For Tomi Lahren, Matt Walsh, and anyone else still confused about the #WomensMarch

I deserve a medal. I actually took three whole minutes to listen to angry, arrogant troglodyte, Tomi Lahren and her strawman filled rant about the peaceful and impressive protest of nearly 3 million women the Saturday after Donald Trump's Inauguration. As per typical, she missed the whole point (likely on purpose) and spews erroneous rhetorical bullshit at the function from her expensive set.

There are many things wrong with what she has to say, not the least of which is that she (like so many others) is either ignorant of what the function was about or pretends to be so. According to her (and many), all the men, women, and children who stood for women's equality on January 21st are just sore losers. Whining 'snowflakes' who should shut up and accept that Donald Trump is 'their president'. You know, like right wingers did of Obama in 2008.

Here are a couple of refutations, though, for anyone interested:

-She accuses the marchers of "hissing at well-dressed men". Citation needed. But even if that were true of a few people at the marches, who the fuck cares? Honestly. Ohh, were they hissed at? How upsetting that must have been! Almost like getting followed down a street and being told, repeatedly, to smile, and then being called a bitch when you don't.

- She says that the march was not an inclusive one, but rather "a dozen special interests groups marching together, not to advance the nation as a whole, but rather their own special interest." Okay, well, this one is easily debunked. Special interest groups attended, those groups didn't make up the majority of the march. Most women showed up by themselves or in small groups, unaffiliated.

But let's get to the meat of this. The implication that Trump is inclusive while the Women's Marches are not is laughable. I've been openly critical of the Women's March's explicit absence of sex workers from their groups of people who are specifically marginalized in America. And, yes, the march wasn't fertile ground for pro-life groups. For one, pro-life groups are working hard to limit women's reproductive rights, so this is just common sensical. Here's the thing. Even if the Women's March excluded some people, who can possibly say that Trump doesn't exclude more? His anti-Mexican and Latino rhetoric is exclusionary. His law and order, pro-DEA stance is exclusionary. And, btw, have you ever seen an assemblage of Trump supporters even one-tenth as diverse as the women's march? Save your bullshit fake outrage about lack of 'inclusiveness' for people who actually believe you give a shit, Tomi.

-She continues her phony outrage by juxtaposing pictures of the signs left at Trump Hotel and a 'Fuck Trump' sign with 'environmentalism' and 'tolerance' respectively. These are such tired arguments from the right. Is the left often 'intolerant'? Yes. Hell yes. They can be the biggest hypocrites in the world on the issue of tolerance. But singling out the Commander in Cheif for outrage and anger when he's campaigned on Nationalistic populism is 100% justified. Being 'tolerant' doesn't mean you let people do bullshit things and say nothing about it. It doesn't mean you keep quiet when you see injustice. And, for the last time, the signs were dropped in front of Trump Hotel deliberately. It wasn't just litter. It was a point of protest and I promise someone was paid to remove them, so everyone take a pill and relax.

-She says, "American women, the most privileged and blessed women on earth," (citation needed) were marching for "subsidized Abortions". WRONG. Nope. Not true. I didn't meet a single person at the March in San Antonio who was marching for subsidized abortions. What they believe is that women should have reasonable access to abortions. That is very different, Tomi. The reason abortion is such an issue in these marches is because red states around the country are trying to limit women's access to abortion every day. They pass bill after bill that gets spanked in the courts. If Trump is given the ability to stack the SCOTUS, it might make it so one of these bills actually gets upheld. And that would be catastrophic for women's health.

-She, then, goes on to that tired argument about the #WomensMarch being pointless and useless. But that she was part of an 'inclusionary march...into the voting booths'. For one, so were the women marching. Do you imagine they didn't also vote?  They just happened to lose. But more than that, are you arguing that voting is more important that the constitutionally protected right to protest? She insists that all of this was just 'causing a scene' with no hope of benefit. Please tell Martin Luther King and the Suffragettes how protests don't work. Hell, the Tea Party was so successful more than fifty Tea Party Candidates were elected to U.S. Congress!



See, the thing is, Tomi, you enjoy an immense amount of privilege because people that came before you protested things that were unjust. I imagine you'd be one of the women in the early 20th century claiming the women standing in front of the White House with 'Votes for Women' signs were rabble rousers 'too ugly to get a man to keep them in line'.

