Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

I Contributed To #GosnellMovie

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/16

I contributed to help make the Gosnell movie happen. You can, too. Go to www.gosnellmovie.com and you can help make an important movie happen. Hot Air has some important news about who is blocking the attempt to crowdfund, and two actors who have made youtube videos in support of the crowdfunding.

____________________________
Edit: For those who have not heard of the heinous mass murderer Kermit Gosnell (and mainstream media and Hollywood like it that way), read what I wrote and Dana wrote back in 2011. Fair warning: have a strong stomach (preferably empty).

Posted in politically correct, politics, crime, society, abortion, media, Health Care, Politically Incorrect, Personal Responsibility, Character, Philosophy, Pro-Life, Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Narrative Problems

Posted by DNW on 2014/04/10

I was thinking the other day – not too deeply – about the entire concept of narrative, and how it has so often come to replace reasoning, and how deceptively difficult trying to construct a really accurate narrative can be. Maybe that is why those who seem to do it most, also seem to be the least concerned with literal accuracy.

It’s one thing to engage in the geometric arrangement of premisses and conclusions employing technical language, once you learn the discipline.

It’s quite another to try and manage a truthful recounting of human events (as historians well know) when so many different aspects to the “story” must be dealt with in a manner consistent with the overall tenor of the presentation.

This was personally highlighted for me just the other evening where in what was an exercise in the main, I attempted a descriptive recounting of a commenting foray I made on The Atlantic.

I found that certain passages, no matter how I reworked them just didn’t come out right. I finally realized the next day that I was trying to conflate, I was inappropriately mixing, my post hoc psychological attitudes of overall amusement into what was, and was meant to be an accurate factual description.

This came to me when I reread a particularly jarring passage wherein I had jestingly (after some initial skepticism about its fit) used the term “gambit” in what was intended to be a light way; but which was totally at odds with the more distanced tone of the overall presentation. The experience of rereading what I wrote was like having cold water dumped down my back. I knew what I meant but it could not be read right. Yet, no matter how I tried to rework the reference, it didn’t lend itself to the intended interpretation. Even rewriting the reference entirely didn’t make it any better.

And the reason I finally discovered, was not only found in the in-congruence of seeing a light-facetious use, blended with a desultory overall mood, but also because I was trying to fit my flippant psychological attitude post-event, to a more straightforward and prosaic truth.

This back projection or retrofitting of intentions (or events) in order to match a planned narrative or current feeling, is perhaps most familiar to us from some infamous politically staked, but clearly anachronistic or impossible claims: Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she was named after Edmund Hillary, for example; or her husband Bill’s “burning church” memories. Or John Kerry’s ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ for that matter.

The obvious trouble involved in these instances of handling timelines, seems to be a particular problem for political liberals. Whether the timeline trouble they experience is a matter of demonstrable facts tripping up deliberate fabrications, or the result of a genuine psychological difficulty progressives have in grasping cause and effect, antecedent and consequent, prior and subsequent, in the face of their driving need for constructing a self-justifying narrative with broad social impact, is a question I cannot personally answer.

What I can say from recent experience is, that constructing a readable narrative, one that is anything more than a chronicle, that is to say anything more than a chronological checklist of noticed events, is a rather tricky proposition; and requires care on a number of levels.

Posted in Blogging Matters | 5 Comments »

The Atlantic and Billy Jo Bubba

Posted by DNW on 2014/04/08

[Update: This is a posting which was done primarily as an exercise last night, and which was posted prematurely, almost in real-time or on the fly. I have now made a number of "live" changes which make the references more explicit and precise, and less presumptive and garbled. It should aid in a comparatively better understanding of what I was trying to say: in the unlikely event anyone actually read it all the way through it when it first went up ...]

While commenting the other day on our post regarding AOL’s Gay Social Affirmation Hell, commenter AOTC was inspired to provide a link to “The Atlantic” online’s site, wherein an economist by the name of Noah Smith was busying himself in part, with a chirpy celebration of what he the imagines to be the permanent triumph of the so-called “progressive” side of the culture wars.

“The Culture War is over, and the liberals have won. With the legalization and broad acceptance of gay marriage, the last great bastion of government-supported traditionalism in Western society has been swept away. Elsewhere, the armies of traditionalism are collapsing on almost every front. America is becoming less religious with stunning speed. Interracial marriage, once banned, is now the norm. Marijuana is slowly being legalized for recreational use. Women are close to achieving economic equality with men, and female breadwinners are becoming the norm. Casual sex is almost universally tolerated as a permissible recreational activity.”

