The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

On January 31st of last year, I published a blog which shared the story of my battles with sexual abuse and epilepsy growing up; the depression and suicidal thoughts which sprung from them; and how artist Marilyn Manson's interviews and music essentially saved me. Within hours of releasing that extremely personal story, actress Evan Rachel Wood published an Instagram post, which alleged Manson of multiple forms of abuse, including sexual. While it was an incredibly surreal moment for me, I refused to comment on it until both parties made their case and evidence was gathered one way or the other. Yes, call me crazy, but even as an abuse-survivor myself, while I feel every abuse allegation should be taken seriously, I'm also a staunch believer in due-process. For the most part, Manson (real name Brian Warner) stayed mum following the allegations. Not long after Ms. Wood posted her Instagram message, he shared one of his own, where he vehemently denied all allegations. After that,...

On July 28th, I posted a blog entitled, "An updated Obama chain email continues to be filled with BS (http://thekind-heartedsmartaleck.blogspot.com/2015/07/an-updated-obama-chain-email-continues.html). In this chain email, which has been continually updated throughout Obama's tenure, 37 claims were made. Thanks to a fact-checker by the name of Matthew ( http://barnson.org/node/1880), here are how things broke down:  True: 4 (10.8%) False 27 (73.0%) Mixed: 3 (8.1%) No grade: 3 (8.1%) In other words, anywhere from 30 to 33 of the 37 claims were at least partially false (81.1% to 89.2%).  Just this afternoon, I received a response to this post, which said something along the lines of this:  "I think you're at least half wrong. What qualifies you to fact check anyway? I know #36 is true. This is probably something the White House came up with." It honestly doesn't take much to fact-check, dear reader. If someone tells me that Nairobi is the capita...

Even though 97% of climate scientists, whom responded on the matter, believe climate-change is happening, is at least partially due to humans, and poses a serious threat for all of us in both the near and distant future, and even though loads of evidence continually supports these very claims, it seems as if 97% of the GOP, while believing in climate-change to a certain degree, simply see it in the manner of former George Carlin stand-up character, the hippy-dippy weatherman. For those whom are unfamiliar with Carlin's character, the hippy-dippy weatherman needed to give just one forecast in his short career, where he said something like this: "Hey man. Que pasa? What was that? Que pasa? So, I'd bring out a map to show you the weather, but I don't have one. So here's your forecast. Tonight? Dark. Partially light in the morning, and the weather will be changing on and off for a very long period of time." So, that's it. According to the Republican Part...

I read a letter-to-the-editor today which was titled "Some trust the government too much." While I can understand this statement in isolation, I have trouble understanding it when in conjunction with the words, "Put all your trust in God." Many people whom claim to believe in limited government (or no government at all) and that we shouldn't trust the government very much, will also say that we should place all our trust in a higher power. While this may make sense to them, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Let's look at this for a moment. With government, while it has been known to slip up a time or two, it's still physically present. We have physical evidence to prove that the government exists and that it can benefit people. With God, there is no such physical evidence. When I attempt to find God, I see nothing. When I attempt to talk to God, I hear nothing. When I attempt to reach out to God, I feel nothing. So while I can understand not ful...

One major difference between Republicans and Democrats I've found when talking to them is that it seems as if more times than not, Democrats base their opinions on what they think, whereas Republicans base theirs on what they feel. This isn't true in all cases, of course, but it's happened enough times where I feel it's more likely a trend than an aberration.  Teachers and scientists are identifying themselves more and more with the Democratic Party than the Republican one. On the other side of things, religious leaders (Christian ones, that is) are identifying themselves more and more with the Republican Party than the Democratic one. Perhaps this plays into the thinking vs. feeling theory. Whereas teachers, scientists and the like enjoy reading, experimenting, learning, expanding their horizons and aren't typically satisfied until there is ample evidence to support an idea or hypothesis, religious leaders can't base their opinions on concrete evidence, for ...

This letter-to-the-editor is in response to Tuesdays' letter, entitled, "Gay agenda pervades military, retailers" and some comments which followed. There was talk about religion, morality and how no study has shown any shred of evidence that homosexuality is at all genetic. Of course, that's not true - there are a growing number of scientists who believe that homosexuality is at least partially due to genetics, including geneticist Sven Bocklandt, who couldn't understand how anyone could believe that people actually choose to whom they're sexually attracted. He commented on how "virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity."  I have noticed, like with the comments I read on Tuesday, a decent majority of those whom don't believe homosexuality is in any way genetic are quite religious.  Now, I may not be a religious person, but do belie...

I really wonder where some people are getting reports that President Obama has not given credit to the Navy SEALS for the killing of Osama bin Laden.  In the president's speech where he announced the killing of bin Laden, which he gave on May 2nd of 2011, he said the following: "...thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides [in fighting against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, oru friends and our allies]." "A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability...." "We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country..." In a speech he gave less than a week later (May 6th), in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Obama said the following: "Thanks to the incredible skill and courage of countless indi...

 Just recently, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain spoke with the Wall Street Journal and said the following with regard to the Occupy Wall Street protests: "I don't have the facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama Administration." Is that not the perfect way to open a sentence, especially if you're a politician? "I don't have the facts to back this up, but..." It's perfect. Cain is now exempt from any possible counters to his statement, regardless of how factual they are or the credibility of the source(s). If someone rebuts his claim with seemingly solid evidence, Cain can just say, "Weren't you listening? It's not like you proved me wrong. I never said I was right. I said, in plain English, that I did not have the facts to back up my statement. It seems to me you just wasted your time." If we coul...