-She is obsessed with Democrat/Republican rhetoric, but these marches were about more than a political party. Libertarians who never believed their candidate would win the election were there. Independents were there. This wasn't a Democrat function. It was a grassroots movement...Just like that Tea Party Movement that I'm sure you did not think was a waste of time or causing a scene or 'throwing a fit'. Funny how when your own ideas are represented in a protest you think it has value. When it is opposing views, they should just go home and shut up.

-She then, hilariously, posits that "outspoken people like me are a threat to your bubble". I'm sorry, is there any plane of existence, on this planet or any other, that Tomi Lahren doesn't exist in an echo chamber or bubble? Come on, girl, your entire business is predicated on keeping people in a bubble. Get out of here with that. Pot. Meet Kettle.

-Multiple times, she refers to Trump Supporters as the 'Silent Majority'. Literally, no one on earth could accuse Trump Supports, and specifically her, of being silent. I wish she'd be silent occasionally. But more than that, you aren't the majority either. You won the election. That doesn't mean you are the majority. For one, you lost the popular vote which means, by definition, you are not the majority. And that leaves out the many millions who didn't even vote because they didn't give one blessed fuck about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

-Then she explains all the terrible things that have happened to America in the eight years of Obama's presidency (jeez, she's giving one man a lot of credit). She claims we are "less American". What does that even mean? Also, citation needed. She says that in eight years "men have been encouraged to be less manly and women to be less womanly". Jesus. What does this have to do with the president and how would Trump fix it? Mandatory gender role adherence? What a weird thing to be worried about. And finally, she concludes that we've had "eight years of watching jobs go overseas while illegals pour in". Is there an eye-roll emoji? Because this needs one. For one, outsourcing isn't new, and Trump is a huge fan of outsourcing. Most of his stuff is not made here. Secondly, Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any president in history. Not that 'illegals' are America's problem in the first place.

Everything will be all good now, though, because Trump is a 'real' American who wants to make us great. You won, Tomi. Why are you still so angry?

In other parts of the interwebs, human garbage dumpster, Matt Walsh points out that women are totally equal, so what are we whining about. The irony of this coming from a guy who thinks women shouldn't work and that gay people don't deserve equal rights is staggering. He tweeted this:

Matt, someone should explain the difference between legal and actual equality to you. A group can be 'legally' equal but still face discrimination, social inequality, and targetted laws against them. Just look up the difference in crack and cocaine offense sentencing, or any number of the sexist laws certain states are passing to shut down women's health clinics and shame women. Saying that women are equal because we have legal equality is like saying blacks were equal in 1870 because of the 15th Amendment.

I imagine it's hard for you, Matt, to perceive these injustices and inequalities while you sip your hipster-brand whiskey, basking in your echo-chamber of other white dudes telling you how 'on-point' you are for sticking it to these 'snowflake whiners'. It would require empathy, compassion, and an ability to see past yourself - skills you've made it clear you don't possess. But remember, just because you blog or tweet about something doesn't mean that what you say is gospel fact. Each time you ignore that blatant injustice exists, you show yourself for the idiotic, dimwit you are.

I have some advice for anyone else sharing these tweets, videos, and this rhetoric. Before you speak up about the Women's Marches around the world, why don't you try talking to some of the people who went about why they were there and what is important to them rather than erecting strawmen because you are upset that millions had the audacity to stand up for something that doesn't matter to you.

How we define things

Today, The National Review, put out a list of political definitions for 'left' and 'right'. Forgetting the 'left and right' are often used erroneously, let's assume they mean left = economic statists and right means cultural traditionalists.

Since I, predictably, find myself disagreeing with the paradigm of both sides, I've decided to fix some of their definitions and add my own libertarian definition. I didn't do every single one, that would get tedious.

The Source of Human Rights

Left:The Collective
Right: The State or God
Libertarian: Nature/The Individual


Human Nature
Left: Good but Greedy
Right: Bad but Redeemable
Libertarian: Irrelevant. Individuals should be judged on an individual basis.


Economic Goal

Left: Equality
Right: Upward Mobility
Libertarianism: Prosperity and Liberty


Primary Role of the State

Left: Facilitate equality and proper behavior
Right: Defense and Morality
Libertarian: Protecting individual liberty


Government size

Left: Large
Right: Large
Libertarianism: Small as possible


Family Ideal

Left: Any situation where everyone is content
Right: Mother, Father, and children
Libertarian: Any situation where everyone is content


Guiding Trinity

Left: Class, Collectivism, Equality
Right: God, Tradition, Nationalism
Libertarian: Liberty, Individualism, Prosperity


Good and Evil

Left: Relative
Right: Fixed
Libertarian: Based on Non-Aggression Principle


Humanity's primary divisions

Left: Rich and Poor/Strong and Weak
Right: Good and Evil
Libertarian: Free and Oppressed


Primary Identity

Left: World citizen
Right: American Citizen
Libertarian: Individual


How to make a good society

Left: Abolish inequality
Right: Develop each citizen's (homogeneous) moral character
Libertarian: Maximize freedom without violating the Non-aggression principle


Gender Identity

Left: A social construct
Right: Male/Female and fixed at birth
Libertarian: Up to the individual to define as well as up to the individual to accept


Most important trait to cultivate in a child

Left: Self-esteem
Right: Self-control
Libertarian: Self-reliance


Primary source of crime

Left: Poverty, social flaws
Right: Moral failing on the part of the criminal
Libertarian: Sometimes social factors and sometimes moral failing. American crime cannot be separated from the war on victimless crimes (like Drugs)


Role of religion in society

Left: Individual homes and churches
Right: Government and a guiding principle for all of society
Libertarian: Individual homes and churches


Biggest threat to the world

Left: Economic Inequality, environmental disaster
Right: Terrorism, evil, moral bankruptcy
Libertarian: Statism and the loss of individual liberty


International Ideal

Left: Cooperative international organizations who function on the economic model of Sweden or Denmark
Right: American exceptionalism and superpower status
Libertarian: Countries existing autonomously with open borders so that people can move to whichever country best represents their interests.


Guns

Left: Lax gun laws are why we have high rates of gun violence.
Right: Gun ownership is a fundamental right.
Libertarian: The right to defend yourself is a fundamental right, including with guns.


Race

Left: Social construct that continues to create systemic inequity
Right: Social construct or not, everyone is basically equal today and racism is rare
Libertarian: Social construct that creates systemic inequity OR people are basically equal today (depends on the individual's personal perspective on the topic)


Black America's primary problem

Left: Racism and inequity stemming from historical injustice.
Right: Laziness, lack of family values
Libertarian: A matter of perspective of the individual. Some libertarians agree with the right and some with the left on this issue. (I agree with the left)


War

Left: War is not the answer unless you are attacked (or unless a President you like is in office)
Right: War is the tool of Peace
Libertarian: War is not the answer unless you are attacked.


Purpose of judges

Left: Pursue social justice
Right: Pursue moral justice
Libertarian: Uphold individual liberties



National Borders

Left: Important for sovereignty and national security
Right: Impenetrable lines that protect society
Libertarian: Markers of territory that should not stop people from crossing


View of Undocumented Immigrants

Left: People just trying to make a better life for themselves
Right: Criminal infiltrators
Libertarian: People just trying to make a better life for themselves.


Nature

Left: Has intrinsic value
Right: Made for man to use and appreciate
Libertarian: Has intrinsic value and is useful to man

Affordable Care Act (ACA) and what needs to be done about healthcare

As Democrats are unwilling to admit that the ACA is a failure and the Republicans have not firmed up any coherent replacement for the bill, I worry we have years of arguing over the color of the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

THINGS THAT HAVE TO CHANGE:

1. Price Transparency: You cannot have any reasonable competitive market when the provider of service doesn't have to tell you how much it costs until after the service is given.

Think of it this way. You are walking along the streets of Montmartre and a street artist begins sketching your picture.  There is a reason they don't ask first. If they ask first, they will have to negotiate prices. If they just draw the picture, they know you will feel the obligation to pay them what they ask because 'the work is already done'. If they were to ask you if you want the picture first, you would ask 'How much?' to which they might reply '30 Euro.' At this point you could say, 'That's too much. Sorry. No, thank you.' The artist will likely lower his price until you can reach a mutual agreement on reasonable cost. Or, if you can come to no agreement, you move on and the street artist finds a new consumer. In healthcare, there is no negotiating prices, at least not between the person offering the service and the person receiving it. The consumer doesn't have the tools to shop around for a less expensive care, at least not at the higher levels of medical care. You find out how much it costs three weeks later when you get the bill in the mail.


2. Price consistency: It should not be that having insurance punishes you. At it is, insurance companies often get charged more than uninsured customers for services. With a deductible, that means you get charged more for having insurance. Not only is this a way for responsible insurance owners to subsidize the uninsured (on top of the tax money that already subsidizes the uninsured), it incentivizes people not to buy insurance. You know what cannot work if people don't buy insurance? Insurance. Especially with a pre-existing mandate.

Worth noting, if price transparency, competition, and consistency existed within healthcare, most non-emergent/serious medical costs could be paid out of pocket. This would not only make the doctor's job easier, but it would ease the burden on insurance companies allowing them to lower premiums and pay out more for serious medical conditions.


3. Tort Reform: This is just necessary even forgetting overwhelming healthcare costs exacerbated by unfair litigation.


4. FREE MARKETS: Despite what you've been told, the American Healthcare Market is not a free market. It has the worst characteristics of a private market without any of the parts of a free market that allow it to 'fix' itself. It's private in the sense that it's not facilitated by the state. Private institutions provide care and pay out vendors privately with a profit model. It doesn't, however, set its own prices. The implementation of medicare, alone, has institutionalized costs via 'coding'. This works for government and insurance, but it does not work for patients. And it eliminates yet another avenue for the consumer to 'shop around' for more competitive care. In fact, in the current healthcare model, you aren't even the consumer. Insurance companies are the consumer.

It is not a 'free' market and the government knows that. In fact, it facilitates that. ACA didn't even remotely deal with these pricing issues or the lack of agency by patients. Instead, it made the problem worse, further marginalizing the patient in favor of insurance companies. Sure, you are covered. But what does that coverage mean? Does it mean real lower costs out of pocket? For tens of millions of Americans, no.


5. No mandate: I know what you are going to say. Without the mandate, we can't cover preexisting conditions. Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly, with the current model of 'insurance-even-for-a-stubbed-toe' it is true. Certainly, while it costs $1200 to take your three-year-old to the ER for a questionable bug bite, you need as many people paying high premiums as possible. But besides the mandate being unconstitutional (despite a bad ruling by the SCOTUS), it is a mechanism for rising costs.

Think of it this way. For ease, let's say the penalty for not having insurance for a family of four is $1000/year. Insurance costs $5000/year in premiums on top of a $5000/person deductible. Like the vast majority of families in America, the likelihood of seeing a cost benefit from your insurance at that rate is very low. So, you are incentivized to take the penalty and cross your fingers, hoping nothing catastrophic happens, as you pay out of pocket for your medical expenses (hey, they even give you a lower rate for being uninsured). The next logical step for lawmakers (as SCOTUS gave them a blank check to penalize your for not buying whatever they want you to buy) is to raise that penalty. However high you raise the penalty, you've given insurance companies all the motivation they need to raise their own prices. If they know your alternative to buying their product is a $3000/year fine, they know they can offer you a $3000/year plan that covers nearly nothing and you have an incentive to buy it because you will be losing that $3000/year anyway. You see?


6. Change the way we see healthcare: Dream with me if you can, folks. Imagine a world where you enter an ER with a questionable bug bite and a triage nurse can look at it and say, 'that is a fire ant bite.' No $1200 bill in three weeks. No two-hour wait so that a doctor and two nurses (all with their own billing) can tell you that it is a fire ant bite.

Or, you go to the doctor and the first question isn't 'Who is your insurance provider?' Instead, you get a flat, transparent rate of, say, $30 for a check-up with reasonably priced add-ons to fit your needs.

What if, instead of subsidizing coverage (whose costs are rising exponentially), we invested in subsidizing care? Hey, we are going to be paying the money anyway. Why not put the money directly into the hands of the doctors providing the care and offer free/reduced price clinics and hospitals for people who cannot afford healthcare? Reform Medicaid to focus on care and not coverage. Cut the bureaucracy. Stop paying $100 for $1 of coverage. And all of this can be facilitated on the state level where people can hold lawmakers accountable, not by DC who can be held accountable for nothing because they weasel around every issue with finger-pointing, buck-passing, and lies.

What if, instead of premiums, we put money we pay to insurers into healthcare savings plans so we get exactly what we pay into it? We become the consumer again, able to shop around and negotiate on our own behalf.


There are a lot of us who oppose ACA who are just as kind and compassionate as those who support it. But we want real options. We want a workable, long-lasting plan that will allow us to keep out 'first in the world' care but cut the insane costs that have risen steadily as it has been taken over by government and insurance companies. Wouldn't you rather an excellent system that is cheaper and better managed than to settle for a bill that is disproportionately hurting the middle class and doesn't deal with cost at all?

If the GOP doesn't implement the kinds of reforms I'm talking about, I will be angry with them too. Something has to be done. Obamacare wasn't it. The bill has helped insurance companies more than anyone else on earth. No amount of tinkering with it can heal the deep and gaping wounds it has inflicted on the healthcare system and the middle class. Let it go. Dream bigger. I beg of you.