Now, I’m not even going to bother unpacking the logical confusions and conflations found in that rather typical piece of progressive rhetoric. It is after all rhetoric not reasoning. It’s rhetoric directed at what the polymorphous perverse community envision as the proper temperature and humidity for their planned social hothouse; and not at all what might be more coolly deduced from an objective reality; a reality the objectivity of which they are not only skeptical, but which they – or their philosophical high priests – often go on to assert as ultimately unintelligible and intrinsically pointless, anyway.

So instead, I’ll simply note the next move Noah Smith makes, which is to advise his own side that when it comes to politics, managerial prudence dictates behavioral restraint in unconditional victory. And, that in this case, it is good policy to avoid despoiling the lives and property of those bitter clingers who still retain outmoded attachments to concepts like the supernatural, teleologically premissed morals, binary gender, and quite probably, to the notion of the self itself.

Thus he announces,

“Any time you win a great victory after years or decades of bitter struggle, there is the temptation to pillage the lands of the conquered enemy. This is always a mistake.”

Yeah. They have the freedom and the strength, to actually pillage? Well, I suppose Noah Smith, along with Pajama Boy, and the rest of the kind can be forgiven for imagining that no one would even think of resisting progressive overreach in a way which they might find surprising. After all, the “Taxed Enough Already” movement protests almost caused them a psychic breakdown as it was.

Imagine then what a traditionalist’s pledge of social disengagement, taken in order to allow the progressive kind to live or die in a ditch of their own digging, to reap without underwriting or support what they have themselves sown, might do to the progressives’ mental equilibria.

Anyway, even the mooting of such questions indirectly and in a response to that precious little victory dance, appears, and I repeat here “appears”, to be out of progressive community bounds.

For I tried to do just that: that is to to say to offer up my suggestion that they in effect adopt some critical distance of their own.

However, upon following AOTC’s link to the site, and attempting to leave a WordPress comment there using this Truth Before Dishonor WordPress blogging ID, I ran into some initial difficulty. [Perhaps it was of my own making. I do not know.]

Therefore, I next tried registering to leave a comment using an alternate AOL screen name. That did not work out as I wished, either. So, I finally registered using a Google g-mail address through Disquis, employing an address name which is precisely the same name as my alternate AOL e-mail account. And, ultimately then, after some little while, I was able to post a comment under “North Charlton”. Same, same, AOL and Google. Whoopee.

Which brings us to the following observation. Left-liberals, so-called progressives, seem to be an extraordinarily sensitive lot when it comes to facing the redounding implications of their own worldview; even when so confronted temperately and in relatively sophisticated (or so one would imagine) forums.

We here have witnessed that progressive tendency to bridle in the past on a more local level: on Dana’s old Common Sense Political Thought blog. Repeat the implications of what they, the progressives, have said about reality or mankind back to them, and as specifically applying to them, and they go off the emotional rails. On Common Sense Political Thought however, they could only call for censoring, not effect it.

“Progressives” obviously talk freely of their triumphing over “the enemy”, but they apparently cannot abide “the enemy” granting them in return their assertion of enemy status, and noting that he is in fact prepared to accept that he is their enemy, and as such, an enemy in the very same existential way and sense which they originally intended.

Thus they casually speak of a supposedly justifiable impulse they have to despoil this traditionalist enemy’s life and substance; but in this case while generously refraining from doing so (only so a more efficient and pacific implementation of their vision of human re-engineering might be realized) in the name of the “nation”.

And then, they seem taken aback, or even alarmed, when their peculiar notions regarding the significance of nation or community are scoffed at.

In any event, tempted by AOTC’s pointing toward a potential challenge, I persisted and finally posted a comment.

As a result, one reader graciously remarked that she wished there were more like it.

Another, “Billy Jo Bubba”, asked me to clarify what I had meant by a certain phrase I had used concerning conservatives’ sometimes politically debilitating “moral inhibitions”. I responded to Billy Jo. I checked to see if my response to him posted up successfully, and it did. So I saved the page.

Then, my reply to Billy Jo disappeared.

Billy Jo nonetheless responded to my now missing reply: observing that he had in fact seen it, but that in the meanwhile something had happened to it and it was now gone.

Acknowledging Billy Jo again, I said I would re-post the exact reply to which he was referring for the sake of thread clarity. I did. I checked back. It took. It remained for a while.

Then, it disappeared too.

So, I left a 3rd and textually different response to Billy Jo. This one, stating that my two previous replies to his direct request for terminological clarification had mysteriously vanished, but I knew not why.

I then checked and noted that that reply had also initially posted up successfully; just as did the previous two. There it, however, unlike the preceding two, remained. And there it remains some days later.

What are we to infer from this? Well, as you can see from my remarks above, I have my suspicions based on this and past experiences with progressives. Though, I am not absolutely positive about it in this case. Just, let’s say, reasonably skeptical, that it was a pure coincidence.

I did however as I said, think to save the pages immediately after I successfully placed my original remarks.

I’ll now place the subject chain of exchanges below. I’ve read and reread them, and cannot for the life of me figure out what it was that I said which might cause a progressive, or his proxies, to interrupt a victory lap just to take it down. It was after all no more than a demurrer which was offered up based on the progressive’s own worldview.

But, provisionally, it does seem to be the case that my remarks were repeatedly taken down. I would of course be glad to learn that it was otherwise and that some defect in my browser or use of it caused the problem.

In any event, the last comment in the series is the one that repeatedly “vanished”.

Regarding then, Noah Smith and his Atlantic vaunt …

North Charlton • 2 days ago

Generous of you to forgo the indulgence of revenge.

Though, I am not sure what form of political revenge a progressive could indulge in which would leave the Democrat Party’s own client class of dependants untouched; or which would alternately fail to awaken conservatives to the fact that it has been their own moral inhibitions which have allowed the progressives to flourish as they have in the first place.

Eventually, conservatives may even get wise, and recognize that they’ve been fighting not only the left, but their own moral baggage and scrupulosity: assuming fundamentally like cases when no such fundamental likenesses obtained.

Politically progressive activists, and philosophers like Rorty for example, have long ceased pretending that their ethical claims and social shaping aims and stratagems could in any way be coherently said to follow from their nominalist metaphysical premisses. So, they decided to focus instead on what “we wish to become” rather than what we once were said, or thought, to essentially be.

However, even in a progressive moral universe, one with no notion of actually occurring natural kinds, it’s difficult to initially avoid arguing as if there were real kinds with real natures implying real rights; and maybe rhetorically unwise – even if dishonest – to try and do so.

So, issues have to be gradually re-framed conceptually in terms of emotions and expanding circles of concern for those emotion-things that now stand in place of what we once thought of as humans with intrinsic and shared natures, and objectively deducible ethical boundaries and obligations and entitlements.

It will henceforth become about what we wish to be … whatever it is “we” are made up of, or defined as, by whom or whatever. The progressive reasoning gets a little vague at that point.

Well, the problem of course is that, that “we” word, along with all its allied concepts and terms, is also clearly problematical.

And therefore when it comes to the spectacle of rhetorical flag waving, it is mightily amusing indeed to read someone from the left making concern noises about “the nation”, when the entire concept has become so ridiculously attenuated as to carry little or no emotional weight anyway; not to mention very little if anything in the way of any objectively ascertainable meaning.

Nation is no longer about “ethnicity”, and it’s certainly not about shared values and objectively deduced ideals. Nor obviously, is it about held in common goals and tastes, much less interests. Nor much of anything else as far as I can see.

It – the appeal to nation – is then more or less just the brandishing of a nowadays vaguely fascistical sounding but quickly obsolescing term, held over from the days when American post Civil War political consolidationists figured it carried a bigger emotional wallop, and therefore allowed more constitutional transgressions, than did the term “the republic”.

I guess modern progressives still figure the same.

But they figure wrong.

The question then is why anyone who is not polymorphous perverse themselves, should care to waste their time validating anyone who is, or why it would be in their interest to shore up a system that does …

After all, tolerating absurdity is one thing when it costs you nothing; or, very little apart from annoyance.

But marching in the linked-arm parade of the absurdists, as if you are morally obligated to give a damn about, or even participate in their fate, or can be intimidated to do so without the threat or use of violence, is quite another.

No, it’s probably not over. In fact, things may have just begun to get interesting.

3 △ ▽

Edit

Reply

Share ›

Ellie K > North Charlton • 2 days ago

Why are you among the tiny minority of people who articulate their opinions online? I wish I could upvote you 50 times. You are correct, in every regard. This crummy post , by crummy Noah, makes me cringe in revulsion and fear. It is oppressive and intolerant of diversity of religion (having belief, of any sort, isn’t allowed now), sexual and reproductive preference (no place for being a woman and wanting to marry a man of the same race and religion, wearing a wedding ring, then having a baby or maybe even two, and being faithful to each other all the days of one’s life) etc. There is no national cohesion, thanks to so-called modern progressives. The newly redesigned Dept of the Interior reflects this. There are no white men. There are no Asian people. There are elderly white women, no young ones with children. There are big murals of crowds of Native Americans and black people and Hispanic people, but no pictures of little families or young people going fishing or hunting. Whose land is it? Not yours and mine. It belongs to modern progressives, apparently.

2 △ ▽

Reply

Share ›

Billy Jo Bubba > North Charlton • 14 hours ago

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?

△ ▽

Reply

Share ›

North Charlton > Billy Jo Bubba • 2 minutes ago

“Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?”

You can think of it operating in various ways, and on various levels.

My reference to Rorty’s nominalism as informing his theory – if you want to call it a theory – of ethical behavior, and the “objects” of his attention on the one hand, in contrast to what is generally some form of realism embraced by conservatives (I am speaking very generally here) on the other hand, should give you a picture of two populations having fundamentally different views about reality, and about what a human “really is”, and is entitled by that status to; if to anything.

Let’s put this in extreme terms. A Roman Catholic child, for example, is taught based on a supernaturally directed belief and a mediated and modified Aristotelian realist metaphysics, that he has a soul destined for eternity, and that what he does in relation to or to other human beings has an objective rightness or wrongness to it in the here and now, and a cosmic and eternal significance that continues beyond the present life, afterwards.

On the other hand, whatever inhibitions the progressive left may have in doing unto others, that is not one of the considerations that informs their consciences.

No Marxist Leninist has any absolute compunction about breaking eggs in order to make his social omelet; human beings are not seen as ends in themselves but social elements entitled, or not, to certain “sensual” (in the Marxist sense) satisfactions.

It is generally acknowledged by progressive writers ( and I don’t think that I need to start listing names, do I?) that politics is useful for shaping and molding society, and as a result the reproducing population, as the progressive wishes it to be.

The progressive has fewer compunctions about shaping the people through the agency of the state. Which is not to say anything particularly remarkable, but just something that needs to be borne in mind; i.e., the moral inhibitions of the parties, conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and left-progressives on the other, are not symmetrical.

The conservative inhibition I refer to here then, is one that comes from their worldview and teleological moral lens; which sees intrinsic value in (or projects it onto) beings who themselves argue that any such framework is an illusion, and any such value a result of that illusion, or worse, a supernaturally oriented superstition.

My personal opinion is that perhaps conservatives, and most certainly libertarians, should make the following intellectual move: they should hypothetically grant the persons, or the organisms if you will, of the left the dignity of taking them seriously when they say that life has no inherent purpose, that values are radically subjective or relative, that natural kinds do not exist, or that the ends justify the means, and so forth.

And then once having granted that – at least and specifically as regards the progressive person making the claim – the person who is not a progressive, should take a careful look at the person who says he is a progressive, through the progressive’s own metaphysical lens.

And then he the non-progressive should be straight with himself, no matter how brutal the view seems, as to just what he sees when focusing on the progressives through that reducing lens of their own creation; and what ethical implications might follow or inferences be validly drawn.

If after having performed that reductio, one cannot still then see the asymmetry I refer to, then … well …

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society | Leave a Comment »

Ed Morrissey Accidentally Spanks Perry Hood

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/04/03

As everyone who reads this site regularly knows, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware is a lying /used female cleansing tool container/ who always ignores the facts as presented him in order to continue his malicious lie-filled attacks on anyone to the right of Mao tse Tung. He’s always spouting off about how there’s no evidence of voter fraud of any scale worth noting, and that Republicans only want to keep Democrats from voting, by use of “gasp” requiring an ID to do something! Well, Ed Morrissey just spanked Perry Hood real hard.

Video: “Thousands of cases” of voter fraud in North Carolina

posted at 12:41 pm on April 3, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

What happens when voter-registration officials get updates on death certificates and records from other states? In North Carolina, they find massive voter fraud. As many as 35,000 North Carolina voters may have voted in another state in the 2012 election, and Republicans are claiming vindication for their efforts to tighten voter-ID checks[.]

35,000 cases of North Carolina voters registered to vote in other states, and quite a few of them availing themselves of the ability to vote in both states in the same General Election (2012). That’s just NC voters in other states. Imagine how the number would grow if each state did such an examination of voter rolls. And the Chicago Zombie voter system was spotted in NC as well — dead voters voting while dead.

Yes, Perry Hood of Lewes Delaware, when states require ID to vote, states flesh out lots of voter fraud. But lets stipulate your accusation that Voter ID is keeping the Democrat vote down. That would mean those Zombie voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) and those double voters (illegal and fraudulent as they are) are Democrat voters voting fraudulently.

