therapy could ever be.

Shame on them. I fully support the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity, and so should you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment