School Choice and the LGBTQ Controversy

Progressives would see all children drown rather than provide lifeboats for some. 

School Choice and the LGBTQ Controversy
By: George Noga – May 24, 2020

      Progressives in Florida have worked themselves into a lather because some families exercise their freedom of choice under the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program to send their children to religious schools that are not LGBTQ friendly. They would rather take away the freedom of over a hundred thousand families than permit a few families to use their liberty to make choices with which they disagree.

        The LGBTQ scare is a smokescreen; liberals always have hated school choice because they are enamored with big government and teachers unions. From the start of the school choice movement, at which I was present, opponents have demonized choice. At first, they claimed vouchers could be used to fund schools run by the KKK or witches covens. Their latest claim that religious schools are anti-LGBTQ is being used as a bludgeon against corporations participating in the scholarship program and, in these hyper-PC times, they have caused a few companies to quit the program.

        A key question is: “Whose money is it, anyway?” No one objects to families using their own money for their children to attend the school of their choice. So, to whom does tax credit scholarship money belong? Credits differ from vouchers, which are funded by government. Unlike vouchers, credits never were state funds. The tax credit program was built on the principle of funder choice to keep government out and to permit families to choose. Progressives treat scholarship families as inferior to those using their own funds to pay for their children to attend the same schools.

        That government schools discriminate against religion is obvious; less obvious is that public schools promote their own religion. They teach a vapid, politically correct, secular and valueless orthodoxy that, instead of reinforcing parental values, is antithetical to them. Tax credit scholarships permit the lucky recipients to escape failed government hell holes, which often are petri dishes for social dysfunction and breeding grounds for behavioral pathologies. Progressives oppose religious schools but force children to attend schools that indoctrinate them with the government religion.

        Critics of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program are hard at work cudgelling companies with the club of political correctness if they don’t agree to quit participating. However, if companies quit the program, that means fewer scholarships inasmuch as  companies can’t pick and choose who receives the scholarships or which schools recipients choose. Thus, a family may not, for example, have a scholarship available to move their LGBTQ child from a public school where he/she is being bullied relentlessly into a private school that provides a safe, nurturing environment.

       Progressives are acolytes of the secular, valueless government religion; they hate it when even one person sends their children to a real religious school. They shamelessly have used the KKK and witches covens as scare tactics. Progressives would much rather see all children drown than to provide lifeboats, solely because they object to the choices a few people on the lifeboats may make.


Our next post on May 31st chronicles the death of the American dream.
More Liberty Less Government  –  mllg@mllg.us  –  www.mllg.us

Uber and Gay Marriage

The hypocrisy runs deep. Liberals want anyone to be able to share a marriage but oppose consenting adults sharing a ride (Uber) or sharing an apartment (Airbnb).

Uber and Gay Marriage
By: George Noga – October 16, 2016

       The poster child for the sharing economy is Uber Technologies, Inc. but there are many others including Airbnb, Lyft and TaskRabbit. Sharing increases productivity via leveraging underused resources and labor; it has become wildly popular by providing platforms for people to exchange goods and services. Customers save big bucks while Uber drivers make $15 to $30 an hour and Airbnb hosts up to $30,000 a year.

     Customers log on to Uber; instantly their location and profile (name, photo, rating) are sent to nearby Uber drivers. The assigned driver transmits location, automobile, name, photo, rating and fare to the customer, who can track the Uber car in real time. In minutes the customer is in a spotless recent model car with complimentary bottled water. Payment via preestablished credit card is 50% to 65% less than a taxi. Drivers and customers rate each other; every incentive is in place for a favorable experience.

     Compare this to many taxi experiences. You call a harried dispatcher who can’t tell you when a cab will arrive or the fare. The cab arrives 25 minutes later and the driver is unkempt, speaks poor English, speeds and drives aggressively. The taxi has a musty odor and the radio is blaring obscene music in a strange language. You pay triple the Uber fare in cash without rating the driver. Forget about bottled water. Complaining is futile because taxis are a local monopoly and customer service is an oxymoron.

     Uber is incredibly popular with customers and drivers. Customers save big money and enjoy a safe, pleasant experience. Drivers work only when and where they wish at prices they voluntarily accept. Often, Uber drivers already were enroute to near where their customers wanted to go. The shared ride also saved fuel and reduced emissions.

     Given the contrast between taxis and Uber, why would any sane person wish to ban Uber and force the taxi monopoly on the public? Yet, that is precisely the liberal position. Every progressive group and politician that stridently insists any two people can share a marriage are adamantly opposed to any two people sharing a ride or an apartment. Liberal opposition groups include trial attorneys, labor unions, government rent-seekers, regulatory agencies, race-baiters, taxi cartels and, of course, politicians.

     Bill de Blasio wants to cap the number of Uber drivers; he said, “Uber skirts vital protections and oversight.” (Translation: He can’t collect taxes and enforce union wages.) Hillary Clinton said, “The gig economy raises hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job looks like.” (Translation: government intervention and regulation are needed.) Bernie Sanders, “I have serious problems with unregulated businesses like Uber.” Mayors of many liberal cities have tried to stop Airbnb. Other opponents include, inter alia, Elizabeth Warren, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

     The sharing economy has helped more people, especially poor, young, seniors and minorities, than any government program. It empowers more people to be their own boss and benefits the entire economy by increasing productivity and cutting costs. Liberals fear these new opportunities make people less dependent on government; they always choose government force over voluntary cooperation, i.e. markets.

     More so than any other benefit, liberal opposition to Uber and the sharing economy exposes raw hypocrisy like progressives’ ersatz claim to support “choice”. They are unwavering about a woman’s right to choose (Translation: to choose abortion) but oppose the same woman’s right to choose where to school her children, to own a gun, not to join a union or not to buy health insurance. Now they oppose the same woman’s right to share her car or to share her apartment. The hypocrisy runs very deep indeed!

Fake Solutions to Fake Problems

America is facing economic stagnation, failed schools, a nuclear Iran and is fighting global Islamic terrorism. Progressives are fighting for men to use the ladies’ restroom.

Fake Solutions to Fake Problems
By: George Noga – October 2, 2016

      As we approach the election, we are bombarded from the progressive side with a panoply of phony issues to which they proffer equally phony solutions. They don’t have real solutions to real problems; all they can offer is maskirovka and rope-a-dope.

     The most serious issues America faces are: weak economic growth with income stagnation, radical Islamic terrorism, Iran as a nuclear threshold state, chronic debt and deficits approaching critical mass, and failed government schools. Progressives don’t want to discuss any of these issues; instead, they talk of climate change, gun control, a war on women, transgender restrooms, and environmentalism – all phantom issues.

     Climate change is fake because it is man-made in only an inconsequential way, if at all, as well documented in prior posts. It is a classic Baptists-bootleggers political coalition of true believers (environmentalists) and their fellow travelers (government) who stand to benefit. The latest fake solution is the climate deal signed earlier this year in Paris where politicians from 175 countries agreed to keep doing whatever they intended to do anyway and with no consequences for non compliance. In an ultimate irony, the fake climate deal to fight a fake enemy was signed in the same city where just a short while earlier a real enemy, Islamic terrorism, slaughtered 130 real people.

     Gun control is progressives’ go-to issue. We published a series, Guns in America, available at http:\\www.mllg.us which proves to any scient person there is no positive correlation between guns and crime and there likely is a negative correlation, i.e. more guns equals less crime. We followed that up with a Harvard study showing social, cultural and economic factors (and not guns) are the determinants of violent crime.

     Gun control is a phony issue for which progressives have proposed a long train of phony solutions. Not one proposed measure would have prevented any mass gun violence in America. Their most recent phony solution is the “no fly, no buy”  proposal to ban gun sales to anyone on the no-fly watch list. This is a small and notoriously inaccurate list that excludes all recent terrorists; it would have no effect on terrorism.

     A war on women and the campus rape culture likewise are imaginary issues. Duke, UVA and Harvard (The Hunting Ground) have been debunked. College campuses actually are safer for women than elsewhere. Women’s pay is equal to or higher than men’s when making proper adjustments for education, experience, danger, etc. Liberal solutions also are imaginary such as constant ongoing affirmative consent for sex. Progressives refuse to criticize the real war on women in Moslem countries, replete with, inter alia, genital mutilation, no driving, burkas and Sharia law. Go figure!

     Transgenders constitute .00006 of the population, making this issue a tempest in a teapot. Progressives insist anyone who self identifies as any gender can use any public facility at anytime. They demand young girls accept showering with men and that they simply get over any discomfort. Yet, they dictate transgenders not be required to use facilities conforming to their biological gender because it may cause them discomfort.

     Environmentalism is a totally ersatz issue. Every metric (100 of them) shows both human and environmental well being to be the best they have been in the past 50-75 years and getting better all the time. Their fake solution is to spend ever more and more money to eke out ever less and less imperceptible benefit and to elevate a tiny fish (delta smelt) over the well being of hundreds of thousands of real human beings.

     Take the real issues identified in this post and contrast them with the phantom issues and solutions put forth by progressives. They use misdirection, smoke, mirrors, and rope-a-dope for emotional appeals to low information voters. They never address serious issues with serious solutions. They choose instead to fight for transgenders against young girls but not for all Americans against radical Islam and a nuclear Iran.


The next post in our 2016 election series addresses political correctness.

Transgenders, Dragons and Unicorns

So, you believe you may know a little something about transgender issues? Think again! Do you know about PGPs, cisgender, gender fluidity, pangender, otherkin and unigender?

By: George Noga – August 1, 2016

      A transgender went to the store where xe bought apples for xemself; xe ate xyrs apples for xem lunch. A pangender went to the store where they bought apples for themselves; they ate their apples for their lunch. A gender fluid went to the store where ve bought apples for perself; sie ate ver aples for vis lunch. The preceding illustrates approved uses of PGPs, or personal gender pronouns, of which there are at least 45, or 30 more than I used in this paragraph. This is serious business. The NYC Commission on Human Rights decreed anyone failing to use correct PGPs can be fined $125,000.

    The 99.994% of us who are cisgender, i.e. our self identity conforms to our biological gender, have much to learn. Transgender is merely the proverbial camel’s nose under the gender identity tent. Following are some other forms of gender identity.

    Gender fluid: Since gender identity is entirely subjective and self determined, it stands to reason that a person is whatever gender he/she/they/zie/sie/ey/ve/tey/exe/per decide(s) to be at any given day, hour or moment. Young people in particular are gender nonconformists and gender defiant and resist fixed gender identities.

    Pangender: Those who believe they are all genders rolled into one are pangenders and must be addressed with plural pronouns. An Oregon pangender teacher claimed harassment when others failed to use correct pronouns; she (they) settled for $60,000.

    Otherkin: Some people identify as nonhuman – dogs, lions, etc. Some identify as creatures that do not even exist such as dragons and unicorns. Some otherkins have modified their bodies to be more like their otherkin identity.

    Once the Pandora’s box of self identity has been opened, it will not be limited to gender issues. There is nothing to stop anyone from self identifying as being (1) disabled; (2) of a different race, ethnicity, minority group or nationality; (3) of a different age; and/or (4) of a different income cohort. A young healthy rich white person could self identify as being a person of color, poor, old and disabled to qualify for disability, social security and other government benefits. Where does it all end?

    Just as there is much more to transgender than you thought, there also is much more to the issue than just restrooms. How about locker rooms, showers, dorms, fraternities, sororities, sports teams and who knows what else? Actions that once were crimes, such as exposure, flashing and voyeurism, now would be perfectly legal. Dirty old men no longer need to lurk in the shadows; they can walk into any restroom or locker room with teenage girls; indeed, it already has happened at public swimming pools.

    Solutions are elusive. One Oklahoma school district opted for single stall restrooms which anyone could use for any reason. The Obama Administration would not approve this sensible solution and threatened loss of all Title IX funding. Not to worry – MLLG has a solution. Anyone who feels threatened can simply claim to be a unigender, a new (made up) gender that believes it must be accorded privacy. Since gender identity is entirely subjective and self determined, unigender must be as valid as any other gender.

    The Obama Administration asserts teenage girls simply need to get over their discomfort at seeing naked men next to them or showering with them. They fail to grasp the pure paradox of their position. On the one hand, they assert gender and genitalia are wholly irrelevant and demand young girls accept anything in a public facility. On the other hand, they assert that for transgenders, gender and genitalia are not only relevant but supremely important and that they shouldn’t have to get over their possible discomfiture in using restrooms that conform to their birth gender.


The next post is August 6th – the 71st anniversary of the Hiroshima bomb.

Pope Francis Enters the Twilight Zone

When Pope Francis strays from religion, he is eminently fallible; he has erred

about clergy child abuse, climate change, capitalism, economics and Trump.

By: George Noga – March 13, 2016

  As an observant Catholic for much of my life, I take no pleasure in chronicling the recent pratfalls of the pontiff, which have been too numerous to ignore. The most egregious is his shameful re-characterization of the priest sex scandal as “child abuse” which now replaces “pedophilia” as the Holy See’s descriptor of choice. What actually happened was neither child abuse nor pedophilia as Pope Francis well understands.

  Only 3% of the clergy sexual assaults were pedophilia, i.e. involved prepubescents; 97% of the victims were older; ipso facto, the scandal could not be pedophilia. Child abuse is a gender-neutral, catchall term connoting non sexual forms of abuse. In the priest sex scandal, the only abuse was sexual and it was not gender neutral. Overall, sexual assault victims overwhelmingly are female; in the church scandal, the victims were 80% male. Therefore, the scandal could not possibly be considered child abuse.

   Okay, so what really was the scandal and why does it matter so much the pope dissembled to such a preposterous extent? Pure and simple, the scandal is homosexual abuse of young males. The church, abetted by the media, injected the polemical straw men (pedophilia, child abuse) solely to palliate and obfuscate. The motive was in part political correctness; but the greater motive was to avoid dealing with the 900 pound gorilla in the room, i.e. the increasingly dominant homosexual culture of the church.

   Independent studies estimate priests at over 50% gay with a higher percentage for younger priests. Some seminaries are so militantly gay, they drive out heterosexual seminarians. Pope Francis knows this truth full well but he either will not or cannot change the culture; instead, he disingenuously changes the name of the problem.

   Pope Francis imbibes the climate change kool-aid. At the UN, he pleaded for immediate action and blamed the problem on capitalism’s “selfish and boundless thirst for power and material prosperity.” He forgot the worst environmental degradation in Earth’s history resulted from socialism in the USSR and is now being cleaned up by those selfish capitalists. Only rich countries can afford to protect the environment.

“A poor child in an African slum doesn’t need a solar panel.”

   He doesn’t get that squandering trillions for uncertain, infinitesimal benefits means we cannot spend it to alleviate suffering from unsafe water, malnutrition and lack of electricity and medicine. A poor child in an African slum does not need a solar panel! Pope Francis undoubtedly is well-intentioned but we all know where that road leads.

   Economics is Pope Francis’s real blind spot. He believes capitalism makes people rich by exploiting the poor. Unfortunately for the pontiff, even the most cursory look around the world confirms the dead opposite to be true. The poorest people under capitalism in places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Korea are light years better off than those in socialist sinecures like Venezuela, Cuba or even Francis’s native Argentina. Capitalism has lifted one billion people out of poverty in China and India.

   This brings us to Trump. Is building a wall unchristian? Is the USA unchristian for creating great wealth amidst liberty and becoming a magnet for people everywhere? Or are Mexico, Cuba and Venezuela unchristian for creating great poverty, stifling  liberty, fomenting civil unrest and making life so miserable their people flee from their homes?

   There is a pattern in the pope’s pratfalls. He has a socialistic, Utopian world view that is demonstrably contrary to how world really works – especially the world of economics. Pope Francis needs to stick to his knitting to avoid further embarrassments.


The next post dissects recent EPA carbon regulations in a manner not found elsewhere.

 

The Truth About Matthew Shepard

By: George Noga – January 17, 2014
      Like me, you probably accepted the media version of Matthew Shepard’s murder; there was, after all, nothing to contradict it. As reported by the media, on October 6, 1998, Matthew Shepard, a 21 year old University of Wyoming student, left a Laramie bar late one night with two men, was brutally beaten and crucified to a fence post where he was left to die – although he clung to life for 6 more days.  He was murdered solely because he was gay in what universally has been touted as the hate crime of the century.
      Shepard’s vicious murder became a bedrock of liberal-progressive shibboleths about the hate permeating middle America. During the 15 years following Matt’s murder, liberal and gay rights organizations have orchestrated the activities listed below; they continue to this day with unabated intensity and undoubtedly will persist ad infinitum – whether or not they are true.
  1. Even before Matt died, national gay rights groups trumpeted Matt’s story as one of extreme homophobic cruelty and violence; they condemned Laramie, and by extension all of middle America, as a crucible of intolerance. The national media uncritically bought in and made the case a cause celebre. Matt was portrayed as an innocent martyr.
  2. At least four TV movies have been made – each one increasingly mawkish.
  3. The Shepard saga has spawned a panoply of art, poetry, publications, studies, museum exhibits, merchandise and dramatizations – which continue 15 years after his murder.
  4. Matt’s mother founded the Matthew Shepard Foundation, which sells goods including a hoodie emblazoned with “Erase Hate”. She travels widely and gives 50 speeches a year.
  5. The most successful commercial exploitation of Matt is The Laramie Project, a play staged thousands of times; it is among the 10 most ever performed plays in high schools. It  depicts life in middle America as ugly, violent, intolerant and hopelessly psychotic.
  6. Schools throughout the land use “Laramie” study guides that direct classroom discussion about homophobia, our culture of violence and rampant injustice in fly-over America.
    There is one thing wrong with the previously accepted facts of the Matt Shepard murder saga: they all are lies; none of them is true. What really happened was a murder resulting from a drug (methamphetamine) deal gone sour. To top it off, one of Matt’s murderers, Aaron McKinney, was also gay and likely had a prior sexual relationship with Matt Shepard. Also, the crucifixion to a fence post never happened. This bears repeating in a bigger font.
“Matt Shepard was murdered by his gay lover in a drug deal gone bad. Everything you ever thought you knew about Matt Shepard is a lie.” 
     The real facts have come to light only recently, primarily in a book published in October 2013 entitled “The Book of Matt“. Its author, Stephen Jimenez, is both progressive and gay. To his credit, he ended up writing a book far different than the one he originally intended by following facts wherever they led him. Jiminez studied Shepard’s murder for 13 years, interviewed hundreds of witnesses and scoured thousands of pages of public records. His book has been critically acclaimed even by gay groups and favorably reviewed by the Advocate.

The Real Lesson From Matt Shepard’s Murder

     The abject fecklessness of the media in the Shepard case is hard to fathom – even by someone who believes they are slime. It’s not just that they blindly accepted “facts” provided by biased sources advancing a point of view. Most disturbing of all is that Matt’s saga exposed their universally and deeply held belief that the monstrous brutality of Matt Shepard’s murder occurred solely because he was gay; moreover, such events were de rigueur in small town middle America. After all, these rubes all are gun-toting, homicidal, psychotic homophobes.
“The visceral contempt and hatred liberals, progressives and
the media have for America is the real hate crime of the century.”
      I also am disappointed with myself for having accepted the “official” media version of Matt’s death. At the time it happened and as the years have passed, I could not reconcile the ersatz facts of the Shepard case with my view of America. In the America I know and love, the events as originally reported could not have happened. I was right; they did not happen.
      The visceral contempt and hatred liberals, progressives and the media have for America, on full display for all to see in the Matt Shepard case, is the real hate crime of the century.