Since this is North Carolina we are talking about, I decided to see if the most beautiful North Carolina blogger had anything to say on the matter. And she did:

It’s fascinating, really. As the information was being tweeted out, liberals who have a vested interest in getting NC’s supposedly “toughest voter ID laws in the nation” tossed off the books on the grounds that they’re “racist” or something didn’t stop to consider anything but the fact that this seriously underminds (sic) their case. Keep in mind, they don’t even know if most of the people who double voted were Republicans or Democrats. In their mind, the law is racist and voter fraud doesn’t exist (except when the GOP wins elections, of course). Perhaps they assumed it was mostly Democrats who fraudulently voted in two different states and seek to change the direction of the debate. After what the left has gotten away with here and elsewhere over the last several decades come election time, can you blame them for going on the defensive?

Posted in Character, Elections, Law, politics, truth, Vote Fraud | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

A Tale of Two Sittings (Rome/Obama)

Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/03/28

For what I saw as a Humorous (in a cynical way) was Obama’s (40%ish popularity) take on his meeting with the Pope (85% popularity) yesterday. The Vatican posted its take on the meeting also. One wonders if they actually in the same room??? Supposedly they were because, unlike Mooch, the Press was invited to take pictures. Frankly, I’ll take the Vatican’s version.

Only God knows for sure: Obama, pope differ on accounts of ‘social schisms’ talk

(midway through the article)
The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention. (Sounds like CROSS-Talk, so to speak)

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

Two Sittings

Read it all here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/27/obama-meets-pope-francis-vatican/#ixzz2xHMNmYnx

Posted in 1st Amendment, ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Obama | 2 Comments »

Gay-O-L: Huffington’s Suffocating Social Affirmation Hell

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/25

 

The assault on classical liberal values by the postmodern values nihilists, that is to say by those who make up that political sub-population of solidarity pimps whom we generally identify as collectivist, takes various forms.

Just the other day we witnessed a judge in Michigan frantically sawing at his We-Are-The-World violin as he endorsed the idea of saddling society (that’s all of you) with the responsibility of recognizing (legally as jurors) and implicitly affirming (socially) what is essentially an exercise in nonsense.

At least judge Friedman felt some necessity of providing himself with constitutional cover, or at least constitutional allusions and “bases”, which would seem plausible enough to the morons most likely to take his Kumbayist exercise in Talmudic constitutional subterfuge seriously. He could not be too blatant. After all he was purportedly talking about “the law” even though he was pretty much making it up to suit as he went along on the one hand, while striking down actual exercises in popular self-government, on the other.

In the case of AOL however, we witness a different kind of approach entirely. This method expresses itself as a completely unapologetic take over of a system in a way that is much more open. It pretends to no real justification other than an expression of progressive will or taste; i.e. a raw assertion that it will be “the way we want it to be because that is the way we want it to be”

In the latter AOL case, it resolves much more clearly and immediately to a mere matter of competing tastes and wills. And those who own AOL feel free, and in fact legally are free, to impose their wills and tastes on their site as normative; no matter how objectively repugnant those views and “values” may be to non-nihilists.

It therefore boils down to a simple matter of those who do not like the ideological and cultural line AOL is nowadays peddling, being invited to shut up or go elsewhere; as the Huff-Po’s recent news story commentary rules make plain. It’s “Vote yes here, or vote yes there.” or be damned.  And as the service costs nothing to users, I suppose it is fully worth what is paid by them.

Fair enough then it seems.  It is a private enterprise.

Well almost fair enough, since it does not seem to be the belief of so-called progressives in general that the reciprocal of a contrary policy in some other venue would be equally “fair”, be that venue private or not.

Progressives, in their intolerance, almost appear to be assuming that certain objective and universal standards do in fact exist, and ought to be in universal operation because they are right in some cosmic sense. But by now we all know better than that, and that to imagine so  would be to mistake the sound of progressive polling booth rhetoric for the reality of  progressive aims, progressive world-shaping efforts and progressive schemes of programmatic domination.

As Richard Rorty admitted, what they want is, in the final analysis, just an expression of what they want and “value”; and as such they feel no obligation to grant to those whom they do not respect, who do not fit, or refuse to fit, as part of their progressive social circle of taste and urges, the same rights of political free speech, debate, and presumptive intellectual respect which were granted to them;  and which thereby allowed them in the first place to work their way into the positions of social and political influence they presently enjoy.

 

Again, as political progressive and “ironist” philosopher Richard Rorty stated:

The fundamentalist parents of our fundamentalist students think that the entire “American liberal establishment” is engaged in a conspiracy. Had they read Habermas, these people would say that the typical communication situation in American college classrooms is no more herrschaftsfrei [domination free] than that in the Hitler Youth camps.

These parents have a point. Their point is that we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students….When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures. Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. We assign first-person accounts of growing up homosexual ….

The racist or fundamentalist parents of our students say that in a truly democratic society the students should not be forced to read books by such people—black people, Jewish people, homosexual people. They will protest that these books are being jammed down their children’s throats. I cannot see how to reply to this charge without saying something like “There are credentials for admission to our democratic society, credentials which we liberals have been making more stringent by doing our best to excommunicate racists, male chauvinists, homophobes, and the like. You have to be educated in order to be a citizen of our society, a participant in our conversation, someone with whom we can envisage merging our horizons. So we are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable. We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours.” Emphasis added
(Hadn’t fully realized this quote was available on Edward Feser’s website even though I have become a semi-regular reader in the last two years. The Internet cite I previously used in earlier references to this quote  has since disappeared from the Rorty’s Wikipedia  entry, )

 

This then is what progressivism is about, and why progressives must seek to ever narrow the realm of the private. For the views and ideas they wish to eradicate, the metaphysical questions they wish to rule out of bounds or obsolete, the troublesome concepts of objective truth and reality they wish to eliminate, they wish to eradicate not just from public institutions but from “society” at large.
 
Just as “democracy” in communism comes to stand for “economic democracy”, which breaks down to the common ownership of all means of production; so too “democratic society” in progressive-speak comes to mean the complete progressive domination of all intellectual activity: Progressive totalitarianism; the social solidarity state, that is to say progressive fascism.
 
Now this posting probably constitutes at least the third time I have quoted this son-of-a-bitch Rorty on this passage, on this site. I have done so repeatedly because he, and it, epitomize what the traditional American who falls within the classical liberal tradition, is facing when he confronts the modern liberal organism, aka the politically progressive solidarity pimp. More Americans than ever before do of course recognize the fascist and totalitarian core to the progressive sociopolitical project.
 
Nonetheless, Rorty’s quote should probably be permanently emblazoned as a warning over every site where people who have some interest in genuine human political freedom gather.
 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Another totalitarian judicial intervention

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/21

Judge Bernard Friedman

Mother Knows Best

Mother Knows Best

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no that is not a Simpson’s cartoon

It seems the crack-brained judiciary of this country is falling all over itself in a rush to re-engineer our lives. One moronic judge after another frantically competes for the privilege of destroying the principles of self-government and constitutional restraint.

The latest instance comes from Michigan, wherein judge Bernard Friedman “struck down” part of the Michigan Constitution on the supposed basis that it contravened the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Along the way he engaged in the usual brainless expostulations typical of this class of jurist, comparing Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case involving members of the opposite sex, with a case involving two persons of the same sex. But of course when modern jurists start with their sweet mystery of life songs of love and emotional fulfillment, nothing like a restrained reading of the Federal Constitution much less a syllogism or logical coherence is likely to stand in the way of their herding us into a brave new world of judicially imposed social obligations and interpersonal affirmation.

It appears on the surface that nothing short of breaking social relations with persons of this kind will do if one is to somehow avoid being dragged down into their entropic hell-hole where social, and resultantly, personal energies, are squandered in affirming and expressing a government mandated solidarity with the morally dysfunctional as they celebrate their dysfunction. Which of course is – that is to say, the self-protective breaking of relations and distancing of one’s self -  precisely what the kind wishes to prevent you from doing in the first place. So, that tactic of withdrawing into the private is not likely to succeed without a fight either.

We’ve reached a peculiar point in this country; one where absurdities such as Anthony Kennedy’s pronouncements in Lawrence v. Texas substitute not only for careful reasoning, but for any semblance of rationality at all. And the legal establishment, and indeed most of the people, seem resigned to it.

Stare decisis is overthrown; tradition and custom assigned to the trash heap; “compelling state interests” are defined at judicial will; Constitutional limits on the coercive power of the Federal Government are trampled, and the very right of the people to legislate for themselves is ruled out of order in deference to so-called sociological jurisprudence. Place aside for one moment Kennedy’s infamous self-citation from Casey, in Lawrence, and consider what has really become the crux of the matter from the point of view of the modern legislating jurist:

“Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests”

Recall that Kennedy is talking of buggery here; an absurd act committed by two worthless and probably morally deranged simps. Note carefully too, that what is being written into law is a demand of social respect for certain behaviors which Kumbaya trilling judges like Kennedy and Friedman deem shall henceforth be legal, and therefore mutatis mutandis socially acceptable. In this vein, Friedman quotes and writes:

“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p. 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”

“The court’s fervent hope” he says …

This perfervid jibber jabber is not a respectable account of law. It is contemptible emotionalism masquerading as meaning. It is an effluvial snuffling and mewing of a kind that poisons the life of anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot or arm’s reach. But when nothing is considered to have an intrinsic meaning, there is nothing left for the legislating holder of that view than a descent into the realm of subjective emotional satisfactions and feelings of “inclusion”.

We are clearly not only in a post teleological era philosophically, we are as a result in a post Constitutional era politically; an era where the “judicial revolution” or or better, that legislative usurpation which began in the 1930s, has fully taken hold.

They will mold you as they will, because they believe that there is no reason for them to refrain from doing so. It’s their religion, and they are willing to kill and die for it.

Given that, I am not sure anything other than an extreme reaction by the people and their elected representatives on their behalf, will preserve our traditional rights of self-government. Assuming anyone is still interested …

Posted in Constitution Shredded, Liberal, politics, society | 3 Comments »

Rat fight! Ted Rall and the Daily Kos

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/20

Rall v. Kos

Rall v. Kos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes a rat fight can be rather amusing. Just try not to let them know you’re watching, much less laughing.

Now I admit that I’ve inadvertently ruffled rat fur in the past.  I did it on another blog by making – years after the fact – what were by any rational standards temperate and measured remarks about the object lessons available from that infamous Greensboro, North Carolina gunfight which took place between Neo-Nazi’s looking for revenge and self-professed Maoist revolutionary types trolling for a second-round public confrontation with them.

There were those among that blog’s readers who were especially outraged that I looked askance at the speechifying activities of one of the ideology drunk Maoist participants; as her husband lay on the ground with the top of his head shot off.

Quivering with indignation they fumed – or pretended to fume – that I was dancing in the blood of fellow Americans.  That’s “fellow” and “Americans” in quotes of course, since we are talking here about Nazi-types on the one hand, and totalitarian disciples of a mass murdering Marxist dictator on the other. Listening to self-described leftists wave the American flag over the bodies of its enemies while hysterically shouting about human decency was pretty much worth the price of admission alone.

Anyway, those who are unfamiliar with that particular historical  event – the gunfight not the years later blog eruption – can research it all for themselves, or make a beginning by clicking on this link.

However the rat fight I have in mind here, is not between two species of rat, but a more all in the lefty-family type of brawl. And thus far there have been no known fatalities, though there has been the usual obscene speechifying.

Will rat blood be shed by rat? I doubt it. We can probably rest easy on that point.

Ted Rall versus the Daily Kos.

Gee … what more can one reasonably say?

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Humor - For Some, Liberal, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, race, stereotype | 2 Comments »

A Canary In The Mine In York Co., PA Special Election – Harbinger of Things to Come?

Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/03/19

In the PA Legislature our local Senator in the 28th District resigned for personal reasons. The Dems thought they could pull a fast one and push a RINO and far out Lib were going to run in a Special Election yesterday. We do have a Primary in two months which would have worked fine to hold this election. But the rush was on to get the career politician into this seat. One the machine knew he would vote for higher taxes. Well, a ringer Conservative joined the race as a Write-In vote. Now, write-ins usually have a snowball’s chance in hell to make it. However, a miracle happened yesterday, the Write-In candidate WON. Not only WON, but won big time. The Write-In Scott Wagner almost had 11K write-in votes. The RINO and Lib Dem TOGETHER had about 12K votes. So, the wonderment is this, did the dirty campaign have an effect, was this the Obama Effect, was it the anti-incumbent effect, or all of the above? But the article has the vote numbers.

Scott Wagner the presumed winner in 28th Senate

CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN / The York Dispatch

In what appears to be an unexpected victory for a conservative businessman who has made a point of bucking his own party, Republican Scott Wagner is presumed to have won a write-in campaign to defeat party nominee Ron Miller for an open seat in the state Senate.

The closely watched, hotly contested face-off ended in disappointment for the Republican mainstay and a first major victory for the tea party in York County.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting Tuesday night, write-in votes totaled 10,595, or 47.7 percent, to Miller’s 5,920, or 26.6 percent. Democrat Linda Small of New Freedom nearly edged out Miller with 5,704 votes, for 25.7 percent.If all or most of the write-in votes are, as expected, for Wagner, he will have won the race by a healthy margin.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/ci_25365621/york-county-polling-sites-report-low-turnout-28th

Posted in Conservative, Personal Responsibility, Real Life | Leave a Comment »

My New Babies

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/18

I just recently added three new babies to my family.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in American pride, Constitution, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Photography, Politically Incorrect | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

I Just Realized Something…

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/16

When someone says “I just realized something,” it’s invariably an intro to say something nobody is particularly interested in hearing.

“Just thought you’d like to know.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Harry Reid’s Koch-Addled Asininity Debunked Here — 21 Months Ago

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/13

That’s right, folks. Harry Reid’s Koch-addled asininity was debunked here, a full 21 months before his rectological rectory on the Senate Floor.

Let me give you a chart from those 21 months ago:

All-Time Top Contributors updated 2012

With Unions pushing that much money around, Dingy Harry has the gall to claim the Koch Brothers (who are Libertarians and not Conservatives) are the biggest danger and biggest source of outside money? He could’ve just come to my site and done a little research before looking stupid. But then again, he’s too stupid to actually, you know, do any research.

Want more information on where Unions stand in political spending, such as rankings?

From 21 months ago:

3. Public Employee Union
5. Public Employee Union
7. Public Employee Union
9. Union
10. Public Employee Union
11. Union
12. Union (that I was a forced member of, twice)
13. Union
14. union
17. Union
18. Union
20. Union
29. Union
30. group of Unions

14 of the top 30 biggest political spenders are all Unions, and yet, Unions represent less than 12 percent of the workforce. But the Union spending doesn’t stop there.

40. Union (that I was a forced member of for nearly 9 years)
43. Union
44. Union
49. Union
52. Union
57. Union
58. Union
59. Union
65. Union
75. Union
85. Union
117. Union
119. Union
128. Union
133. Union

Oh, and I had information on the Koch Brothers back then, too.

Again, since 1989, Unions have spent 667.3 million (over 2/3 of a billion) dollars on politics. How much has the Left’s bogeyman, the Koch brothers, spent? A paltry 12.7 million dollars. So, next time some radical Leftist complains about the Koch brothers, remind that person that Unions are outspending the Koch brothers nearly 55 to 1. And while you’re at it, remind them that Unions are outspending their representative proportion more than 2 to 1.

By the way, those evil Koch Brothers tried to influence me once. One of the political type organizations they’re tied to sent me an email talking about the successful recovery of a community that rejected Federal aid and the floundering of another community that took the aid. I didn’t write about it because I was too lazy to do so, not because the Koch’s are evil (which they clearly are not).

So, the continued hate-filled attacks on Libertarians Who Provide Jobs To The Middle Class are all the Socialist, Fascist, Statist Democrats have to try to scare people into a serf-state.

It didn’t take gobs of research to destroy Hairy Reed’s demagoguery which took place this week on the Senate Floor. All it took was looking up an article I wrote 21 months before the Hairy logorrhea.

You’re welcome.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Culture, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, Socialists, truth | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

State of the Union

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/06

 

 

In congress assembled …

 

All Please rise for the President of the United States

All Please rise for the President of the United States

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Constitution, Constitution Shredded | 3 Comments »

Rip Van Washington Post Awakens From FIVE Year SLUMBER

Posted by Yorkshire on 2014/03/03

The far Left Rip Van Washington Post, at least for today, broke itself away from the BO love fest, after a LOOOOOONNNNNGGGGG Five Year Slumber to wake up and smell the DEAD ROSES. This is a REAL We told you so. We on the Right have been screaming from the rooftops that BO is just a lousy inexperianced President. From DAY 1 the country has gone DOWNHILL. The MSM’s Love Affair was the strangest thing to watch since they backed every mistake with Excuses. Well, it looks like today, and it may only last one day until the Post resumes its slobbering Love Affair with all things BO.

1 rose-colored-glasses-300x175

Washington Post: ‘Obama’s Foreign Policy Is Based on Fantasy’
Amy Payne

March 3, 2014 at 11:28 am

President Obama has lost The Washington Post’s editorial board with his disastrous foreign policy. (DUH)

In a hard-hitting editorial today, the Post’s editors declared Obama’s outlook a “fantasy” and said that “For five years, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality.”

They described Obama’s fantasy world:
It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past
.

This is exactly what Heritage’s James Carafano and Kim Holmes warned about early in the Obama presidency.

“The tenets of the Obama Doctrine… do not reflect history or the threats we face,” said Carafano, the E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Holmes, author of Liberty’s Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century. “They will serve to undermine America’s strengths and make it more difficult for friends and allies to figure out where we stand or how we might act in critical times.”

Moron The Washington Post Here:
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/03/03/washington-post-obamas-foreign-policy-based-fantasy/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=130303&utm_campaign=DailyDigest_630

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Obama, We Won't Miss You | Leave a Comment »

If The Census Only Counted American Citizens

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/02

How much more Conservative would Congress become?

 

Something to think about